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 .
DETAILED ACTION
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
This is a Non-Final Action.
The current application filed July 24, 2023 is a reissue application of 17/241,923 (U.S. Patent No. 11,663,543 issued May 30, 2023, hereinafter “the ‘543 patent”).
Claims 1-18 were initially pending in the application. Claims 19-38 were added in a preliminary amendment filed on July 24, 2023. Claims 19, 21, 22, 24, 29-32, and 34 were amended; claims 23, 26-28, 33, and 36-38 were canceled; and claims 39-44 were added in a second preliminary amendment filed May 10, 2024. Claims 1-22, 24, 25, 29-32, 34, 35, and 39-44 are pending.
Reissue
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 11,663,543 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Content of Reissue Applications
The applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of 37 CFR 1.173(c) in the amendment filed May 10, 2024:
(c) Status of claims and support for claim changes. Whenever there is an amendment to the claims pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, there must also be supplied, on pages separate from the pages containing the changes, the status (i.e., pending or canceled), as of the date of the amendment, of all patent claims and of all added claims, and an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the claims.
Applicant has not provided a proper explanation of support for the claim amendments made. The list of citations provided in the remarks filed May 10, 2024 does not constitute an actual explanation of support. In order to overcome this objection applicant must provide a specific explanation of support for all matter added via this amendment and all future amendments. The examiner recommends providing an explicit citation and explanation of support from the specification for each and every limitation of the new claims separately to avoid the same error in the future.
Appropriate correction is required for the current amendment and all future amendments must also conform to this practice. Failure to conform to these practices for all previous amendments and any future amendments will result in the response being deemed as noncompliant.
Reissue Declaration
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because the error which is relied upon to support the reissue application is not an error upon which a reissue can be based (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414). As explained below in reference to the rejection in view of impermissible recapture, the error on which the reissue is based on according to the declaration is not an error upon which reissue can be based because it amounts to impermissible recapture.
Claims 1-22, 24, 25, 29-32, 34, 35, and 39-44 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Specification
The specification amendment filed July 24, 2023 is proper and has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251
Claims 19, 24, 25, 29-32, 34, 35, and 39-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. In re McDonald, 43 F.4th 1340, 1345, 2022 USPQ2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335, 102 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The reissue application contains claim(s) that are broader than the issued patent claims. The record of the application for the patent family shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
It is noted that the following is the three step test for determining recapture in reissue applications (see: MPEP 1412.02(II)):
“(1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims;
(2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and
(3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.”
(Step 1: MPEP 1412.02(II)(A)) In the instant case and by way of the preliminary amendment, Applicant seeks to broaden at least independent claims 1 and 10 with the addition of independent claims 19, 29, and 39 in this reissue at least by deleting/omitting limitations found in the original patent claims.
(Step 2: MPEP 1412.02(II)(B)) The record of the prior 16/033,129 application (the parent of application 17/241,923) prosecution indicates that an amendment was filed along with Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed December 21, 2020. Applicant made the following amendments (using claim 23 for reference):
PNG
media_image1.png
436
636
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
434
636
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant explicitly argued in an attempt to overcome the applied prior art references:
PNG
media_image3.png
530
632
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
174
630
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
308
632
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
210
632
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(pages 22-24, Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks
filed December 21, 2020, in application 16/033,129)
Thus, at least the following limitations found in patent claim 10 that correspond to the arguments and amendments made during prosecution are considered to be a surrender-generating limitations:
wherein the one or more user-configuration requirement comprises one or more of, a third-party interaction field, a credentials field, an input-parameter field, an output-parameter field, visibility field, a synchronicity field, and a sharing-type field;
(claim 10 of the ‘543 patent)
Subject matter is previously surrendered during the prosecution of the original application by reliance on an argument/statement made by applicant that a limitation of the claim(s) defines over the art. Additionally, reissue recapture applies to related family member applications (See MBO Laboratories, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 94 USPQ2d 1598 at 1606 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2010) (a more limited recapture rule would undercut “the rule against recapture’s public-reliance rationale” and a patent family’s entire prosecution history should be reviewed “when applying both the rule against recapture and prosecution history estoppel.”)). It is noted that a patent owner (reissue applicant) is bound by the argument that applicant relied upon to overcome an art rejection in the original application and the patent family's prosecution for the patent to be reissued, regardless of whether the Office adopted the argument in allowing the claims. Therefore, in the instant case the complete or partial omission of the surrender-generating limitations requiring “wherein the one or more user-configuration requirement comprises one or more of, a third-party interaction field, a credentials field, an input-parameter field, an output-parameter field, visibility field, a synchronicity field, and a sharing-type field;” equates to attempting to recapture surrendered subject matter and thus by omission some of the broadening of the reissue claims, as noted above, are clearly in the area of the surrendered subject matter.
(Step 3: MPEP 1412.02(II)(C)) It must be determined whether the reissue claim omits or broadens any limitation that was added/argued during the original prosecution to overcome an art rejection. Such an omission in a reissue claim, even if it includes other limitations making the reissue claim narrower than the patent claim in other aspects, is impermissible recapture. Pannu , 258 F.3d at 1371-72, 59 USPQ2d at 1600. Simply stated, claims 19, 24, 25, 29-32, 34, 35, and 39-44 partially omit the language of claims 1-18 requiring “wherein the one or more user-configuration requirement comprises one or more of, a third-party interaction field, a credentials field, an input-parameter field, an output-parameter field, visibility field, a synchronicity field, and a sharing-type field;” and thus would amount to impermissible recapture due to the omission of surrender-generating limitations. Additionally, reissue claims 19, 24, 25, 29-32, 34, 35, and 39-44 are not materially narrowed in other respects that relate to the surrendered subject matter to avoid said impermissible recapture.
Therefore, impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application is clearly present in the instant reissue application.
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) 1-22, 24, 29-32, 34, and 39-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Eksten et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0283031, hereinafter Eksten).
Regarding independent claim 1, Eksten discloses a system for sharing a workflow with a manifest comprising: a workflow server, wherein the workflow server stores one or more workflows in at least one workflow file;
“media application” and “computing application” as discussed are “workflows” – paragraphs [0247], [0249], and [0251] of Eksten, all of the components and information for said application are stored in the repository – paragraphs [0070] and [0186]
wherein the workflow server comprises a processor, wherein the processor communicates to one or more computing devices via a network;
paragraphs [0186] and [0192] of Eksten
wherein the processor transmits the one or more workflows to the one or more computing devices;
“The repository 32 stores components 24, compound components 26, blueprints 28a and graphs 28. As one example, the repository 32 may be a web services based repository accessible through a cloud computing system via external interfaces 38. As another example, the repository 32 may be stored on a local system. The deployment subsystem 14 may use one or more linked repositories 32 for version management, maintenance and deployment. The repository 32 is a hosted collection of components 24 and graphs 28 which are accessed by a protocol, identified as required, and transferred to the target host environment. As an illustrative analogy, a graph may be viewed as a recipe (i.e. template) listing different ingredients (i.e. components) and the repository 32 contains the blueprint 28a for the graph 28 and components thereof to provide the user with both the "recipe" and the "ingredients" listed in the "recipe".” – paragraph [0195] (emphasis added)
wherein, by the processor, the one or more workflows configures and generates at least one manifest, wherein the at least one generated manifest comprises an agreement for accessing one or more data from the one or more computing devices, and wherein the at least one generated manifest further comprises one or more user-configuration requirement;
“blueprint” corresponds to manifest – paragraphs [0249]-[0255] of Eksten
“blueprints” must be signed using “digital certificates” by all parties in order to be executed by the system – paragraph [0244] of Eksten
“blueprints” contain a reference to a solution set of components which include user configuration requirements – paragraph [0251] of Eksten
wherein the one or more user-configuration requirement comprises one or more of, a third-party interaction field, a credentials field, an input-parameter field, an output-parameter field, visibility field, a synchronicity field, and a sharing-type field;
“The software development kit 20 may be used to define the components 24, data containers 56, pins, graphs 28, blue prints 28a, and solution sets (each generally referred to as components). Each component defines a computing processing mechanism for processing data containers 56 of data at application runtime. Each graph 28 or blueprint 28a comprises a reference to a solution set of components, where the solution set of components is a set of particular versions of components.” – paragraph [0251] of Eksten. The citation provided discloses at least an input-parameter field and an output-parameter field.
wherein the processor receives from a first computing device from the one or more computing devices, a request for access to the one or more workflows;
“requesting user” for “graphs” – paragraph [0215] of Eksten
wherein, by the processor and based on the received request from the first computing device for access to the one or more workflows, the at least one generated manifest generates an acceptance requirement of the agreement and the one or more user-configuration requirement;
“This allows a user to use the technology across departments, groups and companies depending on the conditions of the license associated with the various components 24 of the graphs 28.” – paragraph [0215] of Eksten
“The job manager 50 is configured to provide job/engine dispatch, failover, tracking and reporting. The job manager 50 dispatches cloud engines 36 based on available resources, system availability, processing capability, available licenses in the license pool 44 maintained by the license server 42. In particular, the job manager 48 dispatches cloud engines 36 based on the latest or appropriate graph blueprints 28 registered with production repository 32 and available licenses in the license pool 44.” – paragraph [0217] of Eksten (emphasis added), see also paragraph [0237] of Eksten
“blueprints” must be signed using “digital certificates” by all parties in order to be executed by the system – paragraph [0244] of Eksten
wherein the processor requires consent of the acceptance requirement by the first computing device in order to enable access to the one or more workflows;
“blueprints” must be signed using “digital certificates” by all parties in order to be executed by the system – paragraph [0244] of Eksten
wherein the processor delivers to the first computing device the at least one generated manifest of the one or more workflows with the acceptance requirement in response to the request for access to the one or more workflows;
“Accordingly, in this example, the gas company operating the user computing system 140 signs the application (or blueprint, graph, component thereof) with their digital certificate, the system 10 countersigns the media application with their digital certificate, and the component provider system 130 signs the media application with their digital certificate. The system 10 is operable to only execute the blueprint only if all digital signatures (made by the digital certificates) are valid. Security may be derived from the digital certificates and chain of trust established thereby, as only signed components, blueprints and graphs may be executed by system 10 in some embodiments.” – paragraph [0244] of Eksten
wherein the processor receives from the first computing device, consent of the acceptance requirement of the at least one generated manifest; and
“Accordingly, in this example, the gas company operating the user computing system 140 signs the application (or blueprint, graph, component thereof) with their digital certificate, the system 10 countersigns the media application with their digital certificate, and the component provider system 130 signs the media application with their digital certificate. The system 10 is operable to only execute the blueprint only if all digital signatures (made by the digital certificates) are valid. Security may be derived from the digital certificates and chain of trust established thereby, as only signed components, blueprints and graphs may be executed by system 10 in some embodiments.” – paragraph [0244] of Eksten
wherein the processor enables access of the one or more workflows to the first computing device in response to the received consent of the acceptance requirement of the at least one generated manifest.
“Accordingly, in this example, the gas company operating the user computing system 140 signs the application (or blueprint, graph, component thereof) with their digital certificate, the system 10 countersigns the media application with their digital certificate, and the component provider system 130 signs the media application with their digital certificate. The system 10 is operable to only execute the blueprint only if all digital signatures (made by the digital certificates) are valid. Security may be derived from the digital certificates and chain of trust established thereby, as only signed components, blueprints and graphs may be executed by system 10 in some embodiments.” – paragraph [0244] of Eksten
Regarding dependent claim 2, Eksten discloses transmitting the one or more workflows to the one or more computer devices by the processor comprises publishing the one or more workflows to an access medium, wherein the access medium comprises one or more of: a platform, a tenant of the first computing device, and a tenant of the one or more computing devices.
platform discloses as a “user interface for a repository” - Fig. 7 and paragraph [0198] of Eksten
Regarding dependent claim 3, Eksten discloses the platform comprises a browsable repository of descriptions of the one or more workflows, and wherein the platform further comprises one or both of: a public platform and a private platform.
“user interface for a repository” - Fig. 7 and paragraph [0198] of Eksten, the platform of Eksten is by definition is one of public or private
Regarding dependent claim 4, Eksten discloses the public platform comprises a shared location wherein the published one or more workflows is viewable by each of the one or more computer devices.
“user interface for a repository” - Fig. 7 and paragraph [0198] of Eksten
Regarding dependent claim 5, Eksten discloses the private platform comprises a shared location wherein the published one or more workflows is viewable by a portion of the one or more computer devices.
“user interface for a repository” - Fig. 7 and paragraph [0198] of Eksten
Regarding dependent claim 6, Eksten discloses the tenant of the first computing device comprises an environment of the first computing device remote from the workflow server.
The language of claim 2 states the following: “comprises one or more of: a platform, a tenant of the first computing device, and a tenant of the one or more computing devices.”The broadest most reasonable interpretation of that language would require only one of a platform, a tenant of the first computing device, or a tenant of the one or more computing devices. Limiting any of those options individually does not impose any requirement that that option is chosen and thereby does not require the broadest most reasonable interpretation to include said limitations. Thus, the discussions of how Eksten teaches the “platform” option in the claims is enough to reject claim 2 and the claims that depend upon the language “comprises one or more of: a platform, a tenant of the first computing device, and a tenant of the one or more computing devices.” found in claim 2.
Regarding dependent claim 7, Eksten discloses the tenant of the one or more computing devices comprises an environment of the one or more computing devices remote from the workflow server.
The language of claim 2 states the following: “comprises one or more of: a platform, a tenant of the first computing device, and a tenant of the one or more computing devices.”The broadest most reasonable interpretation of that language would require only one of a platform, a tenant of the first computing device, or a tenant of the one or more computing devices. Limiting any of those options individually does not impose any requirement that that option is chosen and thereby does not require the broadest most reasonable interpretation to include said limitations. Thus, the discussions of how Eksten teaches the “platform” option in the claims is enough to reject claim 2 and the claims that depend upon the language “comprises one or more of: a platform, a tenant of the first computing device, and a tenant of the one or more computing devices.” found in claim 2.
Regarding dependent claim 8, Eksten discloses the visibility field is configured as visible or hidden or a combination thereof; wherein the visibility field marked as visible comprises a disclosure of the one more or user-configuration requirement and the one or more data from the one or more computing devices that the workflow server will access, and wherein the visibility marked as hidden comprises a disclosure of only the input-parameter field and the output-parameter field.
The language of claim 1 states the following: “wherein the one or more user-configuration requirement comprises one or more of, a third-party interaction field, a credentials field, an input-parameter field, an output-parameter field, visibility field, a synchronicity field, and a sharing-type field;”The broadest most reasonable interpretation of that language would require only one of a third-party interaction field, a credentials field, an input-parameter field, an output-parameter field, visibility field, a synchronicity field, or a sharing-type field. Limiting any of those options individually does not impose any requirement that that option is chosen and thereby does not require the broadest most reasonable interpretation to include said limitations. Thus, the discussions of how Eksten teaches the “input-parameter field” and “output parameter field” options in the claims is enough to reject claim 1 and the claims that depend upon the language “a third-party interaction field, a credentials field, an input-parameter field, an output-parameter field, visibility field, a synchronicity field, and a sharing-type field;” found in claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 9, Eksten discloses the sharing type field designates the one or more workflows as tenanted, exported, or linked; wherein the tenanted designation comprises executing the one or more workflows on the workflow server, wherein the exported designation comprises executing the one or more workflows on a server of the one or more computing devices, and wherein the linked designation comprises executing the one or more workflows on the server of the one or more computing devices and further comprises the one or more workflows linked to the server of the one or more computing devices such that the workflow server provides an update of the one or more workflows to the server of the one or more computing devices.
The language of claim 1 states the following: “wherein the one or more user-configuration requirement comprises one or more of, a third-party interaction field, a credentials field, an input-parameter field, an output-parameter field, visibility field, a synchronicity field, and a sharing-type field;”The broadest most reasonable interpretation of that language would require only one of a third-party interaction field, a credentials field, an input-parameter field, an output-parameter field, visibility field, a synchronicity field, or a sharing-type field. Limiting any of those options individually does not impose any requirement that that option is chosen and thereby does not require the broadest most reasonable interpretation to include said limitations. Thus, the discussions of how Eksten teaches the “input-parameter field” and “output parameter field” options in the claims is enough to reject claim 1 and the claims that depend upon the language “a third-party interaction field, a credentials field, an input-parameter field, an output-parameter field, visibility field, a synchronicity field, and a sharing-type field;” found in claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 10 and dependent claims 11-18, the claims are substantially similar to claims 1-9. Thus, claims 10-18 are rejected along the same rationale as claims 1-9.
Regarding independent claim 19, Eksten discloses a method for sharing a workflow with a manifest, the method comprising: configuring and generating, by one or more processors at least one manifest wherein the at least one generated manifest comprises: (1) an agreement for accessing one or more data, and (2) one or more user-configuration requirements;
“blueprint” corresponds to manifest – paragraphs [0249]-[0255] of Eksten
“blueprints” must be signed using “digital certificates” by all parties in order to be executed by the system – paragraph [0244] of Eksten
“blueprints” contain a reference to a solution set of components which include user configuration requirements – paragraph [0251] of Eksten
receiving, by the one or more processors, a request to access to one or more workflows;
“requesting user” for “graphs” – paragraph [0215] of Eksten
generating, by the one or more processors, and based at least in part on the receiving the request to access the one or more workflows and based at least in part on the at least one generated manifest, an acceptance requirement of the agreement and the one or more user-configuration requirements:
“This allows a user to use the technology across departments, groups and companies depending on the conditions of the license associated with the various components 24 of the graphs 28.” – paragraph [0215] of Eksten
“The job manager 50 is configured to provide job/engine dispatch, failover, tracking and reporting. The job manager 50 dispatches cloud engines 36 based on available resources, system availability, processing capability, available licenses in the license pool 44 maintained by the license server 42. In particular, the job manager 48 dispatches cloud engines 36 based on the latest or appropriate graph blueprints 28 registered with production repository 32 and available licenses in the license pool 44.” – paragraph [0217] of Eksten (emphasis added), see also paragraph [0237] of Eksten
“blueprints” must be signed using “digital certificates” by all parties in order to be executed by the system – paragraph [0244] of Eksten
delivering, by the one or more processors and based at least in part on the receiving the request to access the one or more workflows, and based at least in part on the generating the at least one manifest, the acceptance requirement;
“blueprints” must be signed using “digital certificates” by all parties in order to be executed by the system – paragraph [0244] of Eksten
receiving, by the one or more processors, a consent of the acceptance requirement; and
“Accordingly, in this example, the gas company operating the user computing system 140 signs the application (or blueprint, graph, component thereof) with their digital certificate, the system 10 countersigns the media application with their digital certificate, and the component provider system 130 signs the media application with their digital certificate. The system 10 is operable to only execute the blueprint only if all digital signatures (made by the digital certificates) are valid. Security may be derived from the digital certificates and chain of trust established thereby, as only signed components, blueprints and graphs may be executed by system 10 in some embodiments.” – paragraph [0244] of Eksten
responsive to receiving the consent of the acceptance requirement, enabling access of the one or more workflows.
“Accordingly, in this example, the gas company operating the user computing system 140 signs the application (or blueprint, graph, component thereof) with their digital certificate, the system 10 countersigns the media application with their digital certificate, and the component provider system 130 signs the media application with their digital certificate. The system 10 is operable to only execute the blueprint only if all digital signatures (made by the digital certificates) are valid. Security may be derived from the digital certificates and chain of trust established thereby, as only signed components, blueprints and graphs may be executed by system 10 in some embodiments.” – paragraph [0244] of Eksten
Regarding dependent claim 20, Eksten discloses storing, by the one or more processors, the one or more workflows in at least one workflow file.
“media application” and “computing application” as discussed are “workflows” – paragraphs [0247], [0249], and [0251] of Eksten, all of the components and information for said application are stored in the repository – paragraphs [0070] and [0186]
Regarding dependent claim 21, Eksten discloses transmitting, by the one or more processors, the one or more workflows to one or more computing devices.
“The repository 32 stores components 24, compound components 26, blueprints 28a and graphs 28. As one example, the repository 32 may be a web services based repository accessible through a cloud computing system via external interfaces 38. As another example, the repository 32 may be stored on a local system. The deployment subsystem 14 may use one or more linked repositories 32 for version management, maintenance and deployment. The repository 32 is a hosted collection of components 24 and graphs 28 which are accessed by a protocol, identified as required, and transferred to the target host environment. As an illustrative analogy, a graph may be viewed as a recipe (i.e. template) listing different ingredients (i.e. components) and the repository 32 contains the blueprint 28a for the graph 28 and components thereof to provide the user with both the "recipe" and the "ingredients" listed in the "recipe".” – paragraph [0195] (emphasis added)
Regarding dependent claim 22, Eksten discloses publishing, by the one or more processors the one or more workflows to an access medium.
platform discloses as a “user interface for a repository” - Fig. 7 and paragraph [0198] of Eksten
Regarding dependent claim 24, Eksten discloses the one or more user-configuration requirements comprises one or more of: a third-party interaction field, a credentials field, an input parameter field, an output parameter field, visibility field, a synchronicity field, a sharing-type field.
“The software development kit 20 may be used to define the components 24, data containers 56, pins, graphs 28, blue prints 28a, and solution sets (each generally referred to as components). Each component defines a computing processing mechanism for processing data containers 56 of data at application runtime. Each graph 28 or blueprint 28a comprises a reference to a solution set of components, where the solution set of components is a set of particular versions of components.” – paragraph [0251] of Eksten. The citation provided discloses at least an input-parameter field and an output-parameter field.
Regarding independent claim 29 and dependent claims 30-32, and 34, the claims are substantially similar to claims 19-22, and 24. Thus, claims 29-32, and 34 are rejected along the same rationale as claims 19-22, and 24.
Regarding independent claim 39 and dependent claims 40-43, the claims are substantially similar to claims 19-22, and 24. Thus, claims 39-43 are rejected along the same rationale as claims 19-22, and 24.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA D CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4133. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00 M-F.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached on (571) 272-3744. 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.
/JOSHUA D CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/ADAM L BASEHOAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992