DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 7/6/2023 for application number 18/218,860. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, claims.
3. Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
5. Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
6. Claims 8 and 17 recite the limitation "wherein the mark-up language”" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is assumed for examination purposes that the limitation is referring to the first and second applications recited in the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
10. Claims 1 – 6, 9 – 15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (U.S. Publication 2016/0127199) (Ding hereinafter) and Kulp et al. (U.S. Publication 2020/0112604) (Kulp hereinafter) in further view of Chacko et al. (U.S. Publication 2019/0019090) (Chacko hereinafter).
11. As per claim 1, Ding teaches a computerized method for interoperability between browser-based executable applications, the method comprising:
executing a first application in an application layer executing within a
microservices layer, the first application is a browser-based executable application [“As shown in FIG. 1, the WebRTC system 100 includes one or more computing devices, which for convenience will be referred to herein as clients 102. In some embodiments, one or both of the clients 102 is a personal computer (PC), tablet computer, or mobile phone. In some embodiments, each client 102 includes one or more W3C APIs 104 used to handle a web application 106. By way of example, the web application 106 is a web application used to make video calls (e.g., Microsoft SkypeTM) or to otherwise facilitate communication between the clients 102 or between one of the clients 102 and a target 108,” ¶ 0025; web application 106 mapped to first application];
executing a second application in the application layer, the second
application is a browser-based executable application [“The web application 106 of each client 102 is configured to communicate with the corresponding web application 110 of a service provider 112 through a control path 114,” ¶ 0025; web application 110 mapped to second application];
executing a microservices module within a browser container, the
microservices module facilitating communication between the first application and
the second application via the browser container [“The microservices 320 operating in the signaling servers 314 and media servers 316 are suites of independently deployable services. The term microservices contemplates a software architecture design pattern in which complex applications are composed of small, independent processes communicating with each other using language-agnostic APIs. The microservices 320 are small, highly decoupled, and may focus on doing a small task. In other words, the microservice architectural style is an approach to developing a single application as a suite of small services, each running in its own process and communicating with lightweight mechanisms (e.g., an HTTP resource API),” ¶ 0041; signaling server mapped to browser container;
Ding does noy explicitly disclose but Kulp discloses executing a first overlay application within the first application, the first overlay application transmitting via the microservices module [“If a browser of the local computer points to the local uniform resource locator corresponding to the local reverse proxy of the software development kit, then the browser will route any function call or request destined to the locally deployed microservice under development to the local uniform resource locator corresponding to the local reverse proxy of the software development kit. The browser routes any function calls or requests corresponding to remotely deployed microservices of the microservice architecture to a remote reverse proxy located on a server in the remote-computing environment,” ¶ 0064; reverse proxies mapped to overlay functions].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ding and Kulp available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of adaptive allocation of server resources as disclosed by Ding to include the capability of facilitating browser communication between applications via microservice proxies as taught by Kulp, thereby providing a mechanism to improve system performance and efficiency by facilitating the automated management of system services.
Ding and Kulp do not explicitly disclose but Chacko discloses based on an interaction in the first application, transmitting, from the first overlay application to the microservices module, a first command transmission having a raised intent data call and a raised intent data field therein [“the B2B presentation layer 204, and the C2B presentation layer 206 communicate with the micro-services layer 208, and/or the AI module 210 through the middleware API management layer 214. For example, text data provided through a messaging application (e.g., on the B2B presentation layer, or the C2B presentation layer) is provided to the AI module 210 to perform one or more AI-related tasks (e.g., determining an intent to register an asset). One or more services of the micro-services layer 208 can communicate with a presentation layer through the middleware API management layer 214. For example, a registration workflow provided by the registration service can be initiated based on input form the AI module 208 that indicates that a user is requesting to register an asset, the registration service communicating with the user through the messaging application. In this manner, the micro-services layer 208, in hand with the AI module 210 can operate to perform functionality provided by the FSM platform through interactions channeled through the presentation layers,” ¶ 0036]; and
executing a response operation in the second application based at least on the raised intent data call and the raised intent data field within the first command transmission [“the NLP engine processes text data (e.g., received from a customer through a messaging application) to determine a customer intent, and provide responses to the customer to perform a FSM task,” ¶ 0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ding, Kulp and Chacko available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of adaptive allocation of server resources as disclosed by Ding and Kulp to include the capability of detecting and implementing intents as taught by Chacko, thereby providing a mechanism to improve system usability and efficiency by leveraging user intents.
12. As per claim 2, Ding, Kulp and Chacko teach the computerized method of claim 1. Chacko further teaches executing a second overlay application within the second application, the second overlay application processing the raised intent data call and the raised intent data field [“the B2B presentation layer 204, and the C2B presentation layer 206 communicate with the micro-services layer 208, and/or the AI module 210 through the middleware API management layer 214. For example, text data provided through a messaging application (e.g., on the B2B presentation layer, or the C2B presentation layer) is provided to the AI module 210 to perform one or more AI-related tasks (e.g., determining an intent to register an asset). One or more services of the micro-services layer 208 can communicate with a presentation layer through the middleware API management layer 214. For example, a registration workflow provided by the registration service can be initiated based on input form the AI module 208 that indicates that a user is requesting to register an asset, the registration service communicating with the user through the messaging application. In this manner, the micro-services layer 208, in hand with the AI module 210 can operate to perform functionality provided by the FSM platform through interactions channeled through the presentation layers,” ¶ 0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ding, Kulp and Chacko available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of adaptive allocation of server resources as disclosed by Ding and Kulp to include the capability of detecting and implementing intents as taught by Chacko, thereby providing a mechanism to improve system usability and efficiency by leveraging user intents.
13. The computerized method of claim 2. Chacko further teaches wherein the second overlay application listens for the raised intent data call [“the NLP engine processes text data (e.g., received from a customer through a messaging application) to determine a customer intent, and provide responses to the customer to perform a FSM task,” ¶ 0038; processing received user text data mapped to listening].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ding, Kulp and Chacko available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of adaptive allocation of server resources as disclosed by Ding and Kulp to include the capability of detecting and implementing intents as taught by Chacko, thereby providing a mechanism to improve system usability and efficiency by leveraging user intents.
14. As per claim 4, Ding, Kulp and Chacko teach the computerized method of claim 1. Kulp further teaches wherein the first overlay application executes independent of the first application and operates without modification of an executable code of the first application and wherein the second overlay application executes independent of the second application and operates without modification of an executable code of the second application [“If a browser of the local computer points to the local uniform resource locator corresponding to the local reverse proxy of the software development kit, then the browser will route any function call or request destined to the locally deployed microservice under development to the local uniform resource locator corresponding to the local reverse proxy of the software development kit. The browser routes any function calls or requests corresponding to remotely deployed microservices of the microservice architecture to a remote reverse proxy located on a server in the remote-computing environment,” ¶ 0064; reverse proxies mapped to overlay functions].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ding and Kulp available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of adaptive allocation of server resources as disclosed by Ding to include the capability of facilitating browser communication between applications via microservice proxies as taught by Kulp, thereby providing a mechanism to improve system performance and efficiency by facilitating the automated management of system services.
15. As per claim 5, Ding, Kulp and Chacko teach the computerized method of claim 1. Chacko further teaches associating the second application with the first application for receipt of the raised intent data call and the raised intent data field in response to a user-selection command [“One or more services of the micro-services layer 208 can communicate with a presentation layer through the middleware API management layer 214. For example, a registration workflow provided by the registration service can be initiated based on input form the AI module 208 that indicates that a user is requesting to register an asset, the registration service communicating with the user through the messaging application,” ¶ 0036]; and
creating an association data field based on the user-selection command
usable for later associations of the second application with the first application
without requiring a second user-selection command [“the NLP engine processes text data (e.g., received from a customer through a messaging application) to determine a customer intent, and provide responses to the customer to perform a FSM task,” ¶ 0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ding, Kulp and Chacko available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of adaptive allocation of server resources as disclosed by Ding and Kulp to include the capability of detecting and implementing intents as taught by Chacko, thereby providing a mechanism to improve system usability and efficiency by leveraging user intents.
16. As per claim 6, Ding, Kulp and Chacko teach the computerized method of claim 1. Ding further teaches executing the browser container on an operating system, wherein the operating system is independent of the first application and the second application [“The microservices 320 operating in the signaling servers 314 and media servers 316 are suites of independently deployable services. The term microservices contemplates a Software architecture design pattern in which complex applications are composed of Small, independent processes communicating with each other using language-agnostic APIs. The microservices 320 are small, highly decoupled, and may focus on doing a small task. In other words, the microservice architectural style is an approach to developing a single application as a Suite of Small services, each running in its own process and communicating with lightweight mechanisms (e.g., an HTTP resource API),” ¶ 0041].
17. As per claim 9, Ding, Kulp and Chacko teach the computerized method of claim 1. Chacko further teaches wherein the raised intent data call is an instruction and the raised intent data field is a data value associated with the instruction [“the NLP engine processes text data (e.g., received from a customer through a messaging application) to determine a customer intent, and provide responses to the customer to perform a FSM task,” ¶ 0038].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ding, Kulp and Chacko available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of adaptive allocation of server resources as disclosed by Ding and Kulp to include the capability of detecting and implementing intents as taught by Chacko, thereby providing a mechanism to improve system usability and efficiency by leveraging user intents.
18. As per claim 10, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
19. As per claim 11, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
20. As per claim 12, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
21. As per claim 13, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
22. As per claim 14, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
23. As per claim 15, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
24. As per claim 18, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 9. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 9 above.
25. As per claim 19, it is a method claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
26. Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding, Kulp and Chacko in further view of Garcia et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0206365) (Garcia hereinafter).
27. As per claim 7, Ding, Kulp and Chacko teach the computerized method of claim 1. Ding further teaches the second application is at least one of: a communication
application and an accounting application [“the web application 106 is a web application used to make video calls (e.g., Microsoft SkypeTM) or to otherwise facilitate communication between the clients 102 or between one of the clients 102 and a target 108,” ¶ 0025].
Ding, Kulp and Chacko do not explicitly disclose but Garcia discloses wherein the first application is a financial services application [“A workflow is initiated, and it facilitates a number of operations that take place cooperatively among and/or between different parties. For example, the workflow facilitates the retrieval of information from financial accounts and data identified in the container for a party to which the consumer has granted access,” ¶ 0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ding, Kulp, Chacko and Garcia available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of adaptive allocation of server resources as disclosed by Ding, Kulp and Chacko to include the capability of rules-based data analytics as taught by Garcia, thereby providing a mechanism to improve system applicability by expanding system utility to financial-based applications.
28. As per claim 16, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
29. Claims 8, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding, Kulp and Chacko in further view of Verrijt et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0078452) (Verrijt hereinafter).
38. As per claim 8, Ding, Kulp and Chacko teach the computerized method of claim 1. Ding, Kulp and Chacko do not explicitly disclose but Verrijt discloses wherein the mark-up language is hypertext mark-up language version five (HTML5) [“Hybrid mobile applications are applications that are written for mobile devices using web technologies such as HTML5, CSS and JavaScript. However, unlike mobile web applications, which are executed on a server, hybrid applications are executed on the mobile device. The hybrid applications may run within a native container, in which the web technologies are interpreted by lower level native coded applications. For example, hybrid applications may be executed on a mobile device by a browser engine of the mobile device to render HTML. Hybrid application code such as JavaScript may be processed locally by the browser engine without accessing the device's browser to communicate with a server,” ¶ 0005].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ding, Kulp, Chacko and Verrijt available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of adaptive allocation of server resources as disclosed by Ding, Kulp and Chacko to include the capability of a web native bridge as taught by Verrijt, thereby providing a mechanism to extend the applicability of applications by including updated communication standards.
31. As per claim 17, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 8. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 8 above.
32. As per claim 20, Ding, Kulp and Chacko teach the computerized method of claim 19. Ding, Kulp and Chacko do not explicitly disclose but Verrijt discloses executing an operating system bridge in communication with the at least one bridging module within the browser container such that communication with the second application is through the operating system bridge [“A web-native bridge architecture according to aspects of the present disclosure is described with reference to FIG. 3. The web native bridge architecture 300 provides a fully featured HTTP web server that is configured to function as a glue layer between a web application 306 and the hardware of a particular mobile device 304,” ¶ 0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Ding, Kulp, Chacko and Verrijt available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of adaptive allocation of server resources as disclosed by Ding, Kulp and Chacko to include the capability of a web native bridge as taught by Verrijt, thereby providing a mechanism to extend the applicability of applications by including updated communication standards.
Conclusion
33. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-5285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 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, Chat C Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/WILLIAM C WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
