DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending in the current application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/17/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose (Argument 1; Remarks pg. 10 lines 19-22) executing, by the RPA agent, a determination of…mixed origination, the mixed origination includes data that exists in both the legacy system and the modernized application, (Argument 2; Remarks pg. 12 lines 8-12) executing, by the RPA agent, a determination of heritage, modernized, or mixed origination, the mixed origination includes data resulting from a process that concurrently utilized both the legacy system and the modernized application, (Argument 3; Remarks pg. 12 lines 14-18) executing, by the RPA agent based on the determination of origination, an action in the incoming legacy payload requesting a mainframe response that is executed in parallel through multi-threading on both the legacy system and the modernized application.
With respect to applicant’s arguments examiner respectfully disagrees. As to argument 1, the teachings of Coskun [0021] lines 12-26, [0022] lines 16-22 [0030] lines 1-7, [0031] lines 1-3, [0032] lines 1-12, [0060] lines 1-14 [0071] lines 1-12 and [0073] lines 21-45 which does show the specifics of the migration/eventual replacement of the legacy software to an external piece of software as part of modernization viewed as a separate modernized application, where the specifics example cited in [0063] that Coskun merely acts as a surface for the legacy system is seen as an example migration scenario of options available where it also provide options for other migration scenarios that has a new external application that has/uses some of the legacy software functionality thus showing a separate modernized application external to the legacy software application and further shows being able to determine/analyze from the program flow configuration data of the associated method/payload that the agent intercept, where the associated configuration data can be modified and updated where the data associated with the program flow configuration data is able to determine an associated starting point and the specifics of the included data include data provided a unique description of the inbound payload/method and external services to be addressed, associated classpath, method name, method signature and further associated callLegacyMethod identifier with specific associated behavior options such as never, only or an always call both behavior thus viewed as a determining that data exists in both the legacy/heritage and the modernized application as the specifics of how the mixed origination is determined in not specifically stated just that the mixed origination includes data resulting from a process that concurrently utilized both the legacy system and the modernized application thus by being able to determine from the associated configuration data that method always calls both the legacy/original method and new/modernized application and if the modernized/external application services are to be address in parallel can be viewed as together showing the mixed origination as viewed as having associated data/information on those methods/payloads on both so it can be called on both and called in parallel/concurrently.
As to argument 2, as seen argued above the teachings of Coskun [0021] lines 12-26, [0022] lines 16-22 [0030] lines 1-7, [0031] lines 1-3, [0032] lines 1-12, [0060] lines 1-14 [0071] lines 1-12 and [0073] lines 21-45 which does show the specifics of the migration/eventual replacement of the legacy software to an external piece of software as part of modernization viewed as a separate modernized application and further shows being able to determine/analyze from the program flow configuration data of the associated method/payload that the agent intercept, where the associated configuration data can be modified and updated where the data associated with the program flow configuration data is able to determine an associated starting point and the specifics of the included data include data provided a unique description of the inbound payload/method and external services to be addressed, associated classpath, method name, method signature and further associated callLegacyMethod identifier with specific associated behavior options such as never, only or an always call both behavior thus viewed as a determining that data exists in both the legacy/heritage and the modernized application as the specifics of how the mixed origination is determined in not specifically stated just that the mixed origination includes data resulting from a process that concurrently utilized both the legacy system and the modernized application thus by being able to determine from the associated configuration data that always calls both the legacy/original method and new/modernized application and if the modernized/external application services are to be address in parallel can be viewed as together showing the mixed origination as viewed as having associated data/information on those methods/payloads on both so it can be called on both and called in parallel/concurrently.
As to argument 3, it is seen in the teachings of Coskun [0030] lines 1-7, [0031] lines 1-3, [0032] lines 1-12, [0060] lines 1-14 [0071] lines 1-12 and [0073] lines 21-45 that base on the determine information from the program flow configuration, that as seen argued above shows a determination of a type of origination including mixed origination of a request, data that can include data indicating action for the agent, viewed as RPA agent, to take for the incoming method/payload call that can be request a response from the legacy application viewed as part of the legacy system/mainframe including calling and running both the original and new application/code where the code are run in parallel, where the teachings of Ciszewski [0041] lines 1-4, [0042] lines 3-5, [0044] lines 1-5, [0045] lines 1-3 and [0059] lines 1-11 is used to show the specifics that both modern and legacy service request are performed in parallel, viewed as types of components/modules of the system, where the components/modules are executed in parallel and states can also be done in a multi-threaded manner and together would show executing, by the RPA agent based on the determination or origination, an action in the incoming legacy payload requesting a mainframe response that is executed in parallel through multi-threading or on both the legacy system and the modernized application and thus together seen as teachings executing, by the RPA agent based on the determination of origination, an action in the incoming legacy payload requesting a mainframe response that is executed in parallel through multi-threading on both the legacy system and the modernized application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8, 15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coskun et al (EP 4,027,239 A1) in view of Ghag et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0039566 A1) and further in view of Ciszewski et al. (Pub. No. US 2017/0031804 A1).
As to claim 1 and 15, Coskun discloses a computer-implemented method for data transfer from a legacy system to a modernized application alternative to the legacy system, the method comprising: monitoring, by the agent, incoming legacy payloads (Coskun [0041] lines 1-9 and claim 1; which shows that the agent has the ability to perform monitor function for procedure or procedure call of the legacy software viewed as type of legacy payload,):
creating, by the agent, an integration pathway from the legacy system to the modernized application alternative to the legacy system (Coskun [0022] lines 16-22; which shows the agent being able to dynamically configure code behavior, viewed as creating, that can include creating a call to an external piece of software that can replace the legacy software viewed as a type of integration pathway from the legacy software to the modernized application alternative);
intercepting, by the agent, the incoming legacy payloads using a method selected from a group consisting of payload injection, cancellation, and workflow interruption (Coskun [0009] lines 1-4, [0010] line 1-9 and [0014] lines 1-5; which shows the use of an interception or instrumentation based agent where instrumentation and code injection is used in a generic and reusable way thus viewed as showing the intercepting of the incoming legacy application information/payloads using a type of payload injection and instrumentation method viewed as one of the methods selected from the group consisting of payload inject, cancellation and workflow interruption)
by integrating the agent at a level selected from a group consisting of a User Interface (UI) and an Application Programming Interface (API) level (Coskun [0070] lines 1-2 and lines 41-42; which shows that the agent is integrated connected to the instrumentation API thus viewed as the agent being integrated at an API level);
capturing, by the agent, the incoming legacy payloads (Coskun [0010] lines 13-18 and [0022] lines 10-22; which shows that the agent is able to intercept/instrument viewed as capture execution of the legacy software application bytecode, viewed as incoming legacy payload);
executing, by the agent, a determination of heritage, modernized, or mixed origination, the mixed origination includes data resulting from a process that concurrently utilizes both the legacy system and the modernized application (Coskun [0021] lines 12-16, [0022] lines 10-22, [0026] lines 1-15, [0030] lines 1-7, [0031] lines 1-3, [0032] lines 1-12, [0060] lines 1-14, [0063] lines 10-12, [0071] lines 1-12 and [0073] lines 21-45; which shows the agent is able read/analyzed the program flow configuration data, that can determine how/if it interacts with the legacy application, and associated data objects to execute/run a modernization process/modernized to replace the legacy software application/payload with current/modernized application information, where the associated configuration data can be modified and updated where the data associated with the program flow configuration data is able to determine an associated starting point and the specifics of the included data include data provided a unique description of the inbound payload/method and external services to be addressed, associated classpath, method name, method signature and further associated callLegacyMethod identifier with specific associated behavior options such as never, only or an always call both behavior thus viewed as a determining that data exists in both the legacy and the modernized application and calls/interacts with both and can call both together and that the configuration data can indicate that that the modernized/new application can be called in parallel with old/legacy code/application where as the specifics of how the mixed origination is determined in not specifically stated just that the mixed origination includes data resulting from a process that concurrently utilizes both the legacy and the modernized application thus by being able to determine from the associated configuration data that method always calls both the legacy/original method and new/modernized application and if the modernized/external application services are to be address in parallel can be viewed as together showing the mixed origination as viewed as having associated data/information on those methods/payloads on both so it can be called on both and called in parallel/concurrently); and
executing, by the agent based on the determination of origination an action in the incoming legacy payload requiring a mainframe response, that is executed in parallel on both the legacy system and the modernized application (Coskun [0030] lines 1-7, [0031] lines 1-3, [0032] lines 1-12, [0060] lines 1-14 [0071] lines 1-12 and [0073] lines 21-45; which shows that base on the determine information from the program flow configuration data that can include data indicating action for the agent to take for the incoming method/payload call, that is seen as including data/parameter that indicated a type of mixed origination as seen above, that can be request a response from the legacy application viewed as part of the legacy system/mainframe including calling and running/executing responses on both the original and new application/code where the code are run in parallel);
installing, through the integration pathway under a control of the agent, one or more portions of the legacy system corresponding to the incoming legacy payloads into the modernized application alternative to the legacy system responsive to the determination of heritage, modernized, or mixed origination (Coskun [0021] lines 12-19, [0022] lines 10-22, [0063] lines 10-12 and [0073] lines 15-45; which shows the ability to replace legacy application services/method, viewed as payload, into modernized/external application viewed as a form of installing that information into the modernized alternative to the legacy system as part of modernization, viewed as in response to analysis and determination associated with configuration data to decide option to act including the installing/replacing/moving the functionality to the modernized application alternative to the legacy system).
Coskun does not specifically discloses initializing a Robotic Process Automation (RPA) agent on a middleware server initializing a Robotic Process Automation (RPA) agent on a middleware server
However, Ghag discloses initializing a Robotic Process Automation (RPA) agent on a middleware server initializing a Robotic Process Automation (RPA) agent on a middleware server (Ghag [0047] lines 1-14; which shows the ability to initialize/onboard RPA components/agents and all its dependent components that can include middleware server information thus viewed as initializing a RPA agent on a middleware server, which in light of the teachings of the agent of Coskun above can be seen as incorporating this specific type of RPA agent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Ghag showing the specifics initializing a RPA agent on middleware server into the use of an agent to integrate legacy software into modernized application of Coskun for the purpose of being increasing consistency of use of the agent by being able to make sure RPA bots and available and performing correctly, as taught by Ghag [0003] lines 13-18.
Coskun as modified by Ghag does not disclose the specifics of executing an action in the incoming legacy payload requesting a mainframe response that is executed in parallel through multi-treading on both the legacy system and the modernized application.
However, Ciszewski discloses disclose the specifics of executing an action in the incoming legacy payload requesting a mainframe response that is executed in parallel through multi-treading on both the legacy system and the modernized application (Ciszewski [0041] lines 1-4, [0042] lines 3-5, [0044] lines 1-5, [0045] lines 1-3 and [0059] lines 1-11; which shows the ability to perform program instruction in a parallel on both a legacy and modernized service/application for an incoming/inbound request where the request/actions are sent to both the legacy and modern version of the service and executes the same/mimicked actions in parallel thus viewed as an exact same command corresponding to the action requesting a mainframe response and the system the carry out these processes/actions include components and modules that are executed in parallel and further can be executed in a multi-threaded environment and thus in light of the teachings of Coskun above showing the specifics of based on the determination of a mixed origination executing an action in the incoming legacy payload requesting a mainframe response that is executed in parallel can together show the specifics of executing an action in the incoming legacy payload requesting a mainframe response that is executed in parallel through multi-treading on both the legacy system and the modernized application).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Ciszewski showing the specifics of performing actions same actions, in a parallel multi-threaded manner, on a legacy and modernized service into the moving of a legacy application service to a modernized alternative of Coskun as modified by Ghag for the purpose of helping to increase the accuracy of modernized service alternative by being able to check and analyze any differences/discrepancies between the two before determining full migration to the modern alternative, as taught by Ciszewski [0045] lines 1-6.
As to claims 5 and 19, Coskun discloses wherein the heritage origination comprises an update/delete type activity against a mainframe system where a preceding record is needed that has not been written to the modernized application alternative to the legacy system (Coskun [0001] lines 1-4, [0021] lines 12-19 and [0058] lines 1-7; which shows as part of the modernization of legacy application being able to add or revoke further actions, viewed as a type of update/delete type of activity, tied to the computing executing environment/mainframe/server system, where files/records are used but remained untouched thus viewed as needed and that has not yet been written to the modernization application).
As to claim 6, Coskun discloses wherein the modernized origination comprises creating a record where no record has existed yet in the legacy system (Coskun [0013] lines 1-4, [0021] lines 12-19 and [0073] lines 14-27; which shows that part of the modernization process include analysis of the legacy system/application and target specific function to put into a file/record viewed as one that had not previously existed as part of the modernization of the legacy application/system).
As to claim 8, Coskun as modified by Ghag and Ciszewski do not specifically disclose wherein the mixed origination comprises a configuration of the RPA agent processing an incoming legacy payload coming from the legacy system as an input (Coskun [0041] lines 1-9, [0044] lines 21-33 and claim 1; which shows that the agent, viewed as being configured, has the ability to perform monitor function for procedure or procedure call of the legacy software viewed as type of receiving an legacy payload coming from the legacy system as input, where the specifics of the RPA agent is seen disclosed in the teachings of Ghag above).
As to claim 20, Coskun does not specifically disclose, however, Ghag discloses a system for data transfer from a legacy system to a modernized application alternative to the legacy system, the system comprising: a middleware server, including a memory device and one or more processor devices operatively coupled to perform operations, having a Robotic Process Automation (RPA) agent, wherein the RPA agent is configured to: (Ghag [0041] lines 1-5 and [0047] lines 1-14; which shows the ability to initialize/onboard RPA components/agents and all its dependent components that can include middleware server information thus viewed as initializing a RPA agent on a middleware server, which in light of the teachings of the agent of Coskun above can be seen as incorporating this specific type of RPA agent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Ghag showing the specifics initializing a RPA agent on middleware server into the use of an agent to integrate legacy software into modernized application of Coskun for the purpose of being increasing consistency of use of the agent by being able to make sure RPA bots and available and performing correctly, as taught by Ghag [0003] lines 13-18.
The remaining limitations of claim 20 are comparable to claim 1 above and rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 2-3 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coskun, Ghag and Ciszewski as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (Patent No. US 11,650,810 B1).
As to claims 2 and 16, Coskun as modified by Ghag and Ciszewski do not specifically disclose wherein the integration pathway from the legacy system to the modernized application alternative to the legacy system comprises an API endpoint of a modernized container in the modernized application alternative to the legacy system.
However, Wang discloses wherein the integration pathway from the legacy system to the modernized application alternative to the legacy system comprises an API endpoint of a modernized container in the modernized application alternative to the legacy system (Wang Col. 2 lines 37-53 Col. 6 lines 59-67; which shows as part of a legacy application conversion system including containers with API, thus having API endpoint, associated with other containerized application thus in light of Coskun teaching above viewed as including the specifics of the legacy system and modernized alternative ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Wang showing the use of containerized application with API into the application conversion system of Coskun as modified by Ghag and Ciszewski for the purpose of improving the efficiency of deploying/using legacy applications with other applications, as taught by Wang Col. 2 lines 21-28 and 37-53.
As to claims 3 and 17, Coskun discloses wherein upon a modernization failure, the API endpoint of the modernized container remains static and balances to the legacy system (Coskun [0023] lines 5-9, [0070] lines 6-22; which shows in the case of failure, viewed as the modernization failure, being able to switch back/balance to the old implementation, viewed as the legacy system where it is seen that the agent the performs the update/modernization includes API information tied to performing the conversion thus in light of the teachings of Wang about showing the specifics application containers including API information for an update to legacy application viewed as modernized containers).
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coskun, Ghag and Ciszewski as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Hawash et al. (Pub. No. US 2003/0130875 A1).
As to claims 4 and 18, Coskun as modified by Ghag and Ciszewski do not specifically disclose wherein intercepting the incoming legacy payloads is performed to be non-disruptive by avoiding injecting the incoming legacy payloads, instead reading current ongoing payloads.
However, Hawash discloses wherein intercepting the incoming legacy payloads is performed to be non-disruptive by avoiding injecting the incoming legacy payloads, instead reading current ongoing payloads (Hawash [0067] lines 5-8; which shows the ability to intercept data payloads by reading current/ongoing payload data, which in light of the specific teachings of Coskun above can be viewed as legacy payload data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Hawash showing the ability to intercept payload data by reading data into the interception of payload data of Coskun as modified by Ghag and Ciszewski for the purpose of reducing disruption in interception of data by reading data instead of injecting data information, as taught by Hawash [0067] lines 5-8.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coskun, Ghag and Ciszewski as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Campagnoni (Pub. No. US 2013/0036359 A1).
As to claim 7, of Coskun as modified by Ghag and Ciszewski does not specifically disclose wherein the mixed origination comprises a Requirement Understanding Document (RUD) if a record already exists in both the legacy system and the modernized application alternative to the legacy system.
However, Campagnoni discloses wherein the mixed origination comprises a Requirement Understanding Document (RUD) if a record already exists in both the legacy system and the modernized application alternative to the legacy system (Campagnoni [0003] lines 3-12; which shows the ability to make a determination if a document/record exist on a monitored target based on that determination generating/having a requirements document, viewed as a type of requirement understanding document, and while the determination is made on the document/record not existing this is viewed as conditional thus would also be able to determine if record/document does exist, where the monitored target in light of the specific teachings of Coskun above include both a legacy system and a modernized application alternative and being able to monitor/analyze the systems and determine associated data about it and thus can together determine wherein the mixed origination comprises a Requirement Understanding Document (RUD) if a record already exists in both the legacy system and the modernized application alternative to the legacy system ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Campagnoni showing the ability to determine with to generate a requirement document, into the updating/modernization of system of Coskun as modified by Ghag and Ciszewski for the purpose of increasing ease of usability by being able to determine when to generate and supply a requirement document for later use, as taught by Campagnoni [0003] lines 3-12.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coskun, Ghag and Ciszewski as applied to claims 8 above, and further in view of Estes (Pub. No. US 2007/0203693 A1)
As to claim 10, Coskun as modified by Ghag do not specifically disclose, however, Ciszewski discloses do not specifically disclose wherein determining the modernized application alternative to the legacy system returns the data faster or more efficiently or more completely than the legacy system (Ciszewski [0045] lines 1-6; which shows the ability analyze and compare the responses/output from the legacy and modern service implementation and determine any discrepancies, and as they are supposed to the same the ability to determine if the data is returned faster or more completely than the legacy system can be viewed as being able to determine if the modernized application alternative to the legacy system returns the data faster or more completely than the legacy system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Ciszewski showing the specifics of performing actions same actions, in a parallel multi-threaded manner, on a legacy and modernized service into the moving of a legacy application service to a modernized alternative of Coskun as modified by Ghag for the purpose of helping to increase the accuracy of modernized service alternative by being able to check and analyze any differences/discrepancies between the two before determining full migration to the modern alternative, as taught by Ciszewski [0045] lines 1-6.
However, Coskun as modified by Ghag and Ciszewski do not specifically disclose wherein the RPA agent will inject itself as a response to the input if the modernized application alternative to the legacy system returns the data faster or more efficiently or more completely than the legacy system
However, Estes discloses, wherein the RPA agent will inject itself as a response to the input if the modernized application alternative to the legacy system returns the data faster or more efficiently or more completely than the legacy system (Estes [0046] lines 12-16 and [0058] lines 1-6; which shows the ability for the agent to modify itself with new code, viewed as inject itself as a response to a determination based on the situation the agent encounters, which in light of the teachings of Ciszewski above showing a determination that the modernized version returns the data faster or more efficiently or more completely than the legacy system as the specific teachings of Ghag above for the RPA agent can together be seen as showing wherein the RPA agent will inject itself as a response to the input if the modernized application alternative to the legacy system returns the data faster or more efficiently or more completely than the legacy system)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Estes showing the ability for the agent to modify/inject itself in response to determined conditions into the use of the agent in legacy application modernization of Coskun as modified by Ghag and Ciszewski for the purpose of increasing the adaptability of the agent so that it can modify itself to and adapt and handle different situation as they present themselves, as taught by Estes [0058] lines 1-6.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coskun, Ghag and Ciszewski as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Misra et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0273738 A1).
As to claim 11, Coskun as modified by Ghag and Ciszewski do not specifically disclose providing system overview metrics of information and context around counts for heritage versus modernized versus mixed origination for the incoming legacy payloads to guide an administrator to optimal migration opportunity.
However, Misra discloses further comprising providing system overview metrics of information and context around counts for heritage versus modernized versus mixed origination for the incoming legacy payloads to guide an administrator to optimal migration opportunity (Misra [0010] lines 7-20, [0012] lines 6-11, [0013] lines 1-7, [0042] lines 1-3, [0043] lines 1-18; which shows the ability to use the determined/provided context information associated with technical, project, migration, and architectural context including count information viewed as part of the system overview metric information and context for the migration methods/process, which are not specifically limited thus viewed as including heritage, modernized and mixed origination to help determine/guide to the optimal migration path/opportunity ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Misra showing the ability to use metric and context information to select optimal migration method into the migration of information seen in Coskun as modified by Ghag and Ciszewski for the purpose of increasing effectiveness of migration by being able to select an optimal path with the highest likelihood for successful migration, as taught by Misra [0013] lines 1-7.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coskun, Ghag, Ciszewski and Wang as applied to claims 2 above, and further in view of Whittington et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0217093 A1) and further in view of Pang et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0359891 A1).
As to claim 12, Coskun as modified by Ghag, Ciszewski and Wang do not specifically disclose wherein an inbound request in the incoming legacy payloads is intercepted and evaluated by the RPA agent through the API endpoint to determine whether a duplicate endpoint is needed based on an endpoint querying a modernized System of Record (SOR) for entries that match the inbound request.
However, Whittington discloses wherein an inbound request in the incoming legacy payloads is intercepted and evaluated by the RPA agent through the API endpoint to determine whether an endpoint is needed based on an endpoint querying a modernized System of Record (SOR) for entries that match the inbound request (Whittington [0200] lines 1-5; which shows the ability to determine what endpoint is needed/to target for the incoming request and responsive to queries, viewed as an evaluation of the inbound request and based on what to targeted, viewed in light of the teachings of Coskun above the specifics of query a modernized system including does including storing information thus viewed as a type of SOR, viewed in light of the teachings of Coskun and Ghag above showing the specifics of the RPA agent used to intercept and evaluate the request, and in light of the teachings of Wang above showing the specifics of an API endpoint pathway showing the ability to access associated container information of the application going through modernization through the API and together are viewed as showing wherein an inbound request in the incoming legacy payloads is intercepted and evaluated by the RPA agent through the API endpoint to determine whether an endpoint is needed based on an endpoint querying a modernized System of Record (SOR) for entries that match the inbound request).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Whittington showing the ability to determine/target specific endpoint for data exchange information, into the exchange of information for Coskun as modified by Ghag, Ciszewski and Wang for the purpose of increasing correct functionality by being able to direct the desired user action to the correct location, as taught by Whittington [0200] lines 1-5.
Coskun as modified by Ghag, Ciszewski, Wang and Whittington do not specifically disclose if a duplicate endpoint is needed.
However, Pang discloses if a duplicate endpoint is needed (Pang [0072] lines 1-15; which shows the specifics triggering actions to generate a duplicate for the endpoint, which in light of the teachings of Whittington above showing the ability to determine when/where/which endpoint to target are viewed together as showing generating a duplicate endpoint if it is needed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Pang showing the ability to duplicate an endpoint into the targeting of specific endpoints of Coskun as modified by Ghag, Ciszewski, Wang and Whittington for the purpose of increasing options available for managing endpoints to help increase security of the system, as taught by Pang [0012] lines 1-13.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coskun, Ghag, Ciszewski, Wang, Whittington and Pang as applied to claims 12 above, and further in view of Mahindru et al. (Pub. No. Us 2020/0097348 A1) .
As to claim 13, Coskun as modified by Ghag, Ciszewski Wang, Whittington and Pang do not specifically disclose further comprising duplicating incoming requests to both an SOR of the legacy system and an SOR of the modernized application alternative to the legacy system.
However, Mahindru discloses further comprising duplicating incoming requests to both an SOR of the legacy system and an SOR of the modernized application alternative to the legacy system (Mahindru [0060] lines 1-10, [0072] lines 1-11 and claim 3; which shows the ability to duplicate request for different computing resources viewed as including SOR, where the specifics of Coskun above shows the specifics of both a legacy system and a modernized application alternative).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Mahindru showing the ability to duplicate request, into a system that sends request between legacy and modernized version of the system of Coskun as modified by Ghag, Ciszewski, Wang, Whittington and Pang for the purpose of helping to check correct functionality by being able to send duplicates of request to other resources known to be good, as taught by Mahindru [0072] lines 1-11.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coskun, Ghag, Ciszewski, Wang, Whittington and Pang as applied to claims 12 above, and further in view of Zachrisen et al. (Patent No. US 10,503,723 B2).
As to claim 14, Coskun as modified by Ghag, Ciszewski, Wang, Whittington and Pang do not specifically disclose further comprising selectively choosing to store the inbound request in a single SOR from among an SOR of the legacy system and an SOR of the modernized application alternative to the legacy system.
However, Zachrisen discloses further comprising selectively choosing to store the inbound request in a single SOR from among an SOR of the legacy system and an SOR of the modernized application alternative to the legacy system (Zachrisen Col. 11 lines 23-53 and claim 1; which shows being able to select choose for a particular inbound request that affects particular data records if should be sent to the legacy/source data records location viewed as the SOR of the legacy system or the target system, viewed as the SOR of the modernized application alternative).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Zachrisen showing the ability to determine between where a request should target between a source and target system, into the modifying between the legacy system and modernized application alternative of Coskun as modified by Ghag, Ciszewski, Wang, Whittington and Pang, for the purpose of helping to maintain functionality by being able to appropriately direct request with data moving between two systems, as taught by Zachrisen Col. 11 lines 14-16.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD F WHEATON whose telephone number is (571)270-1779. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRADFORD F WHEATON/Examiner, Art Unit 2193