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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 21 recites “transactions parameters”. It is believed this should read “transaction[[s]] parameters”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-2, 4-11 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0250947 to Bishop et al. (Bishop) in view of US 2021/0042096 to White et al. (White) in view of US 2007/0245323 to Bertelrud (Bertelrud).
Claims 1, 10 and 19: Bishop discloses a method for facilitating automated application generation, the method being implemented by at least one processor, the method comprising:
persisting, by the at least one processor, generated tenant infrastructures over a predetermine period of time (par. [0065] “data 532 associated with each virtual application 528A and 528B is provided to the database 530 ... and stored until it is requested".);
receiving, by the at least one processor via a graphical user interface, a request to generate an application, the request including at least one application requirement (par. [0062] “specific requests received form the client devices 540”, par. [0066] “the user operates a conventional browser application … to contact the server 502”);
identifying, by the at least one processor, tenant information that corresponds to the request based on the at least one application requirement, the tenant information including at least one infrastructure framework (par. [0062] “constructed in accordance with the tenant-specific metadata, which describes the particular tables, reports, interfaces and/or other features of the particular application 528”);
configuring, by the at least one processor, at least one component that corresponds to the at least one infrastructure framework based on the at least one application requirement (par. [0063] “populate the tables, reports or other features”);
automatically generating, by the at least one processor, the application by using the tenant information and the at least one component (par. [0065] “create and/or generate data-driven virtual applications 528”), wherein the generation of the application includes:
automatically detecting, by the at least one processor, required dependencies of the application (par. [0041] “identify the dependencies required to execute the tasks 112”);
mapping, by the at least one processor, the required dependencies of the application (par. [0044] “a list identifying dependency libraries … and classes … needed to execute the application code”);
automatically updating, by the at least one processor, the required dependencies of the application based on a result of the mapping (par. [0045] “the workers 126 to reconfigure themselves to the latest definition version”); and
automatically wiring, by the at least one processor, the updated required dependencies with the at least one component (par. [0045] “link the first task 202 to its corresponding dependencies”);
customizing, by the at least one processor, the generated application (par. [0065] “custom (or tenant-specific) screens 524”); and
generating, by the at least one processor, documentation for the generated application, the documentation including data that relates to at least one from among the tenant information, the at least one component, and the generated application (par. [0065] “metadata 538 that describes the particular features (e.g., reports, tables, functions, objects, … etc.”), wherein the documentation is generated as an application configuration file that includes formatting information related to the generated application (par. [0065] “defines the structure (e.g. the formatting … )”).
Bishop does not explicitly disclose provisioning the at least one override based on the requirement.
White teaches provisioning the at least one override (par. [0074] “plug mechanisms … to provide users with custom code that is executed and that augments default behavior”).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to generate the framework based on an infrastructure as code process. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as a known alternative method of deploying an infrastructure package which would have produced only the expected results.
Bishop and White do not explicitly teach:
comparing the identified tenant information to the persisted generated tenant infrastructures to determine whether the identified tenant information was previously generated;
when a determination is made that the identified tenant information was not previously generated; facilitating the automated application generation; and
when a determination is made that the identified tenant information was previously generated;
stopping, by the at least one processor, the facilitating of the automated application generation.
Bertelrud teaches:
persisting, by the at least one processor, generated tenant infrastructures over a predetermine period of time (par. [0040] “purged, for example, after the expiration of a prescribed period of time”);
comparing the identified information to persisted generated objects to determine whether the identified information was previously generated (par. [0040] “identify … desired object code files”);
when a determination is made that the identified tenant information was not previously generated; facilitating the automated application generation (par. [0044] “source code files … are locally compiled”); and
when a determination is made that the identified tenant information was previously generated;
stopping, by the at least one processor, the facilitating of the automated application generation (par. [0040] “provide desired object code”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to persist generated tenant information and facilitate generation of the information when it is not persisted Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to eliminate unnecessary processing (see e.g. Bertelrud par. [0022]).
Claims 2, 11 and 20: Bishop and White teach claims 1, 10 and 19, wherein the tenant information corresponds to cloud resource data that are associated with a user group, the user group relating to the request to generate the application (Bishop par. [0060] ““cloud-based” or other virtual systems”, par. [0057] “each tenant includes one or more users associated with … that respective tenant”).
Claims 4 and 13: Bishop and White teach claims 3 and 12, further comprising:
automatically generating, by the at least one processor, the at least one infrastructure framework as infrastructure as code (White par. [0076] “builds the package of the IaC … building a given infrastructure”),
identifying, by the at least one processor via the infrastructure as code, at least one from among a standardized tool, a standardized cloud component, and a standardized automation process (Bishop par. [0065] ““standard” or “universal” applications or objects”); and
generating, by the at least one processor via the infrastructure as code, at least one configurable application component and a corresponding service (Bishop par. [0065] “create and/or generate data-driven virtual applications 528”).
Claims 5 and 14: Bishop and White teach claims 1 and 10, wherein the at least one component includes at least one required infrastructure component, the at least one required infrastructure component including at least one from among a database instance, a server resource, and a secured path to store secured application data (Bishop par. [0065] “metadata 538 that describes the particular features (e.g., reports, tables, functions, objects, … etc.”, further note col. [0057] “data and services … can be securely isolated”).
Claims 6 and 15: Bishop and White teach claims 1 and 10, wherein the generating of the application further comprises:
generating, by the at least one processor, at least one base application structure by using the tenant information and the at least one component (Bishop par. [0065] “create and/or generate data-driven virtual applications 528”; and
generating, by the at least one processor, at least one default implementation for each of the at least one base application structure by using the tenant information, the at least one component, and a business context (Bishop par. [0065] “standard (or universal) screens 522”).
Claims 7 and 16: Bishop and White teach claims 6 and 15, wherein the at least one base application structure and the corresponding at least one default implementation are customized by provisioning the at least one application requirement (Bishop par. [0065] “custom (or tenant-specific) screens 524”, White par. [0074] “plug mechanisms … to provide users with custom code that is executed and that augments default behavior”).
Claims 8 and 17: Bishop and White teach claims 6 and 15, further comprising:
configuring, by the at least one processor, the at least one base application structure based on the required dependencies (Bishop par. [0036] “the application code is linked with the locally stored precompiled dependencies”).
Claims 9 and 18: Bishop and White teach claims 8 and 17, wherein the mapping of the dependencies is associated with a cloud computing environment (Bishop par. [0047] “updates the definition version of the first task 202”).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2019/0250947 to Bishop et al. (Bishop) in view of US 2021/0042096 to White et al. (White) in view of US 2007/0245323 to Bertelrud (Bertelrud) in view of US 2018/01584138 to Busevs et al. (Busevs).
Claim 21: Bishop, White and Bertelrud teach claim 1, but do not explicitly teach wherein the at least one application requirement defines transactions parameters consisted with a business context associated with a settlement system.
Busevs teaches:
an application requirement defining transaction parameters consisted with a business context associated with a settlement system (par. [0008] parameters passed to it … in relation to a loan transaction … for generating automated transaction processing”).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to define transaction parameters associated with a settlement system. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as a known business context which would have resulted in only the expected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)272-3728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 7:00am - 4:30pm and alternate Fridays 7:00am 3:30pm.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached at (571)272-3759. 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.
/JASON D MITCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199