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
Double Patenting
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 conflicting claims 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 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims (1, 2, 3, 5, 12) of U.S. Patent No. 11,650,840 and in view of prior art.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: Claims (1, 2, 3, 5, 12) of U.S. Patent Application No. 11,650,840 in view of prior art as shown in the corresponding table below contains every element of Claims 21-40 of the instant application and therefore anticipates the claims.
Present Application No. 18/486,605
21, 35, 40. (New) A computer-implemented system for managing a plurality of micro-applications to provide a digital experience, comprising: a memory storing instructions; and a processor configured to execute the stored instructions to execute:
a first micro-application and a second micro-application, each of the first and the second micro-applications comprising a front end interface configured to receive and display information (See claim 1 of 11,650,840),
wherein the first micro-application comprises a first micro-application state manager configured to detect an application state belonging to a category;
a driver application configured to host the first and the second micro-applications (See mapping of Yang of claim 1);
an event listener configured to listen for the application state detected by the first micro-application state manager in the first micro-application (See mapping of Yang of claim 1);
a router configured to receive, based on the event listener, the detected application state from the first micro-application, wherein the router is configured to transmit the detected application state to the second micro-application; and
an error handler configured to detect to an error condition in the second micro-application based on the transmitted detected application state (See claim 3 of 11,650,840).
22. (New) The computer-implemented system of claim 21, wherein the router transmits the detected application state to the second micro-application in response to a user interaction with the front end interface of the first micro-application (See claim 2 of 11,650,840 in view of Lawson below).
23. (New) The computer-implemented system of claim 21, wherein: the computer-implemented system performs a background process; and the router transmits the detected application state in response to the background process (See claim 23 in view of Kumar below).
24. (New) The computer-implemented system of claim 21, further comprising: a first micro-application event manager configured to detect an application event belonging to the category (See claim 1 of 11,650,840).
wherein the event listener is configured to listen for the application event detected by the first micro-application event manager (See of Xu mapping of claim 24), and
the router is configured to receive, based on the event listener, the detected application event; wherein the router is configured to transmit the detected application event to the second micro-application (See of Xu mapping of claim 24).
25, 36. (New) The computer-implemented system of claim 24, further comprising: an event hub configured to receive the detected application event from the first micro-application via the router, wherein the event hub is configured to determine whether the second micro-application is subscribed to receive the detected application event belonging to the category, and the event listener instructs the event hub to transmit, via the router, the detected application event to the second micro-application based on the subscription (See of Xu mapping of claim 25).
26, 37. (New) The computer-implemented system of claim 21, further comprising: a state store configured to receive the detected application state from the first micro-application via the router, wherein the event listener instructs the state store to transmit, via the router, the detected application state to the second micro-application (See of Xu mapping of claim 26).
27. (New) The computer-implemented system of claim 26, wherein: the state store is configured to determine whether the second micro- application is subscribed to receive the detected application state belonging to the category, and the state store transmits the detected application state via the router to the second micro-application based on the subscription (See of Xu mapping of claim 27).
28. (New) The computer-implemented system of claim 21, wherein the driver application is configured to: load, in response to the event listener detecting the detected application state, a third micro-application (See claim 12 of 11,650,840).
29. (New) The computer-implemented system of claim 21, wherein the router is further configured to transmit the detected application state to a state store (See of Xu mapping of claim 29).
30. (New) The computer-implemented system of claim 21, wherein the error handler is configured further to detect to an error condition in the first micro-application (See claim 3 of 11,650,840).
31. (New) The computer-implemented system of claim 30, wherein the error handler is configured to generate a response when the error condition in the first or second micro-application is detected (See of Muraira mapping of claim 31).
32, 38. (New) The computer-implemented system of claim 31, wherein the response includes presenting an error template to a user (See of Joseph mapping of claim 32).
33. (New) The computer-implemented system of claim 21, wherein the router transmits the detected application state based on router configuration information (See of Xu mapping of claim 33).
34. (New) The computer-implemented system of claim 21, wherein the event listener is configured to: receive the detected application state; and perform an action based on the receipt of the detected application state, wherein the action includes communicating with the driver application (See of Xu mapping of claim 34).
39. (New) The computer-implemented method of claim 35, further comprising the following operations performed by the processor: receiving, at the event listener, the detected application state from the first micro-application; loading, in response to the event listener receiving the detected application state, a third micro-application (See of Muraira mapping of claim 39). .
U.S. Patent No. 11,650,840 in view of prior art
1. A computer-implemented driver application executed by a processor for managing a plurality of micro-applications to provide a digital experience, comprising:
a first and a second micro-application, wherein the first micro-application comprises: a first micro-application event manager configured to detect an application event belonging to a category; and a first micro-application state manager configured to detect an application state belonging to the category;
an event hub configured to receive the detected application event from the first micro-application event manager of the first micro-application; a state store configured to store the detected application state received from the first micro-application state manager of the first micro-application;
an event listener configured to determine whether the application event belonging to the category is received at the event hub; and
a router configured to route the detected application event, based on the determination, from the event hub to the second micro-application;
wherein the second micro-application comprises: a second micro-application event manager configured to receive the detected application event from the event hub, and a second micro-application state manager configured to receive the detected application state from the state store.
2. The driver application of claim 1, wherein the event hub is configured to receive the detected application event in response to a user interaction with the first micro-application.
3. The driver application of claim 1, comprising: an error handler configured to detect an error condition in at least one of the first micro-application and the second micro-application.
5. The driver application of claim 4, wherein: the page component is configured to display the first micro-application and the second micro-application using a common style scheme.
12. The driver application of claim 1, wherein the driver application is configured to: load, in response to the event listener determining that the event hub received the application event belonging to the category, a third micro-application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claims, the limitations detects an application state and detects an error condition, as drafted, recites functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as cited above as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. Thus, these limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional limitations: memory, processor, first and second applications, driver application, event listener, a router, and a front-end interface. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f), and steps of a router receiving information do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of memory, processor, first and second applications, driver application, event listener, a router, and a front-end interface, amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Furthermore, the limitations directed to a router receiving information, the courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) (Ex. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;).
The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 24, 26 the limitations detecting an event are functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claims. The limitations of listening for the event and a router receiving and transmitting information are nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2.
Regarding claim 25, 27 the limitations detecting an event, determine if a subscription is present are functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claims. The limitations transmitting the event are nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2.
Regarding claim 22, 23, 28, 29, 32, 33, 39 the limitations of transmit information based upon a user interaction, transmit information based upon a background process, load an application, transmit to a storage, presenting an error template, transmit information based on configuration, receiving state information and loading a third application are nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. Under step 2B, the courts of identified the generic function of gathering/storing data, the results of the judicial exception, is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Regarding claim 30 and 31 the limitations detecting an error condition are functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claims.
Regarding claim 34 the limitation receiving information is considered mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. The limitation of perform an action is nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2.
Regarding claim 36, 37 the limitations detecting an event, listening for the event, determining a subscription and whether to transmit are functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claims. The limitations receiving event and transmitting the event are nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2.
Regarding claim 38 the limitation responding to the error and presenting an error template are nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 36 recites the limitation “the router” in the receiving step and in the transmitting step. It is unclear if the router referenced is the router introduced in claims 36 or of claim 35.
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 21, 30, 31, 35, 36, 39, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (Pub. No. US 2020/0104226) in view of Muraira (Pat. No. US 10,394,628) in view Sivakumar (Pub. No. US 2014/0289621).
Claim 21, 35, 36, 40 Yang teaches “a computer-implemented system for managing a plurality of micro-applications to provide a digital experience, comprising: a memory storing instructions; and a processor configured to execute the stored instructions to execute ([0109] memory and processor): a first micro-application and a second micro-application ([0020] System/environment 200 includes a micro-service A 210 and a micro-service B 220. The system/environment 200 can also include other services 230.), wherein the first micro-application comprises a first micro-application state manager configured to detect an application state belonging to a category ([0071] At block 505, capture, by the trigger, a starting event with its context. [0072] At block 510, process, by the coordinator, context (i.e. state) and apply rules. [0042] Referring to FIGS. 2 and 4, the augmentation rules indicate for the augmentation process what and where are the logs to label [0048] Elevate 412 the logs related to [0049] Events leads to resilience actions (i.e. category). [0060] Pattern Type: string (i.e. category)); a driver application configured to host the first and the second micro-applications ([0019-0020] FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing an exemplary system/environment 200 to which the present invention can be applied, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. The system/environment 200 can also include a micro-service management element 251 and system infrastructure elements 252.); an event listener configured to listen for the application state detected by the first micro-application state manager in the first micro-application ([0024] The system/environment 200 can further include a data broker 241, a data stores 242, a coordinator and labeler pair 243 (formed from a coordinator 243A and a labeler 243B), an analytics element 244, and dashboards 245.); a router configured to receive, based on the event listener, the detected application state from the first micro-application, wherein the router is configured to transmit the detected application state to the second micro-application ([0025] The coordinator and labeler pair 243 access the data broker 241 and the data stores 242, as well as the coordinators and labeler pairs 214 and 224 of each of the service agents 212 and 222 (i.e. router). The purpose of the optional labeler 243A and coordinator 243B in the data stores side is to handle the potential failure/exception from the application side, for example, if the involved container got killed or migrated to somewhere else before the log augmentation process finished, then the labeler 243A and coordinator 243B in the data stores side will take care of the remaining steps of the log augmentation process. [Fig. 5, 0077] At block 535, send, by the coordinator, a label start request and contents to the remote target (i.e. second micro-application).)”.
However, Yang not explicitly teach the remaining limitations.
Muraira teaches “an error handler configured to detect to an error condition in the second micro-application based on the transmitted detected application state ([Col. 9, Line 21-42] In the example discussed with respect to FIG. 6, event handler 144 illustratively fails the request from invoking process 116 and, also requests more data from invoking process 116. This is indicated by block 282. (44) Invoking process 116, in response to the fail and request for more data, invokes event handler 142 with more data. This is indicated by block 284 in the flow diagram of FIG. 6. This can be done in a number of different ways. For instance, it may be that invoking process 116 knows that the event handler 144 only conditionally needs the full extent of the event payload data. Therefore, when invoking process 116 first invokes event handler 144, it only provides a subset of the data, or it provides none of the data at all. This is because, it may be that event handler 144 can often perform its processing without any of the event payload data, or with the relatively small subset of payload data. (45) When event handler 144 does need the additional data, then if fails the request and requests the additional data from invoking process 116 as indicated by block 282. Invoking process 116 can then invoke event handler 144 again, with the original data that it provided, along with additional data. [Col. 2, Lines 31-40] 10) FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing one example of a computing system architecture 100. Architecture 100 illustratively includes a plurality of different domain computing systems 102-104 that run separate domains or microservices.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Muraira with the teachings of Yang in order to provide a system that teaches error handlers. The motivation for applying Muraira teaching with Yang teaching is to provide a system that allows for handling failure conditions. Yang, Muraira are analogous art directed towards processing micro services. Together Yang, Muraira teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Muraira with the teachings of Yang by known methods and gained expected results.
However, the combination may not explicitly teach interfaces.
Sivakumar teaches “each of the first and the second micro-applications comprising a front-end interface configured to receive and display information ([Fig. 4, Fig. 5, 0045] FIG. 3 illustrates a mobile application 210 on a mobile device 200, according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention. As shown, the mobile device 200 can comprise a mobile application 210 comprising a user interface 220. The mobile application can further comprise a front-end client 240 in communication with a server 320 on target platform 300 or associated with the target platform 300. The mobile application 210 can comprise, for example and not limitation, a remote desktop client such as VNC.RTM. Viewer or a virtual desktop client such as Citrix Receiver.TM., or a web-based application such as Google Apps.TM.. The user interface can be a graphical user interface (GUI), a touch user interface, a command line interface, a web-based user interface, or some other interface. In some embodiments, a mobile device can comprise one more applications. Each application can have its own user interface 220, and share or have its own front-end client 240.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Sivakumar with the teachings of Yang, Muraira in order to provide a system that teaches interfaces. The motivation for applying Sivakumar teaching with Yang, Murairteaching is to provide a system that allows for client access to different services. Yang, Muraira, Sivakumar are analogous art directed towards processing services. Together Yang, Muraira, Sivakumar teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Sivakumar with the teachings of Yang, Muraira by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 30, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Muraira teaches “the computer-implemented system of claim 21, wherein the error handler is configured further to detect to an error condition in the first micro-application ([Col. 4, Lines 24-42] By way of example, assume that event handler record 170 corresponds to event handler 144 in domain computing system 104. Also, assume that event handler 144 is interested in an event raised by invoking process 116 in domain computing system 102. In that case, source domain type 144 will identify the type of the source domain 102 where invoking process 116 is run. End point 176 will identify a URL (or other end point) that can be called to invoke event handler 144. Filter criteria 178 will list the event(s) raised by invoking process 116, that event handler 144 is interested in. Required data identifier 180 illustratively identifies the event payload (or event data) that event handler 144 will use, once it is invoked. An enabled/disabled indicator 182 includes a value that indicates whether the event handler is enabled, or disabled, for the particular list of events identified in filter criteria 178. The event handler records 170-172 can include a wide variety of other items 184 as well. Also, event handler and invocation store 158 can include other items, 186, in addition to the invocation file(s) 168.)”.
Rationale to claim 21 is applied here.
Claim 31, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Muraira teaches “the computer-implemented system of claim 30, wherein the error handler is configured to generate a response when the error condition in the first or second micro-application is detected (([Col. 9, Line 21-42] In the example discussed with respect to FIG. 6, event handler 144 illustratively fails the request from invoking process 116 and, also requests more data from invoking process 116. This is indicated by block 282. (44) Invoking process 116, in response to the fail and request for more data, invokes event handler 142 with more data. This is indicated by block 284 in the flow diagram of FIG. 6. This can be done in a number of different ways. For instance, it may be that invoking process 116 knows that the event handler 144 only conditionally needs the full extent of the event payload data. Therefore, when invoking process 116 first invokes event handler 144, it only provides a subset of the data, or it provides none of the data at all. This is because, it may be that event handler 144 can often perform its processing without any of the event payload data, or with the relatively small subset of payload data. (45) When event handler 144 does need the additional data, then if fails the request and requests the additional data from invoking process 116 as indicated by block 282. Invoking process 116 can then invoke event handler 144 again, with the original data that it provided, along with additional data. [Col. 2, Lines 31-40] 10) FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing one example of a computing system architecture 100. Architecture 100 illustratively includes a plurality of different domain computing systems 102-104 that run separate domains or microservices.)”.
Rationale to claim 21 is applied here.
Claim 39, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Muraira teaches “the computer-implemented method of claim 35, further comprising the following operations performed by the processor: receiving, at the event listener, the detected application state from the first micro-application; loading, in response to the event listener receiving the detected application state, a third micro-application ([Col. 10, Lines 11-25] (48) More specifically, in one example, when invoking process 116 raises the SaveItem event 310, it calls to event handler orchestrator service 112 (as indicated by arrow 314) to obtain a list of the various event handlers (including event handler 144) that are to be invoked based on raising the SaveItem event 310. It then selects event handler 144 and invokes it, as indicated by arrow 316. In response, event handler 144 raises an event indicating that it has been invoked and thus calls to event handler orchestrator service 112 to identify other event handlers that are to be invoked based upon that event. This is indicated by arrow 318. Service 112 illustratively responds to that call identifying event handler 304 which has registered to be invoked upon event handler 144 being invoked. Thus, event handler 144 invokes event handler 304, and this is indicated by block 320.)”.
Rationale to claim 21 is applied here.
Claim/s 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Muraira, Sivakumar in further view of Lawson (Pub. No. US 2011/0320550)
Claim 22, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation of the claim.
Lawson teaches “the computer-implemented system of claim 21, wherein the router transmits the detected application state to the second micro-application ([0017] The method may additionally include receiving a subscriber generated client event, publishing the client event to the event router and identifying a call router subscribed to a client event, and sending the client event to the call router. These steps function to make the eventing method full duplex for two-way event publication and subscription. The duplex eventing system is substantially similar to the eventing system described, but where the client generates the events and the call router is subscribed to the events. The processing of events may occur for any suitable direction of event messaging.) in response to a user interaction with the front end interface of the first micro-application ([0019] As shown in FIG. 3, step S310, which includes interacting with configuration attributes, functions to create, read, update, or delete resources of an event. A configuration attribute is preferably a parameter that defines functionality of event distribution. There is preferably a configuration attribute for event routing, a delegate URI, webhook, security, and/or any suitable parameter. The configuration attributes may be stored within the event router, but may alternatively be a resource accessible by the event router. A REST API is preferably used to interact with the configuration attributes, but any suitable interface may alternatively be used such as a simple object access protocol (SOAP). A HTTP message sent to an configuration URI preferably allows outside parties to interact with the configuration attribute. Receiving a POST HTTP message preferably sets a configuration attribute. Receiving a GET HTTP message preferably reads the configuration attribute value. The REST API preferably enables developers to programmatically control configuration attributes. Interacting with the configuration attributes may alternatively be accomplished through a user interface or set in any suitable manner.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Lawson with the teachings of Yang, Muraira, Sivakumar in order to provide a system that teaches initiation of events. The motivation for applying Lawson teaching with Yang, Murairteaching, Sivakumar is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Yang, Muraira, Sivakumar, Lawson are analogous art directed towards processing services. Together Yang, Muraira, Sivakumar, Lawson teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Lawson with the teachings of Yang, Muraira, Lawson by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim/s 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Muraira, Sivakumar in further view of Kumar (Pub. No. US 2020/0250664).
Claim 23, the combination teaches the limitation wherein Yang teaches “the computer-implemented system of claim 21, wherein: the computer-implemented system performs a background process; and the router transmits the detected application state in response to the background process ([Col. 9, Line 21-42] In the example discussed with respect to FIG. 6, event handler 144 illustratively fails the request from invoking process 116 and, also requests more data from invoking process 116. This is indicated by block 282. (44) Invoking process 116, in response to the fail and request for more data, invokes event handler 142 with more data. This is indicated by block 284 in the flow diagram of FIG. 6. This can be done in a number of different ways. For instance, it may be that invoking process 116 knows that the event handler 144 only conditionally needs the full extent of the event payload data. Therefore, when invoking process 116 first invokes event handler 144, it only provides a subset of the data, or it provides none of the data at all. This is because, it may be that event handler 144 can often perform its processing without any of the event payload data, or with the relatively small subset of payload data. (45) When event handler 144 does need the additional data, then if fails the request and requests the additional data from invoking process 116 as indicated by block 282. Invoking process 116 can then invoke event handler 144 again, with the original data that it provided, along with additional data. [Col. 2, Lines 31-40] 10) FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing one example of a computing system architecture 100. Architecture 100 illustratively includes a plurality of different domain computing systems 102-104 that run separate domains or microservices. Examiner notes Kumar teaches as evidence a service may execute in the background and therefore would be obvious to one of ordinarily skilled in the art, microservices of Yang, Muraira may be background processes [0098] In order to dequeue queue 628, a messaging microservice, which is an infrastructure microservice, continually runs in the background)”.
Claim/s 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 34, 36, 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Muraira, Sivakumar in further view of Xu (Pub. No. US 2021/0042321).
Claim 24, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation of the claim.
Xu teaches “the computer-implemented system of claim 21, further comprising: a first micro-application event manager configured to detect an application event belonging to the category, wherein the event listener is configured to listen for the application event detected by the first micro-application event manager, and the router is configured to receive, based on the event listener, the detected application event; wherein the router is configured to transmit the detected application event to the second micro-application ([0042] Other applications 104 and 106 may be configured to listen for the publication of event message 138 on regional message pipeline 140 (i.e. router). For example, applications 104 and 106 may include corresponding event listeners 142 and 144. Event listeners 142 and 144 may be configured to listen for the publication of a relevant event message on regional message pipeline 140 and to receive a relevant message from event message pipeline 140 in response to identifying the publication of the relevant event message on regional message pipeline 140. In this example, event message 138 is relevant to applications 104 and 106 because corresponding actions 110 and 112 are performed by applications 104 and 106 in response to the occurrence of event 130 identified in event message 138. Therefore, in this example, event listeners 142 and 144 will identify the publication of event message 138 on regional message pipeline 140 and will receive event message 138 from regional message pipeline 140. Applications 104 and 106 may then perform corresponding actions 108 and 112 using event information 132 from received event message 138. In this example, applications 104 and 106 may be referred to as subscribing applications.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Xu with the teachings of Yang, Muraira, Sivakumar in order to provide a system that teaches details of event handling. The motivation for applying Xu teaching with Yang, Murairteaching, Sivakumar is to provide a system that allows for delivery of services for situational awareness. Yang, Muraira, Sivakumar, Xu are analogous art directed towards processing services. Together Yang, Muraira, Sivakumar, Xu teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Xu with the teachings of Yang, Muraira, Sivakumar by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 25 the combination teaches the claim, wherein Xu teaches “the computer-implemented system of claim 24, further comprising: an event hub configured to receive the detected application event from the first micro-application via the router, wherein the event hub is configured to determine whether the second micro- application is subscribed to receive the detected application event belonging to the category, and the event listener instructs the event hub to transmit, via the router, the detected application event to the second micro-application based on the subscription ([0042] Other applications 104 and 106 may be configured to listen for the publication of event message 138 on regional message pipeline 140 (i.e. router). For example, applications 104 and 106 may include corresponding event listeners 142 and 144. Event listeners 142 and 144 may be configured to listen for the publication of a relevant event message on regional message pipeline 140 and to receive a relevant message from event message pipeline 140 in response to identifying the publication of the relevant event message on regional message pipeline 140. In this example, event message 138 is relevant to applications 104 and 106 because corresponding actions 110 and 112 are performed by applications 104 and 106 in response to the occurrence of event 130 identified in event message 138. Therefore, in this example, event listeners 142 and 144 will identify the publication of event message 138 on regional message pipeline 140 and will receive event message 138 from regional message pipeline 140. Applications 104 and 106 may then perform corresponding actions 108 and 112 using event information 132 from received event message 138. In this example, applications 104 and 106 may be referred to as subscribing applications.)”.
Rationale to claim 24 is applied here.
Claim 26, 37, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation of the claim.
Xu teaches “the computer-implemented system of claim 21, further comprising: a state store configured to receive the detected application state from the first micro-application via the router, wherein the event listener instructs the state store to transmit, via the router, the detected application state to the second micro-application ([0042] Other applications 104 and 106 may be configured to listen for the publication of event message 138 on regional message pipeline 140 (i.e. router). For example, applications 104 and 106 may include corresponding event listeners 142 and 144. Event listeners 142 and 144 may be configured to listen for the publication of a relevant event message on regional message pipeline 140 and to receive a relevant message from event message pipeline 140 in response to identifying the publication of the relevant event message on regional message pipeline 140. In this example, event message 138 is relevant to applications 104 and 106 because corresponding actions 110 and 112 are performed by applications 104 and 106 in response to the occurrence of event 130 identified in event message 138. Therefore, in this example, event listeners 142 and 144 will identify the publication of event message 138 on regional message pipeline 140 and will receive event message 138 from regional message pipeline 140. Applications 104 and 106 may then perform corresponding actions 108 and 112 using event information 132 from received event message 138. In this example, applications 104 and 106 may be referred to as subscribing applications.)”.
Rationale to claim 24 is applied here.
Claim 27, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Xu teaches “the computer-implemented system of claim 26, wherein: the state store is configured to determine whether the second micro-application is subscribed to receive the detected application state belonging to the category, and the state store transmits the detected application state via the router to the second micro-application based on the subscription ([0042] Other applications 104 and 106 may be configured to listen for the publication of event message 138 on regional message pipeline 140 (i.e. router). For example, applications 104 and 106 may include corresponding event listeners 142 and 144. Event listeners 142 and 144 may be configured to listen for the publication of a relevant event message on regional message pipeline 140 and to receive a relevant message from event message pipeline 140 in response to identifying the publication of the relevant event message on regional message pipeline 140. In this example, event message 138 is relevant to applications 104 and 106 because corresponding actions 110 and 112 are performed by applications 104 and 106 in response to the occurrence of event 130 identified in event message 138. Therefore, in this example, event listeners 142 and 144 will identify the publication of event message 138 on regional message pipeline 140 and will receive event message 138 from regional message pipeline 140. Applications 104 and 106 may then perform corresponding actions 108 and 112 using event information 132 from received event message 138. In this example, applications 104 and 106 may be referred to as subscribing applications.)”.
Rationale to claim 24 is applied here.
Claim 28, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation of the claim.
Xu teaches “the computer-implemented system of claim 21, wherein the driver application is configured to: load, in response to the event listener detecting the detected application state, a third micro-application ([0042] Other applications 104 and 106 may be configured to listen for the publication of event message 138 on regional message pipeline 140. For example, applications 104 and 106 may include corresponding event listeners 142 and 144 (i.e. third microapplication). Event listeners 142 and 144 may be configured to listen for the publication of a relevant event message on regional message pipeline 140 and to receive a relevant message from event message pipeline 140 in response to identifying the publication of the relevant event message on regional message pipeline 140. In this example, event message 138 is relevant to applications 104 and 106 because corresponding actions 110 and 112 are performed by applications 104 and 106 in response to the occurrence of event 130 identified in event message 138. Therefore, in this example, event listeners 142 and 144 will identify the publication of event message 138 on regional message pipeline 140 and will receive event message 138 from regional message pipeline 140. Applications 104 and 106 may then perform corresponding actions 108 and 112 using event information 132 from received event message 138. In this example, applications 104 and 106 may be referred to as subscribing applications.).
Rationale to claim 24 is applied here.
Claim 29, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation of the claim.
Xu teaches “the computer-implemented system of claim 21, wherein the router is further configured to transmit the detected application state to a state store ([0052] Metadata engine 158 generates edited message 172 by applying data publication rule 170 to event message 138. For example, information extracted from event message 138, including one or more of event name 146, message payload 148, and other information 150, is mapped to data publication rule 170. Metadata engine 158 interprets event message 138 within the context of local region 128, to generate edited message 172. Data synchronization reactor 166 publishes edited message 172 to global message pipeline 163 for consumption by one or more of remote region 128.)”.
Rationale to claim 24 is applied here.
Claim 33, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation of the claim.
Xu teaches “the computer-implemented system of claim 21, wherein the router transmits the detected application state based on router configuration information ([0042] Other applications 104 and 106 may be configured to listen for the publication of event message 138 on regional message pipeline 140. For example, applications 104 and 106 may include corresponding event listeners 142 and 144 (i.e. third microapplication). Event listeners 142 and 144 may be configured to listen for the publication of a relevant event message on regional message pipeline 140 and to receive a relevant message from event message pipeline 140 in response to identifying the publication of the relevant event message on regional message pipeline 140. In this example, event message 138 is relevant to applications 104 and 106 because corresponding actions 110 and 112 are performed by applications 104 and 106 in response to the occurrence of event 130 identified in event message 138. Therefore, in this example, event listeners 142 and 144 will identify the publication of event message 138 on regional message pipeline 140 and will receive event message 138 from regional message pipeline 140. Applications 104 and 106 may then perform corresponding actions 108 and 112 using event information 132 from received event message 138. In this example, applications 104 and 106 may be referred to as subscribing applications.)”.
Rationale to claim 24 is applied here.
Claim 34, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation of the claim.
Xu teaches “the computer-implemented system of claim 21, wherein the event listener is configured to: receive the detected application state; and perform an action based on the receipt of the detected application state, wherein the action includes communicating with the driver application ([0079] Process 600 may begin by listening for an edited event message in a global message pipeline (step 610). In response to receiving the edited event message (step 620), the process generates an event command (step 630). The event command comprises the edited event information. [0080] Process 600 publishes the event command within the region by sending the event command to a second domain command pipeline (step 640 (i.e. driver application)), with process 600 terminating thereafter. An application in a second domain, listening for the event command in the second domain command pipeline, performs the first action in the second domain in response to receiving the edited event information.)”.
Rationale to claim 24 is applied here.
Claim 36, Yang further teaches events may belong to a category ([0071] At block 505, capture, by the trigger, a starting event with its context. [0072] At block 510, process, by the coordinator, context (i.e. state) and apply rules. [0042] Referring to FIGS. 2 and 4, the augmentation rules indicate for the augmentation process what and where are the logs to label [0048] Elevate 412 the logs related to [0049] Events leads to resilience actions (i.e. category). [0060] Pattern Type: string (i.e. category))”.
However, the combination may not explicitly teach the remaining limitations.
Xu teaches “the computer-implemented method of claim 35, further comprising the following operations performed by the processor: detecting, at an event manager of the first micro-application, an application event … ([0041] Upon receiving event information 132, application 102 may use event information 132 to perform actions 108. In accordance with an illustrative embodiment, application 108 may communicate event information 132 to other applications 104, 106, and 108 by publishing event information 132. For example, application 102 may include event publisher 136. Event publisher 136 may be configured to publish event information 132 in the form of event message 138.); listening, at an event listener, for the application event detected by the first micro-application event manager ([0062] Application 302 in first domain 306 publishes the event message by sending the event message to the first domain message pipeline 308 (i.e. event listener).); receiving, at a router, the detected application event from the first micro-application based on the event listener ([0068] Outbound global data synchronization reactor 310 publishes the edited event message to global message pipeline 314 for consumption by corresponding services in remote region 316.); receiving, at an event hub, the detected application event from the first micro- application via the router ([0068] Inbound global data synchronization reactor 318 listens for the edited event message in the global message pipeline 314. In response to receiving the edited event message, inbound global data synchronization reactor 318 generates an event command.); determining whether the second micro-application is subscribed to receive the detected application event …; determining whether to transmit the detected application event to the second micro-application based on the subscription; and transmitting the detected application event to the second micro-application via the router ([0043] Event message 138 may include event name 146 and message payload 148. Event name 146 may be used by subscribing applications 104 and 106 to identify the publication of relevant event message 138 on regional message pipeline 140. Message payload 148 may include some or all of event information 132 for event 130. Event message 138 also may include other information 150 as may be appropriate.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Xu with the teachings of Yang, Muraira, Sivakumar in order to provide a system that teaches details of event handling. The motivation for applying Xu teaching with Yang, Murairteaching, Sivakumar is to provide a system that allows for delivery of event notifications for situational awareness. Yang, Muraira, Sivakumar, Xu are analogous art directed towards processing services. Together Yang, Muraira, Sivakumar, Xu teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Xu with the teachings of Yang, Muraira, Sivakumar by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim/s 32, 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Muraira, Sivakumar in further view of Joseph (Pat. No. US 7,289,988).
Claim 32, 38, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation of the claim.
Joseph teaches “the computer-implemented system of claim 31, wherein the response includes presenting an error template to a user ([Col. 5, Line 64 – Col. 6, Line 16] Event data (messages), received from the central management server 14, are presented to the user(s) in a consistent format, completely independent from the originating source: Color coding (six different severity states) clearly indicates the severity of a failure or performance degradation. The user can drill down to information about available actions and annotations attached to a message. Event-specific instructions guide the user through the problem resolution process to quickly resolve a problem. Using interactive troubleshooting and problem resolution, users can initiate pre defined actions with a single mouse-click to fix a problem or to gather additional data. All information resulting from the action execution is stored in a central database to automate the resolution of problems over time. Users also can own and acknowledge events or forward them on (escalate them) to other operators and applications.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Joseph with the teachings of Yang, Muraira, Sivakumar in order to provide a system that teaches templates. The motivation for applying Joseph teaching with Yang, Murairteaching, Sivakumar is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Yang, Muraira, Sivakumar, Joseph are analogous art directed towards processing services. Together Yang, Muraira, Sivakumar, Joseph teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Joseph with the teachings of Yang, Muraira, Lawson by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 38, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation of the claim.
Joseph teaches “the computer-implemented method of claim 35, further comprising the following operations performed by the processor: responding, at the error handler, to the error condition in the second micro- application; and presenting, to a user, an error template based on the error condition ([Col. 5, Line 64 – Col. 6, Line 16] Event data (messages), received from the central management server 14, are presented to the user(s) in a consistent format, completely independent from the originating source: Color coding (six different severity states) clearly indicates the severity of a failure or performance degradation. The user can drill down to information about available actions and annotations attached to a message. Event-specific instructions guide the user through the problem resolution process to quickly resolve a problem. Using interactive troubleshooting and problem resolution, users can initiate pre defined actions with a single mouse-click to fix a problem or to gather additional data. All information resulting from the action execution is stored in a central database to automate the resolution of problems over time. Users also can own and acknowledge events or forward them on (escalate them) to other operators and applications.)”.
Rationale to claim 32 is applied here.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYNUEL S AQUINO whose telephone number is (571)272-7478. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3759. 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.
/WYNUEL S AQUINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199