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 .
This is a Non-Final Office Action Correspondence in response to U.S. Application No. 18/462,443 filed on 09/07/2023
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 11 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murao et al. (WO 2022003538 A1, hereinafter “Murao”) in view of Brancho et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,870,605, hereinafter “Brancho”).
Regarding claim 1, Murao teaches a publish-subscribe device, comprising:
a memory storing a plurality of modules (Murao ¶0154); and
a processor coupled to the memory and an electronic device to execute the plurality of modules and execute a transaction in response to a request command output by the electronic device, wherein the plurality of modules comprise a transaction publisher, a transaction state manager, and a subscriptions and logic device (Murao ¶0079),
wherein the transaction publisher publishes an event to the transaction state manager according to state information of the transaction, and the transaction state manager transmits the event to the subscriptions and logic device according to a subscription rule (Murao ¶0080).
Murao fails to explicitly teach the subscriptions and logic device executes a task associated with the event according to the event. However, in the same field of endeavor, Brancho teaches the subscriptions and logic device executes a task associated with the event according to the event (Brancho Fig. 5 and Col 10 Ln 45-59). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murao by incorporating the teachings of Brancho. The motivation would be for routing published events to all appropriate subscribers. Each subscriber is guaranteed to receive all events published on the system if, and only if, they match the subscription criteria specified by the subscriber (Brancho Abstract).
As to claim 2, Murao as modified by Brancho also teaches the publish-subscribe device of claim 1, wherein the state information comprises a change in a state of the transaction (Murao ¶0080, i.e., an updated state object).
As to claim 3, Murao as modified by Brancho also teaches the publish-subscribe device of claim 1, wherein in response to a change in a state of the transaction, the transaction publisher encapsulates the state information into the event (Murao ¶0079, i.e., “The first node 304A of the distributed ledger 304 may receive the transaction message and may execute a transaction associated with the first transportation service based on information associated with the captured event in the received transaction message. To execute the transaction, the first node 304A may retrieve the initial state object and may update transaction data included in the first state object based on the received transaction message”).
As to claim 4, Murao as modified by Brancho also teaches the publish-subscribe device of claim 1, wherein the subscriptions and logic device comprises at least one transaction subscriber and at least one transaction logic device, wherein the at least one transaction subscriber stores the event (Murao ¶0079), and the at least one transaction logic device executes the task to generate task result information (Brancho Fig. 5 and Col 10 Ln 45-59).
As to claim 5, Murao as modified by Brancho also teaches the publish-subscribe device of claim 4, wherein the at least one transaction subscriber subscribes to the transaction state manager for at least one state change of the transaction (Murao ¶0080, i.e., initial state object vs updated state object).
As to claim 6, Murao as modified by Brancho also teaches the publish-subscribe device of claim 4, wherein the at least one transaction logic device returns the task result information to the at least one transaction subscriber (Brancho Col 10 Ln 45-59, i.e. adding envelop information to an event).
As to claim 7, Murao as modified by Brancho also teaches the publish-subscribe device of claim 4, wherein the transaction state manager traverses the subscribed at least one transaction subscriber to transmit the event to the subscribed at least one transaction subscriber according to the subscription rule (Murao ¶0080).
As to claim 8, Murao as modified by Brancho also teaches the publish-subscribe device of claim 4, wherein the at least one transaction subscriber comprises a plurality of transaction subscribers according to a business domain (Murao ¶0076, i.e., transportation providers).
As to claim 9, Murao as modified by Brancho also teaches the publish-subscribe device of claim 8, wherein the at least one transaction logic device is a plurality, and each of the plurality of transaction subscribers transmits the event to the plurality of transaction logic devices associated with the business domain (Murao ¶¶0077-0078).
Claim 11 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 12 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 13 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 14 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 4 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 15 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 16 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 6 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 17 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 7 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 18 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 8 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 19 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 9 and is similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murao in view of Brancho, and further in view of ABU-HAKIMA et al. (CA 2908146 A1, hereinafter “ABU-HAKIMA”).
As to claim 10, Murao as modified by Brancho teaches the publish-subscribe device of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the subscriptions and logic device unsubscribes from the transaction state manager for a change in a state of the transaction, so that the transaction state manager updates the subscription rule to stop transmitting the event to the subscriptions and logic device. However, in the same field of endeavor, ABU-HAKIMA teaches the subscriptions and logic device unsubscribes from the transaction state manager for a change in a state of the transaction, so that the transaction state manager updates the subscription rule to stop transmitting the event to the subscriptions and logic device (ABU-HAKIMA page 21 last paragraph, i.e., non-members are unsubscribed from receiving alert broadcasting messages). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Murao and Brancho by incorporating the teachings of ABU-HAKIMA. The motivation would be for tracking subscriber and maintaining subscriber account status for administrative monitoring, and alerting subscribers of persistent problems experienced with their Service Account (ABU-HAKIMA page 21 last paragraph).
Claim 20 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 10 and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER KHONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm 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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571)272-4085. 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.
/ALEXANDER KHONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights