DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/13/26 has been entered.
1. REJECTIONS BASED ON PRIOR ART
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC ' 103
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 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aung (US 20230289530) in view of Ting (US 20080154893) and Talbot (US 20190108272).
With respect to claim 1, the Aung reference teaches a method providing common file attribute processing for enhanced loading time of Application Programming Interface (API) files, comprising:
receiving an Extensible Markup Language (XML) file of an API; (paragraph 26, where textual information may be structured, such as but not limited to, a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) or an eXtensible Markup Language (XML) document; and paragraph 27, where interface 105 may use an application programming interface (API) of the POS system 90 to retrieve the catalog 120, and in some cases, other information about the business associated with the catalog 120, from the POS system 90)
parsing the XML file; (paragraph 26, where a paper copy of the catalog 120 may be scanned and processed by an optical character recognition (OCR) system to obtain its contents. An electronic data file may be provided to the system 100 in some cases where the data file contains textual information for the catalog 120) and
processing XML element objects in the XML file. (paragraph 26, where a paper copy of the catalog 120 may be scanned and processed by an optical character recognition (OCR) system to obtain its contents. An electronic data file may be provided to the system 100 in some cases where the data file contains textual information for the catalog 120)
However, the Aung reference does not explicitly teach determining whether there is an attribute for a first XML element objects object that is the same as an attribute for a second XML element object; and in response to determining the attribute for the first XML element object is the same as the attribute for the second XML element object, retrieving data for only the attribute for the first XML element object from storage and skipping processing of the attribute for the second XML element object that is the same as the attribute for the first XML element object and add data for the attribute for the first XML element object in an API resource object used for the first XML element object and the second XML element object; and wherein the determining whether there is an attribute for the first XML element object that is the same as an attribute for a second XML element object includes creating a many-to-one mapping between resource objects and sequence objects.
The Ting reference teaches it is conventional to have determining whether there is an attribute for a first XML element objects object that is the same as an attribute for a second XML element object; and in response to determining the attribute for the first XML element object is the same as the attribute for the second XML element object, retrieving data for only the attribute for the first XML element object from storage and skipping processing of the attribute for the second XML element object that is the same as the attribute for the first XML element object and add data for the attribute for the first XML element object in an API resource object used for the first XML element object and the second XML element object. (paragraph 39, where a node identifier prefix may be obtained by truncating the node identifier to locate a parent node where a branch to evaluate one or more remaining predicates occurs. The set of index entries to skip may be identified by an ancestor XML node at a hierarchical level and position that matches an ancestor XML node at the hierarchical level and position of the associated selected entry that fails one of the remaining predicates. In one embodiment, the skip module 130 works with the index module 110 to skip a set of index entries with the same node identifier prefix as a failed evaluated path [i.e. data is added to skip certain indexes])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the Aung reference to have wherein determining whether there is an attribute for a first XML element objects object that is the same as an attribute for a second XML element object; and in response to determining the attribute for the first XML element object is the same as the attribute for the second XML element object, retrieving data for only the attribute for the first XML element object from storage and skipping processing of the attribute for the second XML element object that is the same as the attribute for the first XML element object and add data for the attribute for the first XML element object in an API resource object used for the first XML element object and the second XML element object, as taught by the Ting reference.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow an XML index scan can then efficiently skip index entries that will not qualify against the XML query. (Ting, abstract)
However, the combination of the Aung and Ting references does not explicitly teach wherein the determining whether there is an attribute for the first XML element object that is the same as an attribute for a second XML element object includes creating a many-to-one mapping between resource objects and sequence objects.
The Talbot reference teaches it is conventional to have wherein the determining whether there is an attribute for the first XML element object that is the same as an attribute for a second XML element object includes creating a many-to-one mapping between resource objects and sequence objects. (paragraph 72, where one or more object models 108, which identify the structure of the data sources 106. In an object model, the data fields (attributes) are organized into classes, where the attributes in each class have a one-to-one correspondence with each other. The object model also includes many-to-one relationships between the classes. In some instances, an object model maps each table within a database to a class, with many-to-one relationships between classes corresponding to foreign key relationships between the tables. In some instances, the data model of an underlying source does not cleanly map to an object model in this simple way, so the object model includes information that specifies how to transform the raw data into appropriate class objects; and where the data sources can be stored as XML files)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the combination of the Aung and Ting references to have wherein the determining whether there is an attribute for the first XML element object that is the same as an attribute for a second XML element object includes creating a many-to-one mapping between resource objects and sequence objects, as taught by the Talbot reference.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to have for each measure m, the process identifies a set R(m) consisting of dimensions that are reachable from the measure by a sequence of many-to-one relationships in an object model for the data sources. (Talbot, abstract)
Therefore it would have been obvious to combine the Aung, Ting, and Talbot references for the benefits shown above to obtain the invention as specified in the claim.
With respect to claim 2, the combination of the Aung, Ting, and Talbot references teaches the method of claim 1 further comprising continuing to determine whether there is an attribute for the first XML element object that is the same as an attribute for a second XML element object until there are no more XML element objects to process. (Aung, paragraph 73, where programming language code is generated 709 to interpret natural language input related to the catalog using the specialist grammar, and the names for the individual items of the plurality of items and their associated one or more attributes. The programming language code 709 is then stored 799 [i.e. the end of the process])
With respect to claim 3, the combination of the Aung, Ting, and Talbot references teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the determining whether there is an attribute for the first XML element object that is the same as an attribute for a second XML element object includes: identifying attributes in in-sequence elements; identifying attributes in out-sequence elements; determining whether one of the attributes in the in-sequence elements match at least one of the attributes in the out-sequence elements; and in response to the one of the attributes in the in-sequence elements matching the at least one of the attributes in the out-sequence elements, identifying the one of the attributes in the in-sequence elements matching the at least one of the attributes in the out-sequence elements as the at least one attribute common to the in-sequence elements and the out-sequence elements. (Aung, paragraph 30, where system 100 includes a knowledge base engine 140 to respectively associate one or more attributes to the individual items of the plurality of items and store the association between the respective individual items and their associated one or more attributes in the memory of the system. The knowledge base engine 140 may receive the item names 122 and attributes 124 that were obtained from the catalog 120 and also access a knowledge base 145 specific to the particular domain of the catalog for additional attributes related to the items in the catalog 120; and paragraph 71, where in addition to using the knowledge base to associate attributes to item of the catalog, the information obtained from the catalog may be used to update 713 the knowledge base. In some cases, an item from the catalog may not be found in the knowledge base. So, the method may include flagging an item of the plurality of items that is unmatched in the knowledge base and then later receiving an attribute to associate with the flagged item.)
With respect to claim 4, the combination of the Aung, Ting, and Talbot references teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the processing the XML element objects in XML file includes determining there are no more XML element objects to parse in the XML file and stopping the process. (Aung, paragraph 73, where programming language code is generated 709 to interpret natural language input related to the catalog using the specialist grammar, and the names for the individual items of the plurality of items and their associated one or more attributes. The programming language code 709 is then stored 799 [i.e. the end of the process])
With respect to claim 6, the combination of the Aung, Ting, and Talbot references teaches the method of claim 1, in response to the first XML element object and the second XML element object not having the attribute that is the same, creating a new attribute object for the second XML element object and adding attribute data in API resource object. (Aung, paragraph 71, where in addition to using the knowledge base to associate attributes to item of the catalog, the information obtained from the catalog may be used to update 713 the knowledge base. In some cases, an item from the catalog may not be found in the knowledge base. So, the method may include flagging an item of the plurality of items that is unmatched in the knowledge base and then later receiving an attribute to associate with the flagged item.)
With respect to claim 7, the combination of the Aung, Ting, and Talbot references teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the determining whether there is not the attribute that is the same for the first XML element object and the second XML element object includes creating a one-to-one mapping between resource objects and sequence objects for the first XML element object and for the second XML element object. (Aung, paragraph 71, where in addition to using the knowledge base to associate attributes to item of the catalog, the information obtained from the catalog may be used to update 713 the knowledge base. In some cases, an item from the catalog may not be found in the knowledge base. So, the method may include flagging an item of the plurality of items that is unmatched in the knowledge base and then later receiving an attribute to associate with the flagged item.)
Claims 8-11 and 13-14 are the Application Programming Interface (API) gateway, comprising: a memory storing computer-readable instructions; and a processor connected to the memory, wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer-readable instructions to perform the steps noted in the claims above, and rejected under a similar rationale as shown in the rejections above. The Examiner notes the fig. 4 of the Aung reference to teach the memory and processor as noted above.
Claims 15-18 and 20 are the non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-readable instructions stored thereon, which when executed by a processor causes the processor to perform operations noted in the claims above, and rejected under a similar rationale as shown in the rejections above. The Examiner notes the fig. 4 of the Aung reference to teach the non-transitory computer-readable media having computer-readable instructions as noted above.
2. ARGUMENTS CONCERNING PRIOR ART REJECTIONS
Rejections - USC 102/103
Applicant's arguments (see pages 8-14 of the remarks) and amendments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 have been considered, and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Talbot reference as shown in the rejections above to teach the newly added claim language.
3. CLOSING COMMENTS
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRASITH THAMMAVONG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12-8 PM 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, Arpan Savla can be reached on (571) 272-1077. 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.
/PRASITH THAMMAVONG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights