DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1 – 20 are pending for examination.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejection below cites particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: it does not define “computer-readable media”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first Application Programming Interface (API) to” in claims 1 – 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites
A computing system, comprising:
a first computing device;
a memory in the first computing device;
a first, object-oriented, software application executing on the first computing device that maintains objects in the memory of the first computing device, the first software application comprising:
a first Application Programmatic Interface (API) to convert between objects in the memory and data in a relational database, and transmit requests to perform one or more operations involving the data in the relational database corresponding to the objects in the memory; and
a decorator layer in communication with the first API to identify the objects in the memory corresponding to the transmitted requests to perform one or more operations involving the data in the relational database.
Step 1: the claim is directed to a system which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A:
Prong 1: the limitations of " a first Application Programmatic Interface (API) to convert between objects in the memory and data in a relational database ", “a decorator layer in communication with the first API to identify the objects in the memory corresponding to the transmitted requests to perform one or more operations involving the data in the relational database” are all functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind including observations and with or without the use of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
Prong 2: the additional elements of “first, object-oriented, software application"; and “transmit requests to perform one or more operations involving the data in the relational database corresponding to the objects in the memory” are mere data gathering which the courts have held to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional elements of “A computing system”, “a first computing device”; “a memory in the first computing device”; “executing on the first computing device that maintains objects in the memory of the first computing device” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Thus, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: the additional elements of “first, object-oriented, software application"; and “transmit requests to perform one or more operations involving the data in the relational database corresponding to the objects in the memory” are mere data gathering which the courts have held to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional elements of “A computing system”, “a first computing device”; “a memory in the first computing device”; “executing on the first computing device that maintains objects in the memory of the first computing device” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to claim 2. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the first API are all functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind including observations and with or without the use of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion to transmit requests to perform one or more operations involving data in the relational database corresponding to the objects comprises transmitting requests to perform one or more operations selected from a group of operations consisting of: create, read, update, delete, and upsert operations are mere data gathering which the courts have held to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As to claim 3. The computing system of claim 1, further comprising:
a second computing device; persistent data store, accessible to the second computing device, that holds the relational database; and
a second software application executing on the second computing device with access to the data in the relational database merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, the second software application comprising a second API to receive the requests from the first API to perform the one or more operations involving the data in the relational database merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As to claim 4. The computing system of claim 1, further comprising:
a local data store accessible to the first computing device merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea; and
wherein the first software application further comprises a third API via which to transfer copies of the corresponding objects to the local data store merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As to claim 5. The computing system of claim 4, wherein the first software application is a web browser application executing on the first computing device, and wherein the third API is selected from a group of world wide web APIs consisting of: an IndexedDB API, a File API, and a Local Storage API merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As to claim 6. The computing system of claim 4, wherein the first software application further comprises a fourth API in communication with the decorator layer and the third API to synchronize the copied objects in the local data store with the data involved in the requests to perform the one or more operations with the relational database merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As to claim 7. The computing system of claim 6, wherein the fourth API further is in communication with the decorator layer to synchronize the corresponding objects in the memory with the data involved in the requests to perform the one or more operations with the relational database merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As to claim 8. The computing system of claim 6, wherein the first software application comprises a user interface via which to receive user input merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea to access at least some of the data involved in the requests to perform the one or more operations with the relational database merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d); and
the first software application accessing the at least some of the data from one of:
the local data store responsive to the fourth API in communication with the decorator layer to synchronize the corresponding copied objects in the local data store with the data involved in the requests to perform the one or more operations with the relational database merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d), and
the memory responsive to the fourth API in communication with the decorator layer to synchronize the corresponding objects in the memory with the data involved in the requests to perform the one or more operations with the relational database (only need to meet one limitation).
As to claim 9. this is a computer-implemented method claim of claim 1. See rejection for claim 1 above.
As to claims 10 – 15, they recites similar scope of claims 2 – 4 and 6 – 8 above. See rejection for claims 2 – 4 and 6 – 8 above respectively.
As to claim 16. this is a non-transitory computer-readable media claim of claim 1. See rejection for claim 1 above. The additional elements of one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions, when executed by one or more processors merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
As to claims 17 – 18, they recites similar scope of claims 3 - 4 above. See rejection for claims 3 - 4 above respectively.
As to claims 19 – 20, they recites similar scope of claims 6 - 7 above. See rejection for claims 6 - 7 above respectively.
Claims 16 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As to claim 16, as object in specification above, the specification does not define “computer readable medium”, and based on the broadest reasonable interpretation, it includes signal or carrier wave which is non-statutory subject matter. Therefore, the claimed program product appears to be software per se which is non-statutory subject matter.
As to claims 17 – 20, they depend on claim 16. They do not remedy the deficiency of claim 16. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reason above.
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 5, 9 – 11 and 16 - 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Omari et al., (US PUB 2020/0110757 hereinafter Al-Omari) in view of Patnude, (US PUB 2006/0047780).
As to claim 1, Al-Omari teaches a computing system, comprising:
a first computing device (“...the object-storage data mapper executes on devices of a data warehouse across one or more physical devices or nodes (computing devices) for execution over one or more network connections.” Para. 0045. Note: devices/nodes would comprise first device);
a memory in the first computing device (“.The object storage data can be transformed and maintained as database data in a database construct as a form of cache to the native object storage...” para. 0051);
a first, [object-oriented], software application executing on the first computing device that maintains objects in the memory (“...A mapper maps the object storage formatted requests into database statements ...” abstract) and (“..The mapper 130 is responsible for mapping the storage object statements and structures (buckets, storage object identifiers, etc.) into DBMS recognized statements and structures (tables, columns, rows, partitions, views, materialized views, etc.).” para. 0025) and (“..the object-storage data mapper is all or of or any combination of: object-database API service 120, the mapper 130, and/or the DBMS 140” para. 0047) of the first computing device, the first software application comprising:
a first Application Programmatic Interface (API) to convert between objects in the memory and data in a relational database (“..That storage object-formatted data can then be transformed into a relational table using Structured Query Language (SQL) SELECT statements by the mapper 130 and integrated in the relational DBMS-formatted statements for execution by the DBMS 140....” para. 0030), and transmit requests to perform one or more operations involving the data in the relational database corresponding to the objects in the memory (“....the mapper 130 provides the request in the translated statements and structures to the DBMS 140 over C....” para. 0025); and
a decorator layer in communication with the first API to identify the objects in the memory corresponding to the transmitted requests to perform one or more operations involving the data in the relational database (“In an embodiment of 322 and at 323, the object storage to relational storage integration service maintains mappings for the object identifiers to dynamically reproduce the relational database datasets when subsequent requests are made for the object storage formatted data” para. 0068 and elements 322 - 324 of figure 3 and associated text. Note: mapper identify or maintains the object identifier of the request so it can perform one or more operations by reproducing subsequent requests).
While Al-Omari teaches the mapper can convert objects into RDBMS, Al-Omari does not explicitly but Patnude teaches the application is object-oriented (“The result of the above technologies is an object-oriented HTTP Servlet and client-interface software package that use generally accepted industry standard Internet-centric protocols and software engineering standards to develop and deploy web-based applications...” para. 0046).
It 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 was made to modify Al-Omari by applying the teachings of Patnude because Patnude ‘s object-oriented application can implement on Web environment that use variety of data objects and Patnude also teaches the same invention of an application executing a device convert or serialize requests to be understandable to the destination before sending (figure 1).
As to claim 2, Al-Omari modified by Patnude teaches the computing system of claim 1, wherein the first API to transmit requests to perform one or more operations involving data in the relational database corresponding to the objects comprises transmitting requests to perform one or more operations
Al-Omari does not but Patnude teaches selected from a group of operations consisting of: create, read, update, delete, and upsert operations (“...Insert, update and delete rules on views defined within the RDBMS” para. 0122).
It 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 was made to modify Al-Omari by applying the teachings of Patnude because Patnude would provide basic database operations to insert and update data in RDBMS (para. 0122).
As to claim 3, Al-Omari modified by Patnude teaches the computing system of claim 1, Al-Omari does not but Patnude teaches further comprising:
a second computing device (element application server 100 of figure 1 and associated text);
a persistent data store, accessible to the second computing device, that holds the relational database (figure 1 shows application server comprises and accessible to element 110 RDBMS); and
a second software application executing on the second computing device with access to the data in the relational database, the second software application comprising a second API to receive the requests from the first API to perform the one or more operations involving the data in the relational database ( figure 1 shows element 150 Object De-serializer which is second API receives request from element 244 and para. 0018).
It 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 was made to modify Al-Omari by applying the teachings of Patnude because Patnude would provide a client-server relationship so the server would maintain RDBMS for accessing by plurality of clients (para. 0168).
As to claim 5, Al-Omari modified by Patnude teaches The computing system of claim 4, Al-Omari does not but Patnude teaches wherein the first software application is a web browser application executing on the first computing device, and wherein the third API is selected from a group of world wide web APIs consisting of: an IndexedDB API, a File API, and a Local Storage API (“A persistent layer, application, or file on a web server, database server, or server farm that stores, updates, and retrieves information in the form of key-value pairs, records, or interpretable information in response to a set of instructions...” para. 0364 – 0369).
It 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 was made to modify Al-Omari by applying the teachings of Patnude because Patnude would provide web applications to manage multiple types of connections and files using APIs (para. 0364).
As to claim 9, this is a computer-implemented method claim of claim 1. See rejection for claim 1 above.
As to claims 10 - 11, these claims recite similar scope of claims 2 – 3. See rejection for claims 2 – 3 above.
As to claim 16, this is non-transitory computer-readable media claim of claim 1. See rejection for claim 1 above. Further, Al-Omari one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (“...The object storage to relational storage integration service represents executable instructions that are programmed within memory or a non-transitory computer-readable medium and executed by one or more hardware processors of a device.” Para. 0061 and figure 3).
As to claim 17, Al-Omari modified by Patnude teaches he one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 16, Al-Omari does not but Patnude teaches
executing a second software application on a second computing device (element application server 100 of figure 1 and associated text) with access to the data in the relational database (figure 1 shows application server comprises and accessible to element 110 RDBMS); and
receiving, at a second API of the second software application, the requests from the first API to perform the one or more operations involving the data in the relational database ( figure 1 shows element 150 Object De-serializer which is second API receives request from element 244 and para. 0018).
It 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 was made to modify Al-Omari by applying the teachings of Patnude because Patnude would provide a client-server relationship so the server would maintain RDBMS for accessing by plurality of clients (para. 0168).
Claims 4, 6 – 8, 12 – 15, 18 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Omari and Patnude, as applied to claims 1, 9 and 16, and further in view of Hamilton et al., (US PUB 2022/0191193 hereinafter Hamilton).
As to claim 4, Al-Omari modified by Patnude teaches the computing system of claim 1, AL-Omari teaches further comprising:
a local data store accessible to the first computing device (“...object storage... para. 0050); and
wherein the first software application further comprises a third API (“In an embodiment of 322 and at 323, the object storage to relational storage integration service maintains mappings for the object identifiers to dynamically reproduce the relational database datasets when subsequent requests are made for the object storage formatted data” para. 0068 and elements 322 - 324 of figure 3 and associated text).
Al-Omari does not but Hamilton teaches
via which to transfer copies of the corresponding objects to the local data store (“..In other examples, the session response may be transmitted along with the cookie...” para. 0049) and (“Internet cookies created by application programming interface (API) endpoints (e.g., gateways) may be utilized to track, personalize, and save information about clients accessing API services....” para. 0003) and (“... Submit requests to the application server...” para. 0136. Note: each request needs to be serialized/converted by an API before being sent).
It 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 was made to modify Al-Omari and Patnude by applying the teachings of Hamilton because Hamilton would provide copies of objects stored in local storage to be well-known for quick retrieving for subsequent requests (abstract).
As to claim 6, Al-Omari modified by Patnude and Hamilton teaches The computing system of claim 4, Al-Omari teaches wherein the first software application further comprises a fourth API in communication with the decorator layer and the third API to synchronize [the copied objects] in the local data store with the data involved in the requests to perform the one or more operations with the relational database (“In an embodiment of 322 and at 323, the object storage to relational storage integration service maintains mappings for the object identifiers to dynamically reproduce the relational database datasets when subsequent requests are made for the object storage formatted data” para. 0068 and elements 322 - 324 of figure 3 and associated text. Note: mapper synchronize by identify or maintains the object identifier of the request so it can perform one or more operations by reproducing subsequent requests).
Al-Omari and Patnude do not but Hamilton teaches the copied objects (“..In other examples, the session response may be transmitted along with the cookie...” para. 0049) and (“Internet cookies created by application programming interface (API) endpoints (e.g., gateways) may be utilized to track, personalize, and save information about clients accessing API services....” para. 0003) and (“... Submit requests to the application server...” para. 0136. Note: each request needs to be serialized/converted by an API before being sent).
See motivation for claim 4 above.
As to claim 7, Al-Omari modified by Patnude and Hamilton teaches The computing system of claim 6, Al-Omari teaches wherein the fourth API further is in communication with the decorator layer to synchronize [the corresponding objects] in the memory with the data involved in the requests to perform the one or more operations with the relational database (“In an embodiment of 322 and at 323, the object storage to relational storage integration service maintains mappings for the object identifiers to dynamically reproduce the relational database datasets when subsequent requests are made for the object storage formatted data” para. 0068 and elements 322 - 324 of figure 3 and associated text. Note: mapper synchronize by identify or maintains the object identifier of the request so it can perform one or more operations by reproducing subsequent requests).
Al-Omari and Patnude do not but Hamilton teaches the corresponding objects (“..In other examples, the session response may be transmitted along with the cookie...” para. 0049) and (“Internet cookies created by application programming interface (API) endpoints (e.g., gateways) may be utilized to track, personalize, and save information about clients accessing API services....” para. 0003) and (“... Submit requests to the application server...” para. 0136. Note: each request needs to be serialized/converted by an API before being sent).
See motivation for claim 4 above.
As to claim 8, Al-Omari modified by Patnude and Hamilton teaches The computing system of claim 6, Al-Omari teaches wherein the first software application comprises [a user interface via which to receive user input] to access at least some of the data involved in the requests to perform the one or more operations with the relational database (“.The object storage data can be transformed and maintained as database data in a database construct as a form of cache to the native object storage...” para. 0051); and
the first software application accessing the at least some of the data from one of:
the local data store responsive to the fourth API in communication with the decorator layer to synchronize [the corresponding copied] objects in the local data store with the data involved in the requests to perform the one or more operations with the relational database (“In an embodiment of 322 and at 323, the object storage to relational storage integration service maintains mappings for the object identifiers to dynamically reproduce the relational database datasets when subsequent requests are made for the object storage formatted data” para. 0068 and elements 322 - 324 of figure 3 and associated text. Note: mapper synchronize by identify or maintains the object identifier of the request so it can perform one or more operations by reproducing subsequent requests), and
the memory responsive to the fourth API in communication with the decorator layer to synchronize the corresponding objects in the memory with the data involved in the requests to perform the one or more operations with the relational database (only need to meet one limitation).
Al-Omari and Hamilton do not but teaches a user interface via which to receive user input (“...This provides the application client with a layout manager to manage, maintain, control, and respond to changes that occur within the user interface, or UI...” para. 0227).
See motivation for claim 1 above.
Al-Omari and Patnude do not but Hamilton teaches the copied objects (“..In other examples, the session response may be transmitted along with the cookie...” para. 0049) and (“Internet cookies created by application programming interface (API) endpoints (e.g., gateways) may be utilized to track, personalize, and save information about clients accessing API services....” para. 0003) and (“... Submit requests to the application server...” para. 0136. Note: each request needs to be serialized/converted by an API before being sent).
As to claims 12 - 15, these claims recite similar scope of claims 4, and 6 - 8 above respectively. See rejection for claims 4 and 6 – 8 above respectively.
As to claim 18, this claim recites similar scope of claim 4. See rejection for claim 4 above.
As to claims 19 - 20, these claims recite similar scope of claims 6 - 7. See rejection for claims 6 - 7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon request is considered to be pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
AGARWAL et asl., (US PUB 2020/0177476 hereinafter AGARWAL), discloses a method for web browser on mobile app to access database platform (title, abstract and figures 1 – 5).
Buchmann et al., (US PUB 2022/0405308 hereinafter Buchmann), acquiring data objects based on executing calls to corresponding programming interfaces (title, abstract and figures 1 – 10).
Kumar, (US PUB 2024/0264990), discloses a method for client application utilizing API module to send request to database server (title, abstract and figures 1 – 6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG N HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3763. The examiner can normally be reached 9:5-30.
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, KEVIN YOUNG can be reached at 571-270-3180. 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.
/PHUONG N HOANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2194 /KEVIN L YOUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights