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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Seethraman et al. (US PGPUB 20210406102).
As per claim 1, Seetharaman teaches computer-implemented method comprising:
intercepting a call to invoke execution of a service as part of performing a synchronous transaction (par. 006-007; par. 0023-0024; figure 4; handler intercepts the job request/call to API gateway to the microservice by snooping the API gateway);
capturing a current state of the synchronous transaction (par. 0007. Par. 0024, par. 0028; the handler microservice adds the job to the job queue with a job ID which implies capturing the job state in an object);
persisting the current state in a transaction object corresponding to the synchronous transaction (par. 0024, par. 0030; the message in the job queue with the job ID is transaction object that is updated with Job status); and
invoking execution of the service (par. 0029).
As per claim 2, Seetharaman teaches wherein the call is from a client, and the intercepting, capturing, and persisting are performed without notifying the client and without modifying computer code of the client (par. 0038; par. 0023; calls are snooped and handled in the background without any client code modification or notification).
A per claim 3, Seetharaman teaches wherein the call is from another service (par. 0002).
As per claim 11, it is a system claim having similar limitations as of method claim 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rational as of claim.
However claim 11 has additional limitations below:
a memory having computer readable instructions; and one or more processors for executing the computer readable instructions, the computer readable instructions controlling the one or more processors to perform operations (par. 0050-0051; program stored and executed on a computer which inherently requires a processor to perform the execution).
As per claims 12-13, they are system claim having similar limitation of method claims 2-3 as rejected above. Therefore they are rejected under the same rational.
As per claim 19, it is a system claim having similar limitations as of method claim 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rational as of claim.
However claim 19 has additional limitations below:
A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to perform operations (par. 0050-0051).
As per claim 20, is a program product claim having similar limitation of method claim 2 as rejected above. Therefore it is rejected under the same rational.
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.
Claim 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seethraman et al. (US PGPUB 20210406102), in view of Allocca (US Patent No. 10182128).
As per claim 4, Seetharaman teaches intercepting a result of the call from the service, the result having an intended recipient (figure 4, par. 0039, lines 7-14, job performing microservices stores completion data in the API gateway(intended recipient) with job status which is intercepted by the handler and job queue is updated at the handler microservice in the job queue);
capturing a new state of the synchronous transaction, the new state based at least in part on the result (figure 4, par. 0039, lines 7-14, job performing microservices stores completion data in the API gateway with job status which is intercepted by the handler and job queue is updated at the handler microservice in the job queue);
persisting the new state as the current state in the transaction object (figure 4, par. 0039, lines 7-14, job performing microservices stores completion data in the API gateway with job status which is intercepted by the handler and job queue is updated at the handler microservice in the job queue).
Seetharaman does not specifically disclose sending the result to the intended recipient.
However Allocca teaches intercepting a result of the call from the service, the result having an intended recipient (col 14, lines 35-58, cache module intercepts the information and forwards the requests to the intended recipient);
capturing a new state of the synchronous transaction, the new state based at least in part on the result (col 14, lines 35-58);
persisting the new state as the current state (col 14, lines 35-58);
sending the result to the intended recipient (col 14, lines 35-58; forwarded to the intended recipient).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Alloca into the teaching of Seetharaman to send the result to the intended recipient after capturing the state information. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would be motivated to utilize the teaching of Alloca for being able to capture and track information of the transactions as they are being executed for efficient transaction execution and resource allocation.
As per claim 5, Allocca teaches wherein the intercepting a result, capturing a new state and persisting the new state are performed without notifying the service and without modifying computer code of the service (col 14, lines 35-58; requesting/sending service is not notified regarding any of the operations performed by the state capture and control module).
As per claims 14-15, they are system claim having similar limitation of method claims 4-5 as rejected above. Therefore they are rejected under the same rational.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seethraman et al. (US PGPUB 20210406102), in view of Everson (US Patent No. 10127270).
As per claim 6, Seethraman does not specifically disclose utilizing the transaction object to cancel the synchronous transaction before it completes.
However Everson teaches utilizing the transaction object to cancel the synchronous transaction before it completes (col 11, Lines 26-65; col 14, lines 19-24).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Everson into the teaching of Seetharaman to cancel the transaction using transaction object. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would be motivated to utilize the teaching of Everson and utilizing the transaction object to cancel a transaction as the for being able to properly update the status of the transaction for other transaction associated with the cancelled transaction for retrieving any information from the cancelled transaction and avoid any incorrect operation.
As per claim 16, it is a system claim having similar limitation of method claim 6 as rejected above. Therefore it is rejected under the same rational.
Claims 7, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seethraman et al. (US PGPUB 20210406102), in view of Shrivastava et al. (US PGPUB 20240012676).
As per claim 7, Seethraman does not specifically disclose utilizing the transaction object to replay the synchronous transaction from a first domain to a second domain.
However Shrivastava teaches utilizing the transaction object to replay the synchronous transaction from a first domain to a second domain (abstract, par. 158).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Shrivastava into the teaching of Seetharaman to replay the transaction using transaction object. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would be motivated to utilize the teaching of Shrivastava and utilizing the transaction object to replay a transaction as the for being able to recover from any failure or incorrect operation execution during transaction processing for efficient transaction execution.
As per claim 10, Shrivastava teaches utilizing the transaction object to rollback a sub-transaction of the synchronous transaction (par. 142, par. 186; using transaction object to revert is rollback).
As per claim 17, it is a system claim having similar limitation of method claim 7 as rejected above. Therefore it is rejected under the same rational.
Claims 8-9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seethraman et al. (US PGPUB 20210406102), in view of Sem et al. (US Patent No. 11138033).
As per claim 8, Seethraman does not specifically disclose wherein the current state of the synchronous transaction is viewable via a user interface.
However Sem teaches wherein the current state of the synchronous transaction is viewable via a user interface (col 4, lines 25-33; col 7, lines 15-29; col 9, lines 30-67; user interface to access the service is a web-based GUI interface).
As per claim 9, Sem teaches wherein the transaction object is viewable via a user interface when the synchronous transaction is in-flight and after the synchronous transaction completes (col 4, lines 25-33; col 7, lines 15-29; col 9, lines 30-67).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teaching of Sem into the teaching of Seetharaman to provide user with transaction status. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would be motivated to utilize the teaching of Sem and provide user with transaction status information for being able to identify the current status of the requested transaction and take appropriate action for efficient transaction execution and have an improved user experience.
As per claim 18, it is a system claim having similar limitation of method claim 8 as rejected above. Therefore it is rejected under the same rational.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAH AL KAWSAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3169. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
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, David Wiley can be reached at (571) 272-4150. 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.
/ABDULLAH AL KAWSAR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2127