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 office action is in response to claims filed on 10/11/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 states "if the dependency is unet". It should be "unmet". Appropriate correction is required. Any claim not mentioned above, is objected due to its dependency on an objected claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen et al. (8881182; filed January 3, 2013; hereinafter referred to as Jorgensen), in view of Liu et al. (CN 116795337 published September 22, 2023; English Translation Provided by IP.com; hereinafter referred to as Liu).
As per claim 1, Jorgensen teaches:
in response to receiving, by a processor, an application programming interface (API) request from a client, determining whether the API request has a dependency prior to processing the API request (e.g. Jorgensen: [Fig. 5] discloses 502 receive API calls and 504 checking whether it has dependencies.),
wherein the dependency is based on a server configuration (e.g. Jorgensen: [0049] discloses embodiments may include configuring the server to determine that there is a dependency from parsing the requests and seeing a tag or a parent API call as a parameter to a child API call. Please note configuring the server to parse requests for dependency tags corresponds to Applicant’s wherein the dependency is based on a server configuration.);
if the dependency is unmet, then resolving the dependency prior to processing the API request (e.g. Jorgensen: [0049] discloses the server may cause the dependent request to be queued until the parent completes.);
and if the dependency is resolved, then transmitting a response to the client based on the processing of the API request (e.g. Jorgensen: [0037] discloses since client 202 has received response 314 that identifies that the virtual machine instance is running, client 202 then sends this dependent API call 316 to take a snapshot of the virtual machine instance. In response to receiving this API call 316, server 204 begins processing 320 the call by taking a snapshot. Server 204 also sends response 318 to client, which may identify API call 316. Please note response 314 signifies the dependency has been resolved which corresponds to Applicant’s dependency is resolved. Please note response 318 is the response to completing API call 316 which corresponds to Applicant’s transmitting a response to the client based on the processing of the API request.).
Jorgensen does not teach transmitting a response
However, Liu does teach transmitting a response (e.g. Liu: [Page 10 Paragraph 3] discloses executing an API (application program interface) positioned at a first layer in the task to be executed to obtain a first result. [Page 10 Paragraph 5] discloses executing the dependent API based on the circular linked list to obtain a second result, and obtaining an execution result according to the first result and the second result. Please note Liu teaches creating a result/response that includes dependency information which corresponds with Applicant’s transmitting a response that includes dependency information.).
Jorgensen and Liu are in the same field of endeavor in terms of API and dependency management and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jorgensen with the teachings of Liu for transmitting a response . This improves clarity and security by letting the user know what changes have been made to the system after all dependencies are resolved. Because this can range from changing values, downloading files, running applications, etc.
As per claim 4, Jorgensen-Liu teaches claim 1 as applied above. Jorgensen further teaches wherein the API request is representational state transfer-compliant (e.g. Jorgensen: [0019] discloses a customer may request the performance of any of the above operations by sending API requests to the computing system. Such requests and responses may be submitted over any suitable communications protocol, such as… Representational State Transfer (REST).).
As per claim 6, Jorgensen-Liu teaches claim 1 as applied above. Jorgensen further teaches if the dependency is unresolved, then not processing the API request (e.g. Jorgensen: [0015] discloses a requestor may wait an appropriate period of time before requesting the output of a job, such as requested data. If the output is not ready, the request may fail. Please note the output not being ready corresponds to Applicant's dependency is unresolved. And if the request fails then it necessarily follows the API request is not processed.).
As per claim 15, Jorgensen teaches:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium to store instructions that are executable to perform operations (e.g. Jorgensen: [0089] discloses the invention, or certain aspects or portions thereof, may take the form of program code (i.e., instructions) embodied in tangible, or non-transitory, media, such as floppy diskettes, CD-ROMs, hard drives, or any other machine-readable storage medium.) comprising:
in response to receiving an application programming interface (API) request, determining whether the API request has a dependency prior to processing the API request (e.g. Jorgensen: [Fig. 5] discloses 502 receive API calls and 504 checking whether it has dependencies.),
wherein the dependency is based on a server configuration (e.g. Jorgensen: [0049] discloses embodiments may include configuring the server to determine that there is a dependency from parsing the requests and seeing a tag or a parent API call as a parameter to a child API call. Please note configuring the server to parse requests for dependency tags corresponds to Applicant’s wherein the dependency is based on a server configuration.);
if the dependency is unmet, then resolving the dependency prior to processing the API request (e.g. Jorgensen: [0049] discloses the server may cause the dependent request to be queued until the parent completes.);
and if the dependency is resolved, then transmitting a response to the client based on the processing of the API request (e.g. Jorgensen: [0037] discloses since client 202 has received response 314 that identifies that the virtual machine instance is running, client 202 then sends this dependent API call 316 to take a snapshot of the virtual machine instance. In response to receiving this API call 316, server 204 begins processing 320 the call by taking a snapshot. Server 204 also sends response 318 to client, which may identify API call 316. Please note response 314 signifies the dependency has been resolved which corresponds to Applicant’s dependency is resolved. Please note response 318 is the response to completing API call 316 which corresponds to Applicant’s transmitting a response to the client based on the processing of the API request.).
Jorgensen does not teach transmitting a response
However, Liu does teach transmitting a response (e.g. Liu: [Page 10 Paragraph 3] discloses executing an API (application program interface) positioned at a first layer in the task to be executed to obtain a first result. [Page 10 Paragraph 5] discloses executing the dependent API based on the circular linked list to obtain a second result, and obtaining an execution result according to the first result and the second result. Please note Liu teaches creating a result/response that includes dependency information which corresponds with Applicant’s transmitting a response that includes dependency information.).
Jorgensen and Liu are in the same field of endeavor in terms of API and dependency management and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jorgensen with the teachings of Liu for transmitting a response . This improves clarity and security by letting the user know what changes have been made to the system after all dependencies are resolved. Because this can range from changing values, downloading files, running applications, etc.
As per claim 18, Jorgensen-Liu teaches claim 15 as applied above. Jorgensen further teaches wherein the API request is representational state transfer-compliant (e.g. Jorgensen: [0019] discloses a customer may request the performance of any of the above operations by sending API requests to the computing system. Such requests and responses may be submitted over any suitable communications protocol, such as… Representational State Transfer (REST).).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 16, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen-Liu, in view of Babey et al. (ES2710873; published April 29, 2019; Translation Provided by IP.com; hereinafter referred to as Babey).
As per claim 2, Jorgensen-Liu teaches claim 1 as applied above. But Jorgensen-Liu does not teach querying the server configuration associated with the dependency.
However, Babey does teach querying the server configuration associated with the dependency (e.g. Babey: [Page 2 Paragraph 14] discloses the dependencies of the application can be identified and restored in the execution time of the application… The dependencies may include, but are not limited to, configuration values, hardware components, network connections, access privileges or any other type of resource. Please note identifying the dependencies which include configuration values corresponds to Applicant’s querying the server configuration associated with the dependency.).
Jorgensen-Liu and Babey are in the same field of endeavor in terms of dependency management and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jorgensen-Liu with the teachings of Babey for querying the server configuration associated with the dependency. This improves reliability and decreases resource wastage. By checking the dependency before running the system avoids processing an API request that is guaranteed to fail due to missing or unconfigured dependencies and resources are not spent running a doomed process.
As per claim 3, Jorgensen-Liu teaches claim 1 as applied above. But Jorgensen-Liu does not teach wherein the dependency is met if a server configuration value is an expected value of the dependency.
However, Babey does teach wherein the dependency is met if a server configuration value is an expected value of the dependency (e.g. Babey: [Page 8 Paragraph 3] discloses application virtualization client component 110 may do so by configuring the client device 102 in such a way that the configuration settings of the client device 102 coincide with the configuration settings of the server 104 when the virtualized application 112 is installed and executed in the server 104. Please note server 104 contains expected dependency values and by changing its configuration settings to match those values, client device 102 meets the dependency.).
Jorgensen-Liu and Babey are in the same field of endeavor in terms of dependency management and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jorgensen-Liu with the teachings of Babey for wherein the dependency is met if a server configuration value is an expected value of the dependency. This improves reliability and decreases resource wastage. By checking the dependency before running the system avoids processing an API request that is guaranteed to fail due to missing or unconfigured dependencies and resources are not spent running a doomed process.
As per claim 16, Jorgensen-Liu teaches claim 15 as applied above. But Jorgensen-Liu does not teach querying the server configuration associated with the dependency.
However, Babey does teach querying the server configuration associated with the dependency (e.g. Babey: [Page 2 Paragraph 14] discloses the dependencies of the application can be identified and restored in the execution time of the application… The dependencies may include, but are not limited to, configuration values, hardware components, network connections, access privileges or any other type of resource. Please note identifying the dependencies which include configuration values corresponds to Applicant’s querying the server configuration associated with the dependency.).
Jorgensen-Liu and Babey are in the same field of endeavor in terms of dependency management and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jorgensen-Liu with the teachings of Babey for querying the server configuration associated with the dependency. This improves reliability and decreases resource wastage. By checking the dependency before running the system avoids processing an API request that is guaranteed to fail due to missing or unconfigured dependencies and resources are not spent running a doomed process.
As per claim 17, Jorgensen-Liu teaches claim 15 as applied above. But Jorgensen-Liu does not teach wherein the dependency is met if a server configuration value is an expected value of the dependency.
However, Babey does teach wherein the dependency is met if a server configuration value is an expected value of the dependency (e.g. Babey: [Page 8 Paragraph 3] discloses application virtualization client component 110 may do so by configuring the client device 102 in such a way that the configuration settings of the client device 102 coincide with the configuration settings of the server 104 when the virtualized application 112 is installed and executed in the server 104. Please note server 104 contains expected dependency values and by changing its configuration settings to match those values, client device 102 meets the dependency.).
Jorgensen-Liu and Babey are in the same field of endeavor in terms of dependency management and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jorgensen-Liu with the teachings of Babey for wherein the dependency is met if a server configuration value is an expected value of the dependency. This improves reliability and decreases resource wastage. By checking the dependency before running the system avoids processing an API request that is guaranteed to fail due to missing or unconfigured dependencies and resources are not spent running a doomed process.
As per claim 20, Jorgensen-Liu teaches claim 15 as applied above. Jorgensen-Liu further teaches wherein the API request includes a GET (e.g. Jorgensen: [0019] discloses a customer may request the performance of any of the above operations by sending API requests to the computing system. Similarly, the computing system may provide responses to customer requests. Such requests and responses may be submitted over any suitable communications protocol, such as Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP).).
But Jorgensen-Liu does not teach
However, Babey does teach (e.g. Baby: [Page 3 Paragraph 3] discloses the dependencies of the application are identified before the execution time… the dependency analysis engine stores the data that identifies the dependencies in a dependency analysis database. The dependency analysis database can be used at the execution time of the application to ensure that all required dependencies are present. Please note using the database to ensure all dependencies are present, it necessarily follows dependency data was obtained from the database which corresponds to Applicant’s dependencies request.).
Jorgensen-Liu and Babey are in the same field of endeavor in terms of dependency management and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jorgensen-Liu with the teachings of Babey for . This improves efficiency because the client application can dynamically adapt its actions based on what the server needs to resolve.
Claim(s) 5 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen-Liu, in view of Vanderploeg et al. (20220171772 ; published June 2, 2022; hereinafter referred to as Vanderploeg).
As per claim 5, Jorgensen-Liu teaches claim 1 as applied above. But Jorgensen-Liu does not teach wherein the response is in JavaScript Object Notation format.
However, Vanderploeg does teach wherein the response is in JavaScript Object Notation format (e.g. Vanderploeg: [0005] discloses the response can be in a non-relational database format (such as JSON (JavaScript Object Notation).).
Jorgensen-Liu and Vanderploeg are in the same field of endeavor in terms of computer processes and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jorgensen-Liu with the teachings of Vanderploeg for wherein the response is in JavaScript Object Notation format. Utilizing a widely accepted format like JSON predictably facilitates easier data exchange and compatibility with web-based API backends and HTTP requests, yielding the predictable result of a more adaptable data transmission system.
As per claim 19, Jorgensen-Liu teaches claim 15 as applied above. But Jorgensen-Liu does not teach wherein the response is in JavaScript Object Notation format.
However, Vanderploeg does teach wherein the response is in JavaScript Object Notation format (e.g. Vanderploeg: [0005] discloses the response can be in a non-relational database format (such as JSON (JavaScript Object Notation).).
Jorgensen-Liu and Vanderploeg are in the same field of endeavor in terms of computer processes and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jorgensen-Liu with the teachings of Vanderploeg for wherein the response is in JavaScript Object Notation format. Utilizing a widely accepted format like JSON predictably facilitates easier data exchange and compatibility with web-based API backends and HTTP requests, yielding the predictable result of a more adaptable data transmission system.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen-Liu, in view of Biesterveld et al. (20200396086; published December 17, 2020; hereinafter referred to as Biesterveld).
As per claim 7, Jorgensen-Liu teaches claim 1 as applied above. But Jorgensen-Liu does not teach querying a dependency store to determine the dependency associated with the API.
However, Biesterveld does teach querying a dependency store to determine the dependency associated with the API request (e.g. Biesterveld: [0059] discloses by querying a dependency table, invocation mode 404 may identify the dependency of the requested field on the primary key such that an executable query may be generated for the digital signature. Please note the digital signature is associated with the API since [0004] discloses accessing a database to retrieve data associated with the one or more fields of the API based on analyzing the digital signature.).
Jorgensen-Liu and Biesterveld are in the same field of endeavor in terms of dependency management and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jorgensen-Liu with the teachings of Biesterveld for querying a dependency store to determine the dependency associated with the API. This improves system speed and saves on resources. Instead of forcing the server to dynamically evaluate complex server configurations or scan its environment every single time an API request arrives, it can quickly look up a database to immediately know what dependencies must be resolved.
As per claim 8, Jorgensen-Liu-Biesterveld teaches claim 7 as applied above. Biesterveld further teaches wherein the dependency store includes a database of a mapping of the API request to the dependency (e.g. Biesterveld: [0060] discloses dependency information may indicate data fields for which a primary key, foreign key, index, and/or other parameters, are required to execute a query without error. The system 400 may include one or more exception and/or dependency tables storing dependency information for one or more fields accessible via the dynamic API.).
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen, in view of Borochoff et al. (20250156479; claims priority to filed April 18, 2018; hereinafter referred to as Borochoff), and in further view of Liu.
As per claim 9, Jorgensen teaches:
a processor; and a memory storing instructions (e.g. Jorgensen: [Figure 3] discloses a computer client 202 and a server 204 performing the operations of the invention. Their existence implies a processor and memory.) that when executed causes the processor to perform operations including:
in response to receiving an application programming interface (API) request from a client, determining whether the API request has a dependency prior to processing the API request (e.g. Jorgensen: [Fig. 5] discloses 502 receive API calls and 504 checking whether it has dependencies.),
wherein the dependency is based on a server configuration (e.g. Jorgensen: [0049] discloses embodiments may include configuring the server to determine that there is a dependency from parsing the requests and seeing a tag or a parent API call as a parameter to a child API call. Please note configuring the server to parse requests for dependency tags corresponds to Applicant’s wherein the dependency is based on a server configuration.);
if the dependency is unmet, (e.g. Jorgensen: [0049] discloses the server may cause the dependent request to be queued until the parent complete.);
and if the dependency is resolved, then transmitting a response to the client based on the processing of the API request (e.g. Jorgensen: [0037] discloses since client 202 has received response 314 that identifies that the virtual machine instance is running, client 202 then sends this dependent API call 316 to take a snapshot of the virtual machine instance. In response to receiving this API call 316, server 204 begins processing 320 the call by taking a snapshot. Server 204 also sends response 318 to client, which may identify API call 316. Please note response 314 signifies the dependency has been resolved which corresponds to Applicant’s dependency is resolved. Please note response 318 is the response to completing API call 316 which corresponds to Applicant’s transmitting a response to the client based on the processing of the API request.).
Jorgensen does not teach
However, Borochoff does teach (e.g. Borochoff: [0054] discloses the resource (or item) dependencies can be automatically determined by the resource dependency system. In some embodiments, the dependencies can be manually entered. Please note Borochoff offers the ability to handle the dependencies manually which correspond to Applicant’s manual override.).
Jorgensen and Borochoff are in the same field of endeavor in terms of dependency management and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jorgensen with the teachings of Borochoff for . This increases flexibility and fault tolerance in the system by allowing the user to manually deal with the dependencies the system is not yet equipped to automatically handle.
Jorgensen-Borochoff does not teach transmitting a response
However, Liu does teach (e.g. Liu: [Page 10 Paragraph 3] discloses executing an API (application program interface) positioned at a first layer in the task to be executed to obtain a first result. [Page 10 Paragraph 5] discloses executing the dependent API based on the circular linked list to obtain a second result, and obtaining an execution result according to the first result and the second result. Please note Liu teaches creating a result/response that includes dependency information which corresponds with Applicant’s response that includes dependency information.).
Jorgensen-Borochoff and Liu are in the same field of endeavor in terms of API and dependency management and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jorgensen-Borochoff with the teachings of Liu for transmitting a response . This improves clarity and security by letting the user know what changes have been made to the system after all dependencies are resolved. Because this can range from changing values, downloading files, running applications, etc.
As per claim 12, Jorgensen-Borochoff-Liu teaches claim 9 as applied above. Jorgensen further teaches wherein the API request is representational state transfer-compliant (e.g. Jorgensen: [0019] discloses a customer may request the performance of any of the above operations by sending API requests to the computing system. Such requests and responses may be submitted over any suitable communications protocol, such as… Representational State Transfer (REST).).
Claim(s) 10, 11, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen-Borochoff-Liu, in view of Babey.
As per claim 10, Jorgensen-Borochoff-Liu teaches claim 9 as applied above. But Jorgensen-Borochoff-Liu does not teach querying the server configuration associated with the dependency.
However, Babey does teach querying the server configuration associated with the dependency (e.g. Babey: [Page 2 Paragraph 14] discloses the dependencies of the application can be identified and restored in the execution time of the application… The dependencies may include, but are not limited to, configuration values, hardware components, network connections, access privileges or any other type of resource. Please note identifying the dependencies which include configuration values corresponds to Applicant’s querying the server configuration associated with the dependency.).
Jorgensen-Borochoff-Liu and Babey are in the same field of endeavor in terms of dependency management and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jorgensen-Borochoff-Liu with the teachings of Babey for querying the server configuration associated with the dependency. This improves reliability and decreases resource wastage. By checking the dependency before running the system avoids processing an API request that is guaranteed to fail due to missing or unconfigured dependencies and resources are not spent running a doomed process.
As per claim 11, Jorgensen-Borochoff-Liu teaches claim 9 as applied above. But Jorgensen-Borochoff-Liu does not teach wherein the dependency is met if a server configuration value is an expected value of the dependency.
However, Babey does teach wherein the dependency is met if a server configuration value is an expected value of the dependency (e.g. Babey: [Page 8 Paragraph 3] discloses application virtualization client component 110 may do so by configuring the client device 102 in such a way that the configuration settings of the client device 102 coincide with the configuration settings of the server 104 when the virtualized application 112 is installed and executed in the server 104. Please note server 104 contains expected dependency values and by changing its configuration settings to match those values, client device 102 meets the dependency.).
Jorgensen-Borochoff-Liu and Babey are in the same field of endeavor in terms of dependency management and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jorgensen-Borochoff-Liu with the teachings of Babey for wherein the dependency is met if a server configuration value is an expected value of the dependency. This improves reliability and decreases resource wastage. By checking the dependency before running the system avoids processing an API request that is guaranteed to fail due to missing or unconfigured dependencies and resources are not spent running a doomed process.
As per claim 14, Jorgensen-Borochoff-Liu teaches claim 9 as applied above. Jorgensen-Borochoff-Liu further teaches wherein the API request includes a GET (e.g. Jorgensen: [0019] discloses a customer may request the performance of any of the above operations by sending API requests to the computing system. Similarly, the computing system may provide responses to customer requests. Such requests and responses may be submitted over any suitable communications protocol, such as Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP).).
But Jorgensen-Borochoff-Liu does not teach
However, Babey does teach (e.g. Baby: [Page 3 Paragraph 3] discloses the dependencies of the application are identified before the execution time… the dependency analysis engine stores the data that identifies the dependencies in a dependency analysis database. The dependency analysis database can be used at the execution time of the application to ensure that all required dependencies are present. Please note using the database to ensure all dependencies are present, it necessarily follows dependency data was obtained from the database which corresponds to Applicant’s dependencies request.).
Jorgensen-Borochoff-Liu and Babey are in the same field of endeavor in terms of dependency management and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jorgensen-Borochoff-Liu with the teachings of Babey for . This improves efficiency because the client application can dynamically adapt its actions based on what the server needs to resolve.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen-Borochoff-Liu, in view of Vanderploeg.
As per claim 13, Jorgensen-Borochoff-Liu teaches claim 9 as applied above. But Jorgensen-Liu does not teach wherein the response is in JavaScript Object Notation format.
However, Vanderploeg does teach wherein the response is in JavaScript Object Notation format (e.g. Vanderploeg: [0005] discloses the response can be in a non-relational database format (such as JSON (JavaScript Object Notation).).
Jorgensen-Borochoff-Liu and Vanderploeg are in the same field of endeavor in terms of computer processes and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Jorgensen-Borochoff-Liu with the teachings of Vanderploeg for wherein the response is in JavaScript Object Notation format. Utilizing a widely accepted format like JSON predictably facilitates easier data exchange and compatibility with web-based API backends and HTTP requests, yielding the predictable result of a more adaptable data transmission system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
"US10776180 Expression-based feature toggle in an application programming interface (API)" could possibly have taught claims:
7: Ma teaches comprising querying a dependency store to determine the dependency associated with the API request (e.g. Ma: [0066] discloses GET/api/types/disk. [0067] discloses the API metadata table is enhanced with the additional dependencies information to provide more granular search results. Please note the GET request looks through the API metadata table which has dependency data which corresponds to Applicant's querying a dependency store to determine API dependencies.).
8: Ma teaches wherein the dependency store includes a database of a mapping of the API request to the dependency (e.g. Ma: [0005] discloses populating identified dependencies within a metadata table corresponding to the API.).
14: Ma teaches wherein the API request includes a GET dependencies request (e.g. Ma: [0066] discloses GET/api/types/disk. [0067] discloses the API metadata table is enhanced with the additional dependencies information to provide more granular search results. Please note the GET request searches through the API metadata table that has dependency information which corresponds to Applicant’s API request including a GET dependencies request.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL N TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0856. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, April Blair can be reached at (571) 270-1014. 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.
/DANIEL NHU TRUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights