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 in this office correspondence.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 9/1/2023, have been acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/1/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US Patent (US 11,588,776 B1) issued to Sorenson, III et al. (hereinafter as “SORENSON”).
Regarding claim 1, SORENSON teaches a method, comprising:
in response to a change in state information associated with a given service in an information technology infrastructure (SORENSON Col. 2, line (1): “A technology for publish-subscribe message updates is provided. …, a publish-subscribe messaging method may include receiving a message from a publisher. The message may include a tuple defining message data and a source identifier identifying a data source to update the message”):
updating the state information associated with the given service (SORENSON Col. 1, line (7): “A publisher may be an entity that publishes messages, and a subscriber is an entity that subscribes to and/or consumes the messages published by the publisher.”; and
Col. 2, line (1): “A technology for publish-subscribe message updates is provided. …, a publish-subscribe messaging method may include receiving a message from a publisher. The message may include a tuple defining message data and a source identifier identifying a data source to update the message.”,
the examiner notes that the reference discloses a publisher/entity, i.e. a given service, that publishes messages with an update message to that of a change in state information associated with a given service); and
publishing the updated state information associated with the given service to one or more topics of a message queue of the information technology infrastructure (SORENSON Col. 2, line (1): “A technology for publish-subscribe message updates is provided. …, a publish-subscribe messaging method may include receiving a message from a publisher. The message may include a tuple defining message data and a source identifier identifying a data source to update the message.”; and
Fig. 1A, Col. 3, line (12): “FIG. 1A illustrates an example system for updating message data in a publication-subscription type of system. The system includes a publisher 105, a broker 115, and one or more subscribers 110. The publisher 105 may publish messages to the broker 115 and the broker 115 may transmit the messages to one or more subscribers 110, such as those who have subscribed to the messages from the publisher 105 or the topic 120 published by the publisher 105. ... The present technology may be utilized in a topic-based system, where messages are published to “topics” or named logical channels.”,
the examiner notes that the reference to SORENSON discloses in Fig. 1A/1B a message queue (element 125) and a Publisher (element 105), i.e. a given service, that publishes messages to “topics”),
wherein the updated state information is consumed from the message queue by at least one additional service, based at least in part on one or more topic subscriptions, to update respective state information maintained by the at least one additional service (SORENSON Col. 1, line (5): “In computer-related technologies, publish-subscribe systems are typically a messaging model or pattern where senders of messages, called publishers, send messages or publications to be consumed by receivers, called subscribers. A publisher may be an entity that publishes messages, and a subscriber is an entity that subscribes to and/or consumes the messages published by the publisher.”; and
Fig. 1A, Col. 3, line (22): “…, a topic may be a specific type of data stream that is not necessarily human readable but is readable by machines which consume published information. The present technology may be utilized in a topic-based system, where messages are published to “topics” or named logical channels. Subscribers in a topic-based system will receive messages published to the topics to which the subscribers subscribe, and each subscriber to a topic will receive the same messages.”; and
Fig. 1A/1B, Col. 3, line (58): “When the broker 115 receives a message for a topic 120, the broker 115 may queue publication of the message to the subscribers 110 using the queue 125. The messages may include a tuple defining, for example, message data, sender data (e.g., an identifier, address, name or the like), a broker address, a topic (which may optionally be included in the message data), a flag (or flag state) indicating whether to update the message data, and optionally a data source identifying a source of updated message data if the flag is set, where a set flag indicates that the message data is to be updated.”,
the examiner notes that the refence discloses in Fig. 1A/1B message Subscribers (elements 110(1-n)) being an entity to that of one additional consumer services. Further, examiner notes that the reference disclose that the message data defining, for example, message data, sender data, a flag (or flag state), … to that of updating a respective state);
wherein the method is performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory (SORENSON Fi. 4, Col. 11, line (38): “The system may be implemented as a plurality of computing nodes or computing instances, each of which comprises at least one processor 405 and a memory 410, where the computing nodes are configured to collectively implement the modules, data stores and so forth.”).
Regarding claims (8 and 15), the aforementioned claims recite similar limitations to claim 1, therefore these claims are rejected for similar reasons as detailed above.
Regarding claim 3, SORENSON teaches the limitations of claim 1. Further, SORENSON teaches wherein one or more topics of the message queue serve as a state store (SORENSON Col. 12, line (1): “…, various data may be stored in a data store that is accessible to the computing device. The data store may be representative of a plurality of data stores as may be appreciated. The data stored in the data store, for example, may be associated with the operation of the various modules, applications and/or functional entities described. The components executed on the computing device may include the modules described, as well as various other applications, services, processes, systems, engines or functionality not discussed in detail herein.”; and
Col. 12, line (49): …, the methods could alternatively be represented as a series of interrelated states via a state diagram or events.”).
Regarding claim (10), the aforementioned claim recites similar limitations to claim 3, therefore this claim is rejected for similar reasons as detailed above.
Regarding claim 4, SORENSON teaches the limitations of claim 1. Further, SORENSON teaches wherein the state information comprises one or more of a current configuration and a current state of one or more of (i) software, (ii) a system and (iii) an entity (SORENSON Fig. 1A, Col. 3, line (58): “When the broker 115 receives a message for a topic 120, the broker 115 may queue publication of the message to the subscribers 110 using the queue 125. The messages may include a tuple defining, for example, message data, sender data (e.g., an identifier, address, name or the like), a broker address, a topic (which may optionally be included in the message data), a flag (or flag state) indicating whether to update the message data, and optionally a data source identifying a source of updated message data if the flag is set, where a set flag indicates that the message data is to be updated.”).
Regarding claims (11 and 17), the aforementioned claims recite similar limitations to claim 4, therefore these claims are rejected for similar reasons as detailed above.
Regarding claim 5, SORENSON teaches the limitations of claim 1. Further, SORENSON teaches wherein the state information comprises dynamic information for a plurality of services, and wherein the given service updates a respective portion of the state information in a local cache of the given service and publishes the updated state information, comprising the dynamic information for the plurality of services, to one or more topics on the message queue from the local cache (SORENSON Fig. 1A, Col. 1, line (28): “Any number of publishers may publish messages to a broker 115 on any variety of topics (e.g. shipping, receiving, accounting, geolocation, maintenance, etc.).”; and
Fig. 4, Col. 10, line (55): “The updater 420 may update the message using updated message data from a data source (e.g., cached data 435) to generate an updated message when the message reaches a front of the queue 415. The dispatcher 425 may transmit or publish the updated message from the broker server 400 to the subscriber(s)”; and
Fig. 4, Col. 11, line (10): “Updated message data from this data source may optionally be cached in a cached data store 435.”).
Regarding claims (12 and 18), the aforementioned claims recite similar limitations to claim 5, therefore these claims are rejected for similar reasons as detailed above.
Regarding claim 6, SORENSON teaches the limitations of claim 5. Further, SORENSON teaches wherein one or more of the plurality of services maintain a respective local cache of the state information and update at least a portion of the respective local cache in response to updated state information received from the message queue (SORENSON Fig. 1A, Col. 1, line (28): “Any number of publishers may publish messages to a broker 115 on any variety of topics (e.g. shipping, receiving, accounting, geolocation, maintenance, etc.).”; and
Fig. 4, Col. 10, line (55): “The updater 420 may update the message using updated message data from a data source (e.g., cached data 435) to generate an updated message when the message reaches a front of the queue 415. The dispatcher 425 may transmit or publish the updated message from the broker server 400 to the subscriber(s)”; and
Fig. 4, Col. 11, line (10): “Updated message data from this data source may optionally be cached in a cached data store 435.”).
Regarding claims (13 and 19), the aforementioned claims recite similar limitations to claim 6, therefore these claims are rejected for similar reasons as detailed above.
Regarding claim 7, SORENSON teaches the limitations of claim 6. Further, SORENSON teaches wherein the update to the at least the portion of the respective local cache in response to the updated state information received from the message queue is implemented at least in part by a queue manager associated with the respective local cache (SORENSON Fig. 1A, Col. 1, line (28): “Any number of publishers may publish messages to a broker 115 on any variety of topics (e.g. shipping, receiving, accounting, geolocation, maintenance, etc.).”; and
Fig. 4, Col. 10, line (55): “The updater 420 may update the message using updated message data from a data source (e.g., cached data 435) to generate an updated message when the message reaches a front of the queue 415. The dispatcher 425 may transmit or publish the updated message from the broker server 400 to the subscriber(s)”,
the examiner notes that the reference discloses an updated (element 420) that updates the message through cache data (element 435) to that of the message queue is implemented by a queue manager associated with the respective local cache).
Regarding claims (14 and 20), the aforementioned claims recite similar limitations to claim 7, therefore these claims are rejected for similar reasons as detailed 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 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent (US 11,588,776 B1) issued to Sorenson, III et al. (hereinafter as “SORENSON”), and in view of US Patent Application Publication (US 2005/0038795 A1) issued to Charlot et al. (hereinafter as “CHARLOT”).
Regarding claim 2, SORENSON teaches the limitations of claim 1.
However, SORENSON does not explicitly teach wherein the given service comprises a processor-based software testing checker that performs a scan of software.
But CHARLOT teaches wherein the given service comprises a processor-based software testing checker that performs a scan of software (CHARLOT Fig. 1, Para. [0081]: “The core service 120 then scans its list of client applications 100 that connect to it and performs a cross-check based on the item name from the core-inbound transaction 212.”)
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 teachings of SORENSON (disclosing methods publisher-subscriber messaging control/updates) to include the teachings of CHARLOT (disclosing methods for interfacing applications to maintain data integrity) and arrive at a method to verify services/software based on messaging communication. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination because by enabling a controller service to communicate with client applications to identify new or changed data in one of the client applications, thereby ensuring specific client applications are up to date, as recognized by (CHARLOT Abstract, Paras. [0009]-[0011]). In addition, the references of SORENSON and CHARLOT teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor of messaging interface system.
Regarding claims (9 and 16), the aforementioned claims recite similar limitations to claim 2, therefore these claims are rejected for similar reasons as detailed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Banks et al.; (US 20110258268 A1); “Methods for controlling message delivery in publish/subscribe messaging, wherein a method includes determining, in response to publication of a topic message on a topic to a messaging system by a publisher application, whether any subscriber applications are registered for the topic.”
Pardo-Castellote et al.; (US 20020178273 A1); “Methods for publish/subscribe services that simplifies network programming because publishers do not need to know where the subscribers are on the network, and subscribers do not need to know where the publishers are.”
Bedi et al.; (US 20120233268 A1); “Methods for publish/subscribe message routing, wherein a first subscriber may subscribe to a topic by originating the message including data defining the selection function, and a matching engine may be adapted to route to the first subscriber all messages having a topic defined by the (or each) resulting complete path definition.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zuheir A Mheir whose telephone number is (571)272-4151. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 - 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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached on (571) 272-3906. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
1/5/2026
/ZUHEIR A MHEIR/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2156
/PIERRE VITAL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198