DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment filed 10/14/2025.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/14/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/14/2025 with regard to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that as the specification describes configuration occurring during “runtime”, one of ordinary skill would have understand this to encompass configuration occurring in “real time”.
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner find that real-time and runtime are not the same as they refer to different concepts in computing. Runtime is the period when a program is executing. Real-time refers to a system's ability to process data and respond within strict time constraints (e.g., milliseconds). The Examiner interprets the two phrases as being:
Runtime (Run-time): This is the phase of software execution when a program is running, as opposed to compile-time or build-time. It is often used to describe when errors occur or when resources are loaded (e.g., "runtime error").
Real-Time: This defines a system that must respond to events within a guaranteed timeframe, often, but not always, appearing instantaneous to a human. If a real-time system misses a deadline, it is considered a failure.
As the limitation of configuration occurring in “real-time” is found to not be supported by Applicant’s original disclosure, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 are found to be proper.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6 and 7 of amendment, filed 4/14/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.103 over Dayanandan in view of Sheard in view of Schmidt 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Singh et al. (US 2020/0327008), hereinafter Singh.
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 1-20 are 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. Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, the examiner is unable to locate sufficient support for applicant’s amendment of “configuring the microservice shared component in real time based on host platform-specific requirements communicated during integration” within applicant’s original disclosure. Applicant states on page 6 of the response that “as described in the specification, at least at paragraphs [014] to [0016]….”. However, a review of the cited paragraphs provide no mention of adjusting parameters in real time or of any performance metric. A further review of applicant’s specification reveals that the sole mention of anything occurring in “real-time” is in paragraph [0059], which references “use of specific real-time means” for enabling debugging processes, not for adjusting runtime parameters as recited. A further search of applicant’s specification shows no mention at all of any “performance metric”, and would therefore would be unable to support such a limitation. Furthermore, the only support which can be found for “adjusting runtime parameters, appears to be in paragraph [0085], which states that “any supported parameters can be communicated to configure the SC”. However, there is no mention of “runtime parameters”, so it is unclear as to which parameters applicant refers.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected as being dependent upon claims 1, 8, and 15.
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 Schmidt et al. (US 2019/0004779), hereinafter Schmidt, in view of Singh.
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 not explicitly teach of adjusting parameters of the component in real time. In a similar field of endeavor, Schmidt teaches of deploying services (see abstract). Schmidt further teaches the following:
configuring the microservice shared component in real time based on host platform-specific requirements communicated during integration. As Schmidt teaches in paragraph [0048] – [0050], and corresponding Fig. 9, at a time of integration/deployment of an application, a device profile is accessed to determine solution templates for selecting specific programming code artifacts. These selected artifacts are then integrated in the application code and deployed.
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 components of Dayanadan with the integration/deployment device profile determination of Schmidt. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Schmidt teaches in paragraph [0003], such device profiles benefit users in determining multiple versions of assets being deployed to a multitude of different types of systems.
Furthermore, neither Dayanandan nor Schmidt explicitly teach of dynamically exchanging input parameters and error events with the host. In a similar field of endeavor, Singh teaches of monitoring application functionality (see abstract). Singh further teaches the following:
wherein the configuring comprises dynamically exchanging input parameters and lifecycle or error events with the host platform to adapt the shared component configuration during runtime. As Singh teaches in paragraph [0004], an error signature may be generated which identifies a changed element, an application which caused the change, and/or metadata descriptive of the at least one changed element (input parameters). Singh teaches in paragraph [0005] that the error signature may be transmitted from the device to a server (dynamically exchanging).
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 management of Dayanandan with the error reporting and remediation method of Singh. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such further modification because as Singh teaches in paragraph [0001], error reporting was a well known technique at the time for benefit of allowing users/developers identify and alleviate software errors.
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 Schmidt in view of Singh 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 Schmidt in view of Singh 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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