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
Objections to the Drawings
In this regard, the corresponding written description of FIG. 9 at paragraphs [0111]-[0136] clearly disclose that the processor is configured to perform embodiments of the present disclosure. As a result, the resulting processor is a new processor rather than a prior art processor. Therefore, Applicant submits that the objection to FIG. 9 should be withdrawn.
What is disclosed in pars. [0111]-[0136] are functions which may be performed by the general purpose computing device of figure 9. This description does not change the nature form or function of what is actually shown in figure 9. Accordingly all that is shown in figure 9 are prior art components of a prior art general purpose computing device.
Maybe we can also revise the language of the Fig. 9 description in the specification (not "Prior Art," of course), but I will leave it to you to decide what to do.
Amending par. [0111] to read “… the processor 701 runs executable program code 704 in the memory 703 to perform …”, and amend the figure to indicate an executable program labeled 704 and stored in memory 703 would overcome the objection.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant's arguments filed 3/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Office Action cites to Moser at paragraph [0036] for disclosing the recited "filtering rule." This cited portion of Moser describes that a lookup table 200 includes a name of an object 206 and an activation time 208. In this regard, Moser provides a table indicating which version of an object is currently active. However, Moser simply fails to disclose or suggest the feature of a filter rule that specifies that an object having a version number less than a target version is to be adjusted. That is, Moser fails to disclose or suggest "determining P to-be-adjusted subservices of the N sub services according to a filtering rule that specifies that a sub service having an identifier that is less than the target version identifier is to be adjusted," as recited in claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Moser discloses a timing method (e.g. “activation time 208”) in addition to or as an aspect of a filtering rule (e.g. par. [0035] “the change can be … implemented … when the activation data occurs”). Further, Moser’s filter rule specifies a subservice having an identifier (e.g. fig. 2A, 1st row version 1.0.0) which is less than a target version identifier 9e.g. fig. 2A 2nd row, version 1.0.1). Additionally, it is noted that Rork teaches an alternative filtering rule specifying a service having an identifier less than the target version (see e.g. col. 11, lines 36-38 “whether the desired software version and the installed software version differ”).
Drawings
Figure 9 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
While the figure is disclosed as capable of performing the invention, what is shown does not include representations of the invention. Note for example, the “executable program code” discussed in par. [0111] is not shown in the figure 8.
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0064360 to Moser (Moser) in view of US 9,766,874 to Rork et al. (Rork) in view of US 2020/0065090 to Klob et al. (Klob).
Claims 1, 9 and 17: Moser discloses a data processing method for an application, performed by a computer device, comprising:
obtaining a software installation package of a target application based on an adjustment instruction (par. [0050] “a request for configuration information”, par. [0041] “a set of database tables with each property of the CP”), the target application comprising N subservices, the software installation package comprising N database file sets in a one-to-one correspondence with the N subservices, the N database file sets being in a one-to-one correspondence with the N subservices, and N being a positive integer (see e.g. Fig. 1A);
adjusting, according to P database file sets of the N database file sets, P subservices of the N subservices to a version indicated by a target version identifier to obtain information of P adjusted subservices, P being a positive integer less than or equal to N (par. [0051] “when an update [to] the configuration object 320 is performed … provide the update to the configuration object 320”), the adjusting comprising:
determining P to-be-adjusted subservices of the N subservices according to a filtering rule that specifies that a subservice having an identifier that is less than the target version identifier is to be adjusted (par. [0036] “The lookup table 200 … includes a name of the object 206 and an activation time 208 … know which version is active by reading activation from times of all versions … a first version ends and a next version begins”, note e.g. the first two rows of Fig. 2B); and
storing the information of the P adjusted subservices in a database to obtain an adjusted target application (par. [0051] “provide the update to the configuration object 320 locally stored on the application 310”).
Moser does not disclose:
an adjustment instruction carrying a target version identifier for the target application.
Rork teaches:
an adjustment instruction carrying a target version identifier for the target application (col. 11, lines 46-47 “retrieves a next incremental software update”).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to include a target version identifier in an adjustment instruction. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as a known means of initiating an update which would have produced only the expected results.
Moser and Rork do not teach:
file sets being obtained from N images.
Kolb teaches:
file sets being obtained from images (par. [0065] “a selection is made from a list of available image versions”, par. [0066] “The image is then downloaded”).
It would have been obvious at the time of filing to obtain the database file sets from images. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as a known means of providing an update which would have produced only the expected results.
Claim 2, 10 and 18: Moser, Rork and Kolb teach claims 1, 9 and 17, wherein the adjusting further comprises:
determining an adapter matching a database file set corresponding to a target subservice according to a type of a database file in the database file set corresponding to the target subservice, the target subservice being any subservice in the P to-be-adjusted subservices (Moser par. [0049] “database tables are created based on the model 326 … a service 324 which may create, read, update, and delete the data stored based on the model”, par. [0050] “a version of the configuration object”, also see par. [0037]);
adjusting the target subservice by using the adapter matching the database file set corresponding to the target subservice to obtain information of the adjusted target subservice (Moser par. [0049] “database tables are created based on the model 326”); and
repeating the determining the adapter, and the adjusting the target subservice to adjust the P subservices in the N subservices to the version indicated by the target version identifier (Moser par. [0051] “provide the update to the configuration object 320 locally stored on the application 310”, it would at least have been obvious to repeat the process for multiple of the services).
Claims 3, 11 and 19: Moser, Rork and Klob teach claims 2, 10 and 18, wherein each of the N images comprises at least one database file, and each of the at least one database file carries an identifier of a corresponding database (par. [0049] “the version information of the configuration object 320”); and
the adjusting the target subservice comprises:
determining a version identifier interval according to a current version identifier of the target subservice and the target version identifier (e.g. Rork col. 11, lines 29-33 “identify the version of the configuration file … set a desired software version”, col. 11, lines 34-40 “determine whether the version of the configuration file is greater than the installed version”); and
calling the adapter matching the database file set corresponding to the target subservice, and executing at least one database file in the database file set corresponding to the target subservice to obtain the information of the adjusted target subservice (Moser par. [0051] “provide the update to the configuration object 320 locally stored on the application 310”), [and] a version identifier of the at least one database file belonging to the version identifier interval (Moser par. [0049] “version information … stored int the lookup table 314”).
Claims 4, 12 and 20: Moser, Rork and Klob teach claims 3, 11 and 19, wherein the database file set corresponding to the target subservice comprises a plurality of database files belonging to the version identifier interval (Moser par. [0049] “version information of the configuration object 320”, Rork col. 11, lines 46-47 “retrieves a next incremental software update”, also see col. 9, line 41-59); and
the calling comprises:
calling the adapter matching the database file set corresponding to the target subservice, and sequentially executing to-be-executed database files in a target order, to obtain the information of the adjusted target subservice (Moser par. [0051] “when an update [to] the configuration object 320 is performed … provide the update to the configuration object 320”, Rork col. 11, lines 46-47 “a next incremental software update”);
the to-be-executed database files comprising database files belonging to the version identifier interval in the database file set corresponding to the target subservice (Moser par. [0051] “provide the update to the configuration object 320 locally stored on the application 310”, Rork col. 11, line 53 “installs the software update”); and
the target order being determined according to an adjustment policy of the target subservice, and the adjustment policy of the target subservice being determined according to the current version identifier of the target subservice and the target version identifier (Rork col. 11, lines 46-47 “retrieves a next incremental software update”).
Claims 5 and 13: Moser, Rork and Kolb teach claims 4 and 12, wherein the identifier of each database file of the plurality of database files carries an adjustment type field (e.g. Moser par. [0053] “version field 401”; and the data processing method further comprises:
determining the adjustment policy according to the current version identifier of the target subservice and the target version identifier (Moser par. [0057] “identifying a currently active version of the configuration object”); and
sifting out the to-be-executed database file from the database file set corresponding to the target subservice according to the adjustment policy, the adjustment type field of the to-be-executed database file matching the adjustment policy (Rork col. 9, line 41-col. 10, line 51).
Claims 6 and 14: Moser, Rork and Kolb teach claims 1 and 9, wherein information of each of the P subservices carries a current version identifier (Moser par. [0055] “reading version information of a configuration object”); and
the data processing method further comprises:
based on successful adjustment of the P subservices, replacing each of current version identifiers of the P subservices with the target version identifier (Moser par. [0049] “version information … stored in the lookup table 314”).
Claims 7 and 15: Moser, Rork and Kolb teach claims 1 and 9, further comprising one of:
obtaining a target image corresponding to a target subservice in the N subservices (Klob par. [0065] “a selection is made from a list of available image versions”); creating a target container based on the target image (Klob par. [0066] “all applications/services are created as docker containers”), and extracting a database file from the target image through the target container to obtain a database file set of the target subservice (Moser par. [0041] “a set of database tables with each property of the CP”, Klob par. [0066] “The image is then downloaded”), the database file set of the target subservice comprising: database files of different versions under the target subservice (Rork Fig. 4A-B), the database file in the database file set of the target subservice being named according to a version identifier to which the database file belongs (Moser par. [0049] “version information”); and generating the software installation package of the target application according to the database file set of the target subservice (Moser par. [0051] “when an update [to] the configuration object 320 is performed … provide the update to the configuration object 320”);
and
receiving the software installation package from a target computer device (Moser par. [0049] “the lookup table 314 of the application”); the target computer device being configured to obtain the target image corresponding to the target subservice in the N subservices (Klob par. [0066] “the image is then downloaded”); creating the target container based on the target image (Klob par. [0066] “all applications/services are created as docker containers”), and extracting the database file from the target image through the target container, to obtain the database file set of the target subservice (Moser par. [0041] “a set of database tables with each property of the CP”, Klob par. [0066] “The image is then downloaded”), the database file set of the target subservice comprising: the database files of different versions under the target subservice, the database file in the database file set of the target subservice being named according to the version identifier to which the database file belongs (Rork Fig. 4A-B, Moser col. [0036] “a name of the object 206”); and generating the software installation package of the target application according to the database file set of the target subservice (Moser par. [0051] “when an update [to] the configuration object 320 is performed … provide the update to the configuration object 320”).
Claims 8 and 16: Moser, Rork and Klob teach claims 7 and 15, wherein the N subservices belong to M service types, M is a positive integer less than or equal to N (Moser par. [0026] “the different services 111-118 perform different/unique functions”); and
the software installation package of the target application is obtained by classifying and packaging the N database file sets according to the M service types (Moser par. [0049] “database tables are created based on the model 326”).
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
Prosecution Insights