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
This office action is in response to the amendments filed on 05/18/2026.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are objected to.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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.
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 11-12, 15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter C. Johnson, II et al. (US 2005/0198149 A1), hereinafter Johnson, in view of Zhiqiang Zhu (US 2014/0297863 A1), hereinafter Zhu.
For claim 1, Johnson teaches a device (Johnson, Fig. 3), comprising:
one or more memories (Johnson, Fig. 3 item 320); and
one or more processors (Johnson, Fig. 3 item 310), coupled to the one or more memories, configured to:
read a configuration file (Johnson, Fig. 2A step 610 and paragraph 22);
determine, based on reading the configuration file, one or more parameters of the configuration file (Johnson, Fig. 2A step 620 and paragraph 22); and
construct, based on the one or more parameters, a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) route (Johnson, Fig. 2A step 640 and paragraph 22. See also Fig. 2C and paragraph 25.); and the configuration file may identify which HTTP paths on the server are to be associated with (Johnson, Fig. and paragraph 15 teach the configuration file may identify which HTTP paths on the server are to be associated with (or "mapped to") which bots 110 and the commands that may be received from such bots.).
Wei further teaches create, based on the one or more parameters, code defining one or more Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) paths of an HTTP route (Zhu, Fig. 3 steps 302-305 and paragraphs 26, 29. See also paragraph 14.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught in Johnson with create, based on the one or more parameters, code defining one or more Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) paths of an HTTP route taught in Zhu. Because both references teach HTTP path, Zhu explicitly teaches creating code defining HTTP path of an HTTP route.
For claim 4, Johnson and Zhu further teach the device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: assign an identifier to the HTTP route (Johnson, Fig. 2A and paragraph 23.).
For claim 5, Johnson and Zhu further teach the device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: store or cache the code defining the one or more HTTP paths while constructing the HTTP route (Johnson, Fig. 2A and paragraphs 14-15.).
For claim 8, Johnson teaches a method, comprising:
reading, by a device, a configuration file (Johnson, Fig. 2A step 610 and paragraph 22);
determining, by the device, one or more objects of the configuration file (Johnson, Fig. 2A step 620 and paragraph 22);
determining, by the device, one or more parameters of the one or more objects (Johnson, Fig. 2A step 630 and paragraph 22); and
construct, based on the one or more parameters, a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) route (Johnson, Fig. 2A step 640 and paragraph 22. See also Fig. 2C and paragraph 25.) and the configuration file may identify which HTTP paths on the server are to be associated with (Johnson, Fig. and paragraph 15 teach the configuration file may identify which HTTP paths on the server are to be associated with (or "mapped to") which bots 110 and the commands that may be received from such bots.).
Wei further teaches create, based on the one or more parameters, code defining one or more Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) paths of an HTTP route (Zhu, Fig. 3 steps 302-305 and paragraphs 26, 29. See also paragraph 14.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught in Johnson with create, based on the one or more parameters, code defining one or more Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) paths of an HTTP route taught in Zhu. Because both references teach HTTP path, Zhu explicitly teaches creating code defining HTTP path of an HTTP route.
For claim 11, Johnson and Zhu further teach the method of claim 8, further comprising: assigning an identifier to the HTTP route (Johnson, Fig. 2A and paragraph 23.).
For claim 12, Johnson and Zhu further teach the method of claim 8, further comprising: storing or caching the code defining the one or more HTTP paths while constructing the HTTP route (Johnson, Fig. 2A and paragraphs 14-15.).
For claim 15, Johnson teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Johnson, Fig. 3 item 320) storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising:
one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device (Johnson, Fig. 3 item 310), cause the device to:
read a configuration file (Johnson, Fig. 2A step 610 and paragraph 22);
determine, based on reading the configuration file, one or more parameters of the configuration file (Johnson, Fig. 2A step 620 and paragraph 22); and
construct, based on the one or more parameters, a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) route (Johnson, Fig. 2A step 640 and paragraph 22. See also Fig. 2C and paragraph 25.); and the configuration file may identify which HTTP paths on the server are to be associated with (Johnson, Fig. and paragraph 15 teach the configuration file may identify which HTTP paths on the server are to be associated with (or "mapped to") which bots 110 and the commands that may be received from such bots.).
Wei further teaches create, based on the one or more parameters, code defining one or more Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) paths of an HTTP route (Zhu, Fig. 3 steps 302-305 and paragraphs 26, 29. See also paragraph 14.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught in Johnson with create, based on the one or more parameters, code defining one or more Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) paths of an HTTP route taught in Zhu. Because both references teach HTTP path, Zhu explicitly teaches creating code defining HTTP path of an HTTP route.
For claim 18, Johnson and Zhu further teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the one or more instructions further cause the device to: assign an identifier to the HTTP route (Johnson, Fig. 2A and paragraph 23.).
For claim 19, Johnson and Zhu further teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the one or more instructions further cause the device to: store or cache the code defining the one or more HTTP paths while constructing the HTTP route (Johnson, Fig. 2A and paragraphs 14-15.).
10. Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter C. Johnson, II et al. (US 2005/0198149 A1), hereinafter Johnson, in view of Zhiqiang Zhu (US 2014/0297863 A1), hereinafter Zhu and Kevin Joseph Fischer et al. (USPN 6,701,454 B1), hereinafter Fischer.
For claim 3, Johnson and Zhu teach all the limitations of parent claim 1. Johnson and Zhu do not explicitly teach add at least one of an exception handler or an exception handling routine.
However, Fischer explicitly teaches add at least one of an exception handler or an exception handling routine (Fischer, Fig. 2 and page 5 lines 35-38.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught in Johnson and Zhu with add at least one of an exception handler or an exception handling routine taught in Fischer to have add at least one of an exception handler or an exception handling routine to the HTTP route to clean up, or fix, the cause of the failure and return the user to a state before the failure [Fischer: background].
For claim 10, Johnson and Zhu teach all the limitations of parent claim 8. Johnson and Zhu do not explicitly teach add at least one of an exception handler or an exception handling routine.
However, Fischer explicitly teaches add at least one of an exception handler or an exception handling routine (Fischer, Fig. 2 and page 5 lines 35-38.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught in Johnson and Zhu with add at least one of an exception handler or an exception handling routine taught in Fischer to have add at least one of an exception handler or an exception handling routine to the HTTP route to clean up, or fix, the cause of the failure and return the user to a state before the failure [Fischer: background].
For claim 17, Johnson and Zhu teach all the limitations of parent claim 15. Johnson and Zhu do not explicitly teach add at least one of an exception handler or an exception handling routine.
However, Fischer explicitly teaches add at least one of an exception handler or an exception handling routine (Fischer, Fig. 2 and page 5 lines 35-38.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught in Johnson and Zhu with add at least one of an exception handler or an exception handling routine taught in Fischer to have add at least one of an exception handler or an exception handling routine to the HTTP route to clean up, or fix, the cause of the failure and return the user to a state before the failure [Fischer: background].
11. Claims 6-7, 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peter C. Johnson, II et al. (US 2005/0198149 A1), hereinafter Johnson, in view of Zhiqiang Zhu (US 2014/0297863 A1), hereinafter Zhu and Alban HERMET-CHAVANNE et al. (US 2018/0181375 A1), hereinafter HERMET-CHAVANNE.
For claim 6, Johnson and Zhu teach all the limitations of parent claim 1. Johnson and Zhu teach creating code defining the one or more HTTP paths of the HTTP route. Johnson and Zhu do not explicitly teach construct, based on a first parameter of the one or more parameters, a first HTTP path of the HTTP route; construct, based on a second parameter of the one or more parameters, a second HTTP path of the HTTP route; and construct the HTTP route to include the first HTTP path and the second HTTP path.
However, HERMET-CHAVANNE explicitly teaches construct, based on a first parameter of the one or more parameters, a first HTTP path of the HTTP route; construct, based on a second parameter of the one or more parameters, a second HTTP path of the HTTP route; and construct the HTTP route to include the first HTTP path and the second HTTP path (HERMET-CHAVANNE, Fig. 1a.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught in Johnson and Zhu with construct, based on a first parameter of the one or more parameters, a first HTTP path of the HTTP route; construct, based on a second parameter of the one or more parameters, a second HTTP path of the HTTP route; and construct the HTTP route to include the first HTTP path and the second HTTP path taught in HERMET-CHAVANNE. Because all references teach HTTP route, HERMET-CHAVANNE explicitly teaches construct the HTTP route to include the first HTTP path and the second HTTP path.
For claim 7, Johnson and Zhu teach all the limitations of parent claim 1. Johnson and Zhu do not explicitly teach add core logic, required to complete the HTTP route, to the HTTP route.
However, HERMET-CHAVANNE explicitly teaches add core logic, required to complete the HTTP route, to the code defining the one or more HTTP paths (HERMET-CHAVANNE, Fig. 1a.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught in Johnson with add core logic, required to complete the HTTP route, to the HTTP route taught in HERMET-CHAVANNE. Because all refences teach HTTP route, HERMET-CHAVANNE explicitly teaches add core logic, required to complete the HTTP route, to the HTTP route.
For claim 13, Johnson and Zhu teach all the limitations of parent claim 8. Johnson and Zhu teach creating code defining the one or more HTTP paths of the HTTP route. Johnson and Zhu do not explicitly teach construct, based on a first parameter of the one or more parameters, a first HTTP path of the HTTP route; construct, based on a second parameter of the one or more parameters, a second HTTP path of the HTTP route; and construct the HTTP route to include the first HTTP path and the second HTTP path.
However, HERMET-CHAVANNE explicitly teaches construct, based on a first parameter of the one or more parameters, a first HTTP path of the HTTP route; construct, based on a second parameter of the one or more parameters, a second HTTP path of the HTTP route; and construct the HTTP route to include the first HTTP path and the second HTTP path (HERMET-CHAVANNE, Fig. 1a.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught in Johnson and Zhu with construct, based on a first parameter of the one or more parameters, a first HTTP path of the HTTP route; construct, based on a second parameter of the one or more parameters, a second HTTP path of the HTTP route; and construct the HTTP route to include the first HTTP path and the second HTTP path taught in HERMET-CHAVANNE. Because all references teach HTTP route, HERMET-CHAVANNE explicitly teaches construct the HTTP route to include the first HTTP path and the second HTTP path.
For claim 14, Johnson and Zhu teach all the limitations of parent claim 8. Johnson and Zhu do not explicitly teach add core logic, required to complete the HTTP route, to the HTTP route.
However, HERMET-CHAVANNE explicitly teaches adding core logic, required to complete the HTTP route, to the code defining the one or more HTTP paths (HERMET-CHAVANNE, Fig. 1a.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught in Johnson and Zhu with add core logic, required to complete the HTTP route, to the HTTP route taught in HERMET-CHAVANNE. Because all references teach HTTP route, HERMET-CHAVANNE explicitly teaches add core logic, required to complete the HTTP route, to the HTTP route.
For claim 20, Johnson and Zhu teach all the limitations of parent claim 15. Johnson and Zhu teach creating code defining the one or more HTTP paths of the HTTP route. Johnson and Zhu do not explicitly teach construct, based on a first parameter of the one or more parameters, a first HTTP path of the HTTP route; construct, based on a second parameter of the one or more parameters, a second HTTP path of the HTTP route; and construct the HTTP route to include the first HTTP path and the second HTTP path.
However, HERMET-CHAVANNE explicitly teaches construct, based on a first parameter of the one or more parameters, a first HTTP path of the HTTP route; construct, based on a second parameter of the one or more parameters, a second HTTP path of the HTTP route; and construct the HTTP route to include the first HTTP path and the second HTTP path (HERMET-CHAVANNE, Fig. 1a.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught in Johnson and Zhu with construct, based on a first parameter of the one or more parameters, a first HTTP path of the HTTP route; construct, based on a second parameter of the one or more parameters, a second HTTP path of the HTTP route; and construct the HTTP route to include the first HTTP path and the second HTTP path taught in HERMET-CHAVANNE. Because all refences teach HTTP route, HERMET-CHAVANNE explicitly teaches construct the HTTP route to include the first HTTP path and the second HTTP path.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 2, 9 and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 2, 9 and 16 are considered allowable because the prior art does not teach limitations including:
"add, based on one or more attributes related to an HTTP action, an HTTP verb declaration to the HTTP route".
Response to Arguments
13. Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
14. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILL W LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8749. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
/WILL W LIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights