DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is responsive to the Application filed on 12/5/2025. Claims 1-7 and 21-33 are pending the case. Claims 8-20 have been cancelled. Claims 21-33 have been added.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-7 in reply filed on 12/5/2025 is acknowledged. Applicant added a new set of claims 21-33 which are in compliance with the election selected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 21-26, and 28-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerling-Ospina et al. (US 20200349580 A1, hereinafter Gerling-Ospina) in view of Mathew et al. (US 20170257297 A1, hereinafter Mathew) and further in view of Rao Krishnagi et al. (US 20220284032 A1, hereinafter Rao Krishnagi).
As to independent claim 1, Gerling-Ospina teaches a system for performing
one or more memories (memories 220); and
one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories (“memory 220, and one or more transaction processors 230,” paragraph 0070) configured to:
receive an indication of a click event associated with a single-click uniform resource locator (URL) that is associated with an action (“One-click response API 236 may use a unique identifier associated with an interactive session and generate a web URL for the one click interaction. In such embodiments, one-click response API 236 may generate a customized user interaction-specific web page. For example, in some embodiments, once an alert is generated by alert trigger module 232 and a session established by session API module 234, one-click response API 236 may be used to request changes in a user account or provide instructions on how to resolve issues” paragraph 0083);
receive a configuration file associated with the action (“one-click response API 236 may generate scripts to execute the actions identified from the URI. For example, one-click response API 236 may configure scripts such as: <script type=“application/Id+json”>;” paragraph 0085-0086)
determine, using the configuration file,
Gerling-Ospina does not appear to expressly teach a system for preventing double actions;
the action is controlled for concurrency;
communicate with a remote database to determine whether the action is currently locked; and
selectively trigger execution of the action based on whether the action is currently locked.
Mathew teaches a system for preventing double actions, the action is controlled for concurrency (“mutual exclusion and atomicity are two safe guards that may be implemented to prevent concurrent activities from being executed on the same application.” Paragraph 0070);
deployment, or application corrective action (e.g., restart, replace).” Paragraph 0070); and
selectively trigger execution of the action based on whether the action is currently locked (“In some embodiments, this process may be implemented by using distributed locks such that when a lock is in place for a given node by a given reactor (e.g., performing a first task), no other reactor core may perform a second task or corrective action on the node. In some embodiments, the locking mechanism is a database that is checked by the reactor before the reactor performance corrective actions. In some embodiments, the locking mechanism is implemented as a distributed database, for example, as NoSQL distributed database.” Paragraph 0070).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claims invention to modify the system of Gerling-Ospina to comprise a system for preventing double actions; the action is controlled for concurrency; determine whether the action is currently locked; and selectively trigger execution of the action based on whether the action is currently locked. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to enhance user experience in accessing data.
Matthew expressly teaches the prevention of concurrent actions by locking action in a database. However, Matthew does not appear to expressly teach communicate with a remote database.
Rao Krishnagi teaches communicate with a remote database (“In the network environment 200 of FIG. 2, the SDDD 202 is coupled to a plurality of server devices 204(1)-204(n) that hosts a plurality of databases 206(1)-206(n), and also to a plurality of client devices 208(1)-208(n) via communication network(s) 210.” Paragraph 0057).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claims invention to modify the system of Gerling-Ospina to comprise communicate with a remote database to determine whether the action is currently locked. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to enhance security and also allow users to access data anywhere.
As to dependent claim 2, Gerling-Ospina teaches the system of claim 1, Gerling-Ospina further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to determine that the action is controlled for concurrency, are configured to:
determine, using the configuration file,
Gerling-Ospina does not appear to expressly teach concurrency control group that includes the action.
Matthew teaches concurrency control group that includes the action (“In some embodiments, mutual exclusion and atomicity are two safe guards that may be implemented to prevent concurrent activities from being executed on the same application. In one embodiment, before a reactor performs corrective actions on a node to be repaired, the reactor may check with the node to determine whether the node is already in the middle of another corrective action, such as a new application deployment, or application corrective action (e.g., restart, replace). In some embodiments, this process may be implemented by using distributed locks such that when a lock is in place for a given node by a given reactor (e.g., performing a first task), no other reactor core may perform a second task or corrective action on the node. In some embodiments, the locking mechanism is a database that is checked by the reactor before the reactor performance corrective actions. In some embodiments, the locking mechanism is implemented as a distributed database, for example, as NoSQL distributed database.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claims invention to modify the system of Gerling-Ospina to comprise concurrency control group that includes the action. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to enhance security of data access.
As to dependent claim 3, Gerling-Ospina teaches the system of claim 1, Gerling-Ospina further teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
transmit a response to the indication of the click event, to a user device, based on selectively triggering execution of the action (“one-click response API 236 may generate scripts to execute the actions identified from the URI. For example, one-click response API 236 may configure scripts such as: <script type=“application/Id+json”> “@context”: “http://schema.org”, “@type”: “EmailMessage”, [0090] “potentialAction”: “@type”: “HttpActionHandler”, “address”: ActionAddress“description”: “$descript”, paragraph 0085-0094).
As to dependent claim 4, Gerling-Ospina teaches the system of claim 3, Gerling-Ospina further teaches wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the response, are configured to: transmit a webpage including the response (“generate a website template for configuring a customized web page for a one-click interaction. In such embodiments, the website template may include the generated URI and interactive icons to quickly receive user instructions.” Paragraph 0155).
As to dependent claim 5, Gerling-Ospina teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
transmit, in response to the indication of the click event, a request for the configuration file, wherein the configuration file is received in response to the request (“generate a website template for configuring a customized web page for a one-click interaction. In such embodiments, the website template may include the generated URI and interactive icons to quickly receive user instructions.” Paragraph 0155).
As to dependent claim 6, Gerling-Ospina teaches the system of claim 1, Gerling-Ospina further teaches wherein the configuration file comprises a JavaScript object notation (JSON) file (generate JSON files, paragraph 0117).
Claim 21-26 and 28-33 are substantially the same as claim 1-6 and are therefore rejected under the same rationale as above.
Claims 7 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerling-Ospina et al. in view of Mathew et al., Rao Krishnagi et al., and further in view of Ovadia et al. (US 20210303295 A1, hereinafter Ovadia).
As to dependent claim 7, Gerling-Ospina teaches the system of claim 1, Gerling-Ospina does not appear to expressly teach wherein the configuration file comprises a Python file.
Ovadia taches wherein the configuration file comprises a Python file (“a Python configuration file” paragraph 0006).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claims invention to modify the system of Gerling-Ospina to comprise wherein the configuration file comprises a Python file. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to provide a simple, readable, and highly useful way to automate tasks/actions.
Claim 27 is substantially the same as claim 7 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale as above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ben-Shaul US 8332485 B1 teaches lock optimization and lock prediction approaches for reducing the number of client-server messages involved in working with server-based resource.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHELET SHIBEROU whose telephone number is (571)270-7493. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM-5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/MAHELET SHIBEROU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
Prosecution Insights