DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 5/4/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/4/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-11 of amendment, filed 5/4/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Franchitti (US 2019/0171438).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections to Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, are hereby withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment filed 5/4/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayanandan (US 2018/0203674), in view of Franchitti.
As per claim 1, Dayanandan teaches the following:
a method for creating and integrating a shared component into a host platform, wherein the microservice application of the host platform comprises the shared component, the method comprising:
communicating, to a UX development platform, a request corresponding to shared component (SC) application. As Dayanadan teaches in paragraph [0095], and corresponding Fig. 2, requirement information for an application (SC application) is received by model generation system 102, i.e. the desired user experience;
communicating the SC to a microservice application development platform, as a microservice shared component. As Dayanadan teaches in paragraph [0075], and corresponding Fig. 1, model generator 120 may utilize reference information 121 (shared components) as rules for guiding the generator in building an interface based upon the received requirement information;
generating, by the microservice application development platform, a microservice shared component package based on a shared component. As Dayanadan teaches in paragraphs [0099] and [0100], and corresponding Fig. 2, the model generator 120, utilizing the reference information 121, generates an application model (shared component package based upon a shared component); and
integrating the microservice shared component package, wherein an application is integrated utilizing the microservice shared component based on the request. As Dayanandan teaches in paragraph [0100], and corresponding Fig. 2, at step 206, the model generated in step 204 may be used to generate an implementation of an application.
However, Dayanandan does explicitly teach of dynamically exchanging error events with the host. In a similar field of endeavor, Franchitti teaches of selecting software units for deployment (see abstract). Franchitti further teaches the following:
configuring the microservice during runtime by exchanging input parameters and lifecycle or error events with the host platform through public interfaces of the shared component, wherein the lifecycle or error events indicate a current state of the shared component including loading, loaded, or error. As Franchitti teaches in paragraph, various “deficiencies” may be detected after a selected software unit is deployed (i.e. during runtime), where a “deficiency” may include a compilation error, which may then cause to autonomously trigger an update (configuring). As Franchitti further shows in Fig. 4, selections may be made via signals, thus public interfaces.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the software deployment of Dayanandan with the deficiency detection of Franchitti. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Franchitti teaches in paragraph [0165], such error detection benefits users in determining faulty software units and finding adequate replacements.
As per claim 8, Dayanandan teaches the following:
a system for creating and integrating a shared component into a host platform, wherein the microservice application of the host platform comprises the shared component and a microservice application, the system comprising: a processing system having one or more processors that execute computer-executable instructions. See paragraph [0006].
The remaining limitations of claim 8 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
As per claim 15, Dayanandan teaches the following:
a computer program product for creating and integrating a shared component into a host platform, wherein the microservice application of the host platform comprises the shared component and a microservice application, the computer program comprising computer-readable program code capable of being executed by at least one processor when retrieved from a non-transitory computer-readable medium. See paragraph [0006].
The remaining limitations of claim 15 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayanandan in view of Franchitti as applied to claims 1 and 8, and further in view of Fewtrell (US 9,715,439).
Regarding claim 2, Dayanadan teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Dayanadan does not explicitly teach of communicating an error. In a similar field of endeavor, Fewtrell is directed to building user interfaces for applications (see abstract). Fewtrell further teaches the following:
the generating the microservice shared component further comprises: communicating an error associated with the request to deploy the SC. As Fewtrell further teaches in the abstract, defect reporting logic may be embedded into user interfaces so that users may file defect reports, i.e., communicate errors.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the application building of Dayanandan with the error reporting of Fewtrell. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Fewtrell teaches in column 1, lines 5-18, such error reporting may benefit users in routing error reports to the proper designer.
Regarding claim 9, Dayanandan teaches the system of claim 8 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 9 are substantially similar to those of claim 2 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 3-7, 10-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dayanandan in view of Franchitti as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15, and further in view of Kalou et al. (US 2022/0357977), hereinafter Kalou.
Regarding claim 3, Dayanadan teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Dayanadan does not explicitly teach of sharing the SC at runtime of an application. In a similar field of endeavor, Kalou teaches of micro applications (application components). Kalou further teaches the following:
the generating the microservice shared component further comprises: sharing the SC to a runtime of a microservice application. As Kalou teaches in paragraph [0089], “upon opening the workspace software, the client device 303 can receive an interface of a microapp (e.g., automatically launched responsive to a request to open the digital workspace).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the application building of Dayanandan with the microapps of Kalou. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Kalou teaches in paragraph [0067], microapps benefit users in streamlining routine tasks for frequently performed actions and perform the action within a resource access application (microservice application) without having to launch the parent application.
Regarding claim 4, Dayanadan teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Dayanadan does not explicitly teach of a business functional layer of one application in another. In a similar field of endeavor, Kalou teaches of micro applications (application components). Kalou further teaches the following:
the generating the microservice shared component further comprises: generating a business-functional layer of one application implemented in another application. As Kalou shows in Fig. 7, microapps 716 provide a business functional view (such as “employee feedback”) of other applications in an overall workspace application 700.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the application building of Dayanandan with the microapps of Kalou. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Kalou teaches in paragraph [0067], microapps benefit users in streamlining routine tasks for frequently performed actions and perform the action within a resource access application (microservice application) without having to launch the parent application.
Regarding claim 5, Dayanadan teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Dayanadan does not explicitly teach of a limited mode. In a similar field of endeavor, Kalou teaches of micro applications (application components). Kalou further teaches the following:
the generating the microservice shared component further comprises: deploying the SC in a limited mode of the microservice application. As Kalou teaches in paragraph [0067], a microapp provides access to certain functionalities of a parent application, without access to the full application, hence a “limited mode”. Further see paragraph [0119] where access may be restricted based upon account type.
I It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the application building of Dayanandan with the microapps of Kalou. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Kalou teaches in paragraph [0067], microapps benefit users in streamlining routine tasks for frequently performed actions and perform the action within a resource access application (microservice application) without having to launch the parent application.
Regarding claim 6, Dayanadan teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Dayanadan does not explicitly teach of a MainContainer of a home screen. In a similar field of endeavor, Kalou teaches of micro applications (application components). Kalou further teaches the following:
the generating the microservice shared component further comprises: deploying the SC in a MainContainer activation of a home screen of the microservice application. As Kalou shows in Fig. 7, and corresponding paragraph [0159], activity feed 716 (MainContainter) of home screen 700 displays a list of microapps (SC).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the application building of Dayanandan with the microapps of Kalou. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Kalou teaches in paragraph [0067], microapps benefit users in streamlining routine tasks for frequently performed actions and perform the action within a resource access application (microservice application) without having to launch the parent application.
Regarding claim 7, Dayanadan teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Dayanadan does not explicitly teach of registering a SC in a global scope. In a similar field of endeavor, Kalou teaches of micro applications (application components). Kalou further teaches the following:
the generating the microservice shared component further comprises: registering the SC in a global scope of a rendering engine of a microservice application platform. As Kalou teaches in paragraph [0102], a microapp data storage 336 can store all data related to microapps (shared components), and would thus be “registered”. As may be seen in Fig. 3, client devices access this data from a data processing system 301 and is thus considered a “global scope” as all clients have access to the repository.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the application building of Dayanandan with the microapps and microapp storage of Kalou. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Kalou teaches in paragraph [0067], microapps benefit users in streamlining routine tasks for frequently performed actions and perform the action within a resource access application (microservice application) without having to launch the parent application.
Regarding claims 10-14, Dayanandan teaches the system of claim 8 as described above. The remaining limitations of claims 10-14 are substantially similar to those of claims 3-7 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claims 16-20, Dayanandan teaches the product of claim 15 as described above. The remaining limitations of claims 16-20 are substantially similar to those of claims 3-7 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hinton et al. (US 2009/0007097), see paragraph [0036]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A DISTEFANO whose telephone number is (571)270-1644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9 am - 5 pm.
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, William Bashore can be reached at 5712424088. 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.
/GREGORY A. DISTEFANO/
Examiner
Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174
