DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
Applicant presents a request for continued examination dated 16 January 2026 in response to the 21 October 2025 final Office action (the “Final Office Action”) as well as the 9 January 2026 advisory action.
Claims 46-47, 54-55 and 62-63 are amended.
Claims 46-48, 50-56, 58-64 and 66-68 remain pending. Claims 46, 54 and 62 are the independent claims.
Any unpersuasive arguments are addressed in the “Response to Arguments” section below.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16 January 2026 has been entered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection herein, necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 46-48, 50-56 and 58-64 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 46, the claim includes:
…the sequence of instruction contains…a validation definition…
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Applicant points to paragraph [0041], [0043], [0045], [0049], [0052], [0077], [0086] and [0095] as support.
However, none of these paragraphs describes the sequence of instructions as containing a validation definition. The only paragraph referring to any “validation definition” is paragraph [0052] and that paragraph describes the definition as being stored in a text file within storage media 612, not the sequence of instructions. The “sequence of instructions”, per that paragraph, refers to component 602, which is shown in Figure 6 as distinct from storage media 612.
As to claims 47-48, 50-53 and 66, the claims are dependent on claim 46 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 54, the claim includes the same new matter a claim 46 and is rejected for the same reasons.
As to claims 55-56, 58-61 and 67, the claims are dependent on claim 54 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 62, the claim includes the same new matter a claim 46 and is rejected for the same reasons.
As to claims 63-64 and 68, the claims are dependent on claim 62 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
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 46, 48, 50-51, 53-54, 56, 58-59, 61-62, 64 and 66-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb (US 2016/0034276) (art of record – hereinafter Webb) in view of Beale et al. (US 2014/0173552) (art made of record – hereinafter) in view of Gass et al. (US 2011/0283269) (art of record – hereinafter Gass) and Van Wie et al. (US 20100146085) (art of record – hereinafter Van Wie).
As to claim 46, Webb discloses a system for integration of a software component into a software framework, the system comprising:
a memory, at least one data storage medium, (e.g., Webb, par. [0126]) and
at least one processor configured (e.g., Webb, par. [0125]) to:
receive a sequence of instructions; (e.g., Webb, par. [0029]: specifying a name of the component)
determine, via a format analysis engine, whether the sequence of instructions is native to a predetermined operating system; (e.g., Webb, par. [0061]: the unadapted version of the component may be incompatible with the execution context of the client program/operating system prior to adaptation; par. [0059]: runtime environment may determine whether the component has been previously adapted [is native to a predetermined operating system])
when the sequence of instructions is native to the predetermined operating system, add the sequence of instructions to a framework configuration interpreter engine; (e.g., Webb, par. [0060]: at step 362 the previously adapted component may be retrieved and the adapted component may be executed by the runtime environment [add the sequence of instructions to the framework configuration interpreter engine, executing being interpreting])
when the sequence of instructions is not native to the predetermined operating system, adapt, via a framework wrapper engine, the sequence of instructions and then add the adapted sequence of instructions to the framework configuration interpreter engine; (e.g., Webb, par. [0061]: if the component has not already been adapted, an unadapted version may be retrieved; par. [0062]: the unadapted version may be adapted using adaptation logic. The adaptation logic may wrap the unadapted version in a wrapper. The adapted component may then be stored in the adapted component library for future execution; par. [0094]: the adaptation logic may submit the adapted component to the runtime environment 540, which may execute the adapted component)
using the framework configuration interpreter engine, configure the sequence of instructions based on one or more characteristics of the software framework and integrate the sequence of instructions as a software component into the software framework (e.g., Webb, par. [0043]: adaptation logic may provide the wrapper 210 with instructions for performing data marshalling between the client program/operating system and the execution context independent component [i.e., configuring the sequence of the instructions, by the framework configuration interpreter engine because that occurs when those instructions are executed]; par. [0044]: the wrapper 210 may perform data marshalling by translating input(s) provided by the client program [characteristics of the software framework] into a format understandable by the component 240 [so the component and framework of the client program become integrated]).
Webb does not explicitly disclose wherein the sequence of instructions contains a validation software component and a validation definition; to validate, using the validation software component, the adapted sequence of instructions by determining, based on the validation definition, a consistency between the adapted sequence of instructions and a schema corresponding to the predetermined operating system; and to integrate the sequence of instructions as a software component by uploading the validated sequence of instructions to a platform-specific directory.
However, in an analogous art, Beale discloses:
wherein the sequence of instructions contains a validation software component and a validation definition; (e.g., Beale, par. [0025], self-validating code can be used to determine if object code is correctly generated. This can be accomplished, for example by placing comparisons [validation software component(s)] between expected and actual output of a particular code construct; par. [0027]: the self-executing [sic] code will generally include a setting defining an expected value [validation definition]) and to
validate, using the validation component, the sequence of instruction by determining, based on the validation definition, consistency (e.g., Beale, par. [0047]: output of pass/fail determinations based on comparison of expected and actual values of a particular variable; par. [0046]: this allows the compiled program to determine whether an expected outcome is equal [consistent with] to the actual value of the same variable)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sequence of instructions of Webb such that it contains a validation software component and a validation definition and the validation component is used to determine consistency of the instructions based on the validation definition, as taught by Beale. Incorporating a validation component and validation definition in the sequence would provide the advantage of a means of providing self-validating code (see Beale, abstract), which would avoid the need for an external validation component. See also, M.P.E.P. § 2144.04(V)(B). Using the validation component to determine consistency based on the validation definition would provide the advantage of a means of assuring the code executes properly. (See Beale, par. [0049]).
Further, in an analogous art, Gass discloses to:
validate the adapted sequence of instructions by determining consistency between the adapted sequence of instructions and a schema corresponding to the predetermined operating system (e.g., Gass, par. [0046]: source system or source installation 204 may comprise a server or workstation with an installation or configuration of a version of one or more applications. The one or more applications may also include an operating system; par. [0048]: target system or target installation 206 may comprise a server or workstation with an installation of a second version of one or more applications [predetermined operating system]; par. [0072]: transforming a meta-model from one corresponding to one installation of an application to one corresponding to another installation of an application. Transforming the meta-model comprises modifying [adapting] an object from a syntax or code language associated with the first installation to a syntax or code language associated the second installation. The transformer 230 further comprises functions for error checking transformed objects for compliance with rules, language and/or syntax standards [the rules and standards being a schema corresponding to the predetermined operating system because they enable the determining a passing or failing result and because the transformed (adapted) object and its syntax or code language are for the second installation, and an installation can include an operating system as noted above]; par. [0092]: objects identified as automatic code).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adaptation of a sequence of instructions for a predetermined operating system, the sequence containing a validation component used to validate the sequence by determining consistency of the sequence based on a validation definition also contained in the sequence, as taught by Webb/Beale, such that the validating validates the adapted sequence of instructions by determining a consistency between the adapted sequence of instructions and a schema corresponding to the predetermined operating system, as taught by Gass, as Gass would ensure the adapted sequence can be used with the predetermined operating system. (See Gass, par. [0072]).
Further still, in an analogous art, Van Wie discloses to:
integrate the sequence of instructions as a software component by uploading the sequence of instructions to a platform-specific directory (e.g., Van Wie, par. [0241]: the client node stores the plugins in an asset directory in local file system. par. [00501]: plugins are downloaded from [uploaded by] a plugin server. On Windows based computer systems [a platform], plugins are implemented as DLLs “(e.g., .NET or COM style plugins)”. Plugins different from normal dynamic linked libraries, however. There is no need to link the plugin library; nor is there any need for compilation. The plugin manager 266 simply loads the plugins that are contained in the plugin directory; par. [0513]: all plugins are stored in a shared plugin directory. Plugin manager discovers the available plugins by checking the shared plugin directory).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the code sequence of Webb such that it is integrated by uploading it to platform specific directory, as taught by Van Wie, as Van Wie would provide the advantage of a means for the framework to discover integrated components. (See Van Wie, par. [0513]).
As to claim 48, Webb/Beale/Gass/Van Wie discloses the system of claim 46 (see rejection of claim 46 above), Webb further discloses:
wherein the integration of the software component into the software framework is automated (e.g., Webb, par. [0125]: the processor 1110 may execute information in memory 1120. The information may include instructions that may implement embodiments of the invention).
As to claim 50, Webb/Beale/Gass/Van Wie discloses the system of claim 46 (see rejection of claim 46 above), but Webb does not explicitly disclose wherein the platform-specific directory includes at least one folder, wherein the at least one folder is dynamic.
However, in an analogous art, Van Wie discloses:
wherein the platform-specific directory includes at least one folder, wherein the at least one folder is dynamic (e.g., Van Wie, par. [0501]: on Windows computer systems, plugins are implemented as DLLs. Plugins differ from normal dynamic linked libraries, however, by the way in which they are loaded. The plugin manager 266 simply loads the plugins that are contained in the plugin directory [directories are synonymous with folders, particularly in Windows]. In this way, plugins can be added or removed simply by downloading or deleting the executable [since the plugins in the directory change, it is a dynamic directory] )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the code sequence of Web/Beale/Gass such that it is uploaded to a platform specific directory of the software framework that includes at least one dynamic folder, as taught by Van Wie, as Van Wie would provide the advantage of a means of adding or removing code sequences from a framework of a Windows system. (See Van Wie, par. [0501]).
As to claim 51, Webb/Beale/Gass/Van Wie discloses the system of claim 46 (see rejection of claim 59 above), Webb further discloses
wherein determining whether the sequence of instructions is native to a predetermined operating system includes determining an operational state of a process and confirming that the operational state is in a native operating condition (e.g., Webb, par. [0061]: the unadapted version of the component [process, though so is the method being performed by Webb] may be incompatible with the execution context of the client program/operating system prior to adaptation; par. [0059]: runtime environment may determine whether the component has been previously adapted [is in a native operating condition, adapted or not adapted being an operational state])
As to claim 53, Webb/Beale/Gass/Van Wie discloses the system of claim 46 (see rejection of claim 46 above), Webb further discloses:
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to convert the sequence of instructions into binary (e.g., Webb, par. [0092]: the adaptation logic may generate native source code for the adapted component and compile the native source code [i.e., convert into binary, note too that everything in a computer is binary]).
As to claim 54, it is a method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 46. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Further limitations, disclosed by Webb, include:
a format analysis engine including one or more program modules (e.g., Webb, par. [0026]: a computer program may be a set of instructions executable on a computer. For example, a computer program may be a module; par. [0122]: one or more of the above-described acts may be encoded as computer-executable instructions)
As to claim 56, it is a method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 48. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 58, it is a method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 50. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 59, it is a method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 51. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 61, it is a method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 53. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 62, it is a medium claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 46. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Further limitations, disclosed by Webb include:
a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions that when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor (e.g., Webb, pars. [0126], [0125]) to (see rejection of claim 1 above)
As to claim 64, it is a method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 48. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 66, Webb/Beale/Gass/Van Wie discloses the system of claim 46 (see rejection of claim 46 above) Webb further discloses:
wherein the sequence of instructions is received from a user (e.g., Webb, par. [0110]: a component may include all of its source code in the original human [user] written form [i.e., the instructions of the component are received from a user]; par. [0019]: a developer [user] writing a computer program may wish to support the program in different contexts. For example, the developer may wish to integrate a component into the same host program on different hardware or operating system platforms)
As to claim 67, it is a method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 66. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 68, it is a medium claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 47, 55 and 63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb (US 2016/0034276) in view of Beale (US 2014/0173552) in view of Gass (US 2011/0283269) in view of Van Wie (US 2010/0146085) in further view of Pfohe et al. (US 2004/0034510) (art of record – hereinafter Pfohe).
As to claim 47, Webb/Beale/Gass/Van Wie discloses the system of claim 46 (see rejection of claim 46 above), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the sequence of instructions is user-inputted.
However, in an analogous art, Pfohe discloses:
wherein sequence of instructions is user-inputted (e.g., Pfohe, par. [0027]: a user provides instructions in the user program which call the object [sequence of instructions]; par. [0040]: the call includes the name of the desired object. For example, if the object’s name is “com” instruction 232 comprises “getLogger(‘com’)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sequence of instructions of Webb such that it is a user-inputted, as taught by Pfohe, as Pfohe would provide a means for the user to request a particular sequence of instructions, as suggested by Webb. (See Webb, pars. [0070-0071]).
As to claim 55, it is a method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 47. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 63, it is a medium claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 47. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 52 and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Webb (US 2016/0034276) in view of Beale (US 2014/0173552) in view of Gass (US 2011/0283269) in view of Van Wie (US 2010/0146085) in further view of Berlitz et al. (US 2020/0174800) (art of record – hereinafter Berlitz).
As to claim 52, Webb/Beale/Gass/Van Wie discloses the system of claim 46 (see rejection of claim 52 above) but does not explicitly disclose wherein the sequence of instructions is in a JSON format.
However, in an analogous art, Berlitz discloses:
wherein the sequence of instructions is in a JSON format (e.g., Berlitz, component file 110 may include framework code 116. Component file 110 may be a JSON file that is accessible or modifiable using a text editor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sequence of instructions of Webb such that it is in the JSON format, as taught by Berlitz, as Berlitz would provide the advantages of a standard format and a format that is accessible or modifiable using a text editor. (See Berlitz, pars. [0053], [0026]).
As to claim 60, it is a method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 52. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD AGUILERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11AM - 7:30PM 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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at (571)272-6799. 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.
/TODD AGUILERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192