DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
Applicant’s amendment and response dated 3/18/2026 has been provided in response to the 3/16/2026 Office Action which rejected claims 1-20, wherein claims 1, 5, 7, 8, 12, 14, 15, and 19 have been amended. Thus, claims 1-20 remain pending in this application and have been fully considered by the examiner.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding independent claims 1, 8, and 15 that “Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended to recite the following features (emphasis added), "creating one or more virtualized inline MFEs that provider upward dependency, for use with the virtualized domain MFE, wherein downward and loopback dependency by dependent MFEs, is provided between the virtualized inline MFEs and the virtualized domain MFE." Such features are not described or shown by the cited art”, (see page 6 of Applicant’s remarks), the examiner respectfully disagrees.
For further clarification, Bruno discloses relationships between a subject micro front-end 575 one or more related micro front-ends 576 (e.g. virtualized inline MFEs), and, in some cases, other related components or systems 584 (See e.g. [0142]), Related micro front-ends 576 are micro front-ends associated with rules establishing dependency on and/or from the subject micro front-end 575 (see e.g. [0143]), and also that both related micro front-ends 576 depend upon subject micro front-end 575 (e.g. upward dependency), as reflected by relationship labels 582; For example, in one case, the related micro front-end 576 constitutively requires the subject micro front-end 575 and, in another case, the related micro front-end depends upon the subject micro front-end 575 when specific criteria is met; The subject micro front-end 575 in turn relies upon another related component 584 (e.g. downward dependency, see e.g. [0144]. As such, the combination of Bakos in view of Bruno still teaches the limitations as claimed and the rejection of record is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakos et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0009811 A1) in view of Bruno et al. US Patent Application Publication 2024/0411569 A1).
As to claim 1, Bakos teaches a computer-implementable method for micro front end (MFE) virtualization (See e.g. [0023]- applications with contextual interfaces can be composed of conforming micro front-end components that are available on a hub. Tools may be leveraged to help generate conforming micro front-ends for efficient development and consistency in desired behavior) comprising:
providing a virtual container shell (e.g. website browser 104) to load virtual MFEs (See e.g. Fig.1 and associated text, e.g. [0018]- The client device 102 can execute a website browser 104 to run a web application provided by the server system 124 and [0020]- The micro-frontend code 130 can be executable by the website browser 104 to run a micro-frontend 108) and providing a virtualized domain MFE (e.g. wrapper application 106) in the virtual container shell (See e.g. [0018]- The web application can include a wrapper application 106 and one or more micro-front ends, such as micro-frontend 108) and [0021]- The wrapper application 106 can display a frontend for the web application in a display area of the website browser 104. The frontend can be formed from one or more micro-frontends, such as micro-frontend 108, arranged in the display area of the website browser 104).
Bakos does not specifically teach providing virtual MFEs ..., for developing and testing an MFE for customer use or creating one or more virtualized inline MFEs that provide upward dependency for use with the virtualized domain MFE, wherein downward and loopback dependency by dependent MFEs is provided between the virtualized inline MFEs and the virtualized domain MFE.
In an analogous art, however, Bruno teaches create virtual MFEs (See e.g. [0049]- the example component authoring device 112 is programmed to create micro front-end components), developing and testing an MFE for customer use (See e.g. [0049]- example component authoring device 112 is programmed to create micro front-end components; The hub device 110 is also used to generate contextual interfaces at the client device 104 by orchestrating one or more micro front-ends to make up the contextual interface) and creating one or more virtualized inline MFEs that provide upward dependency for use with a virtualized domain MFE, wherein downward and loopback dependency by dependent MFEs is provided between the virtualized inline MFEs and the virtualized domain MFE (see e.g. [0050]- the example hub device 110 is programmed to house a plurality of micro front-end components that can be used to generate a contextual interface for a user. In these examples, the micro front-end components can be combined and reused to generate the interfaces), [0063]- The user interface may display a dependency graph of relationships among micro front-ends, [0080]- Coordinated deployment of interdependent micro front-ends, such as one micro front-end that depends upon another micro front-end or two or more micro front-ends that each depend upon each other, may be managed by the deployment module 214) and also Fig.7 and associated text, e.g. [0142]- [0144]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Bakos to incorporate/implement the limitations as taught by Bruno in order to provide a more efficient and simplified method/system of developing web and mobile user experiences.
As to claim 2, Bakos also teaches wherein the virtual container shell is automatically generated (see e.g. [0020]- The wrapper application code 128 can be executable by the website browser 104 of the client device 102 to run a wrapper application 106).
As to claim 4, Bakos teaches wherein the virtual container shell provides a virtualized MFE environment (see e.g. [0018]-[0020]), but does not specifically teach for independent MFE development and testing.
In an analogous art, however, Bruno teaches a virtualized environment for independent MFE development and testing (see e.g. [0049]- the example component authoring device 112 is programmed to create micro front-end components and [0128]- the micro front-end's conformance may be confirmed; conformance is built into the micro front-end through the iterative update process, by leveraging, for example, code generation, automated testing during builds, common software development kits, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Bakos to incorporate/implement the limitations as taught by Bruno in order to provide a more efficient and simplified method/system of developing web and mobile user experiences.
As to claim 5, Bakos teaches the virtualized domain MFE (see e.g. [0018], but does not specifically teach that the virtualized domain MFE mimics end user data flow and data flow between the virtualized domain MFE and the virtualized inline MFEs.
In an analogous art, however, Bruno teaches mimics end user data flow and data flow between the virtualized domain MFE and virtualized inline MFEs (See e.g. Fig.3 and associated text, e.g. [0029]- The hub may actively engage with the user's contextual experience during runtime of the contextual experience. In examples, the hub engages to monitor and manage the ecosystem of micro front-ends deployed for a particular user, [0059]- The monitoring module 210 tracks micro front-ends as they are moved and used throughout the system 100 and maintains an understanding of how the overall ecosystem of the system 100 and the user's contextual experience is behaving. Ecosystem behavior may include current activity and performance of micro front-ends deployed into an active user experience and [0111]- relevant data needed to generate the contextual interface is accessed; this relevant data can include information known about the user).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Bakos to incorporate/implement the limitations as taught by Bruno in order to provide a more efficient and simplified method/system of developing web and mobile user experiences.
As to claim 6, Bakos teaches the virtualized domain MFE (See e.g. [0018]), but does not specifically that it and the virtualized inline MFEs, are related to actual MFEs supported by independent teams or domains.
In an analogous art, however, Bruno teaches a virtualized domain MFE (e.g. authoring module) and the virtualized inline MFEs, are related to actual MFEs supported by independent teams or domains (see e.g. [0063]- The user interface may display a dependency graph of relationships among micro front-ends and [0080]- Coordinated deployment of interdependent micro front-ends, such as one micro front-end that depends upon another micro front-end or two or more micro front-ends that each depend upon each other, may be managed by the deployment module 214).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Bakos to incorporate/implement the limitations as taught by Bruno in order to provide a more efficient and simplified method/system of developing web and mobile user experiences.
As to claim 7, Bruno further teaches wherein the virtualized inline MFEs are stored and accessible for reuse (See e.g. [0050]- the example hub device 110 is programmed to house a plurality of micro front-end components that can be used to generate a contextual interface for a user. In these examples, the micro front-end components can be combined and reused to generate the interfaces).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Bakos to incorporate/implement the limitations as taught by Bruno in order to provide a more efficient and simplified method/system of developing web and mobile user experiences.
As to claim 8, the limitations of claim 8 are substantially similar to the limitations of claim 1 , and therefore, it is rejected for the reasons stated above.
As to claim 9, the limitations of claim 9 are substantially similar to the limitations of claim 2, and therefore, it is rejected for the reasons stated above.
As to claim 11, the limitations of claim 11 are substantially similar to the limitations of claim 4, and therefore, it is rejected for the reasons stated above.
As to claim 12, the limitations of claim 12 are substantially similar to the limitations of claim 5, and therefore, it is rejected for the reasons stated above.
As to claim 13, the limitations of claim 13 are substantially similar to the limitations of claim 6, and therefore, it is rejected for the reasons stated above.
As to claim 14, the limitations of claim 14 are substantially similar to the limitations of claim 7, and therefore, it is rejected for the reasons stated above.
As to claim 15, the limitations of claim 15 are substantially similar to the limitations of claim 1, and therefore, it is rejected for the reasons stated above.
As to claim 16, the limitations of claim 16 are substantially similar to the limitations of claim 2, and therefore, it is rejected for the reasons stated above.
As to claim 18, the limitations of claim 18 are substantially similar to the limitations of claim 4, and therefore, it is rejected for the reasons stated above.
As to claim 19, the limitations of claim 19 are substantially similar to the limitations of claim 5, and therefore, it is rejected for the reasons stated above.
As to claim 20, the limitations of claim 20 are substantially similar to the limitations of claim 6, and therefore, it is rejected for the reasons stated above.
6. Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bakos et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0009811 A1) in view of Bruno et al. US Patent Application Publication 2024/0411569 A1), as applied to claim 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Cismas et al. US Patent Application Publication 2015/0302220A1)
As to claim 3, Bakos in view of Bruno teaches the limitations of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the virtual container shell is manually generated.
In an analogous art of testing software, however, Cismas teaches wherein a virtual container shell is manually generated (see Fig.3 and associated text, e.g. [0064]- the system is configured to receive a request to create a container, wherein the container is a file system comprising access parameters that define one or more permitted actions and one or more permitted users for the container).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Bakos in view of Bruno to incorporate/implement the limitations as taught by Cismas in order to provide a more efficient and secure method/system of creating data containers that would prevent unauthorized sharing of information.
As to claim 10, the limitations of claim 10 are substantially similar to the limitations of claim 3, and therefore, it is rejected for the reasons stated above.
As to claim 17, the limitations of claim 17 are substantially similar to the limitations of claim 3, and therefore, it is rejected for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENECA SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1651. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/CHENECA SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. Sough/SPE, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights