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 application filed on 12/21/2023.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims.
Double Patenting
5. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (WAJCERPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (WAJCERPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (WAJCERPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
6. Claims 1-4, 8-11 and 15-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-6, 8, 12-13, 15 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 10182009. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations in claims 1-4, 8-11 and 15-17 of the instant application recites limitations which reads on limitations of claims 1, 5-6, 8, 12-13, 15 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 10182009. The claimed limitations recited in the present application are transparently found in U.S. Patent No. 10182009 with obvious wording variations.
7. Claims 1-4, 8-9 and 15-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8, 11-12 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10693780. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations in claims 1-4, 8-9 and 15-16 of the instant application recites limitations which reads on limitations of claims 1, 8, 11-12 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 10693780. The claimed limitations recited in the present application are transparently found in U.S. Patent No10693780 with obvious wording variations.
8. Claims 1-3, 8-10 and 15-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11121970. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations in claims 1-3, 8-10 and 15-17 of the instant application recites limitations which reads on limitations of claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11121970. The claimed limitations recited in the present application are transparently found in U.S. Patent No. 11121970 with obvious wording variations.
9. Claims 1, 4, 8, 10, 15 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 8-9, 14 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11909640. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because limitations in claims 1, 4, 8, 10, 15 and 17 of the instant application recites limitations which reads on limitations of claims 1, 5, 8-9, 14 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11909640. The claimed limitations recited in the present application are transparently found in U.S. Patent No. 11909640 with obvious wording variations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11-12, 15-16 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.
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.).
Johnson further teaches 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.).
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 to have method of reading, by a device, a configuration file; identifying, by the device, one or more objects of the configuration file; identifying, by the device, one or more parameters of the one or more objects; and constructing, by the device and based on the one or more parameters, a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) route to have better performance.
For claim 2, Johnson further teaches the device of claim 1, wherein at least one parameter, of the one or more parameters, is related to the HTTP route (Johnson, Fig. 2A step 640 and paragraph 22. See also Fig. 2C and paragraph 25.).
For claim 4, Johnson further teaches 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 further teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: store or cache the HTTP route 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.).
Johnson further teaches 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.).
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 to have method of reading, by a device, a configuration file; identifying, by the device, one or more objects of the configuration file; identifying, by the device, one or more parameters of the one or more objects; and constructing, by the device and based on the one or more parameters, a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) route to have better performance.
For claim 9, Johnson further teaches the method of claim 8, wherein at least one parameter, of the one or more parameters, is related to the HTTP route (Johnson, Fig. 2A step 640 and paragraph 22. See also Fig. 2C and paragraph 25.).
For claim 11, Johnson further teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising: assigning an identifier to the HTTP route (Johnson, Fig. 2A and paragraph 23.).
For claim 12, Johnson further teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising: storing or caching the HTTP route 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.).
Johnson further teaches 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.).
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 to have method of reading, by a device, a configuration file; identifying, by the device, one or more objects of the configuration file; identifying, by the device, one or more parameters of the one or more objects; and constructing, by the device and based on the one or more parameters, a Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) route to have better performance.
For claim 16, Johnson further teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein at least one parameter, of the one or more parameters, is related to the HTTP route (Johnson, Fig. 2A step 640 and paragraph 22. See also Fig. 2C and paragraph 25.).
For claim 18, Johnson further teaches 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 further teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the one or more instructions further cause the device to: store or cache the HTTP route while constructing the HTTP route (Johnson, Fig. 2A and paragraphs 14-15.).
14. 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 Kevin Joseph Fischer et al. (USPN 6,701,454 B1), hereinafter Fischer.
For claim 3, Johnson teaches all the limitations of parent claim 1. Johnson does 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 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 teaches all the limitations of parent claim 8. Johnson does 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 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 teaches all the limitations of parent claim 15. Johnson does 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 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].
15. 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 Alban HERMET-CHAVANNE et al. (US 2018/0181375 A1), hereinafter HERMET-CHAVANNE.
For claim 6, Johnson teaches all the limitations of parent claim 1. Johnson does 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 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 both Johnson and HERMET-CHAVANNE 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 teaches all the limitations of parent claim 1. Johnson does 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 HTTP route (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 both Johnson and HERMET-CHAVANNE teach HTTP route, HERMET-CHAVANNE explicitly teaches add core logic, required to complete the HTTP route, to the HTTP route.
For claim 13, Johnson teaches all the limitations of parent claim 8. Johnson does 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 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 both Johnson and HERMET-CHAVANNE 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 teaches all the limitations of parent claim 8. Johnson does 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 HTTP route (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 both Johnson and HERMET-CHAVANNE teach HTTP route, HERMET-CHAVANNE explicitly teaches add core logic, required to complete the HTTP route, to the HTTP route.
For claim 20, Johnson teaches all the limitations of parent claim 15. Johnson does 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 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 both Johnson and HERMET-CHAVANNE teach HTTP route, HERMET-CHAVANNE explicitly teaches construct the HTTP route to include the first HTTP path and the second HTTP path.
Conclusion
16. 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