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 Amendment filed on 4/20/2026. Claims 1-7 and 21-33 are pending the case.
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 Hodder et al. (US 20200104107 A1) 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);
Gerling-Ospina does not appear to expressly teach a system for preventing double actions using configuration files, the system comprising:
receive a configuration file associated with the action associated with the action, wherein the configuration file includes a concurrency indicator associated with the action;
determine, on the concurrency indicator included in the configuration file, that the action is controlled for concurrency;
communicate with a remote database to determine whether the action is currently locked;
selectively trigger execution of the action based on whether the action is currently locked.
Hodder teaches a system for preventing double actions using configuration files (“A suitable configuration file (specified in the YAML data serialization language) that implements the concurrency control mechanisms” paragraph 0049), the system comprising:
receive a configuration file associated with the action associated with the action, wherein the configuration file includes a concurrency indicator associated with the action (“A suitable configuration file (specified in the YAML data serialization language) that implements the concurrency control mechanisms according to an embodiment of the present disclosure is as follows: Table 1…” paragraph 0049, “Alternatively, an environment can be defined as having just the following attributes
TABLE-US-00004 Environment: { environmentUuid: Uuid, name: String, lock: OpenLock | ClosedLock }” paragraph 0064, 0073-0100);
determine, on the concurrency indicator included in the configuration file, that the action is controlled for concurrency (“The call to Deploy Service 220 includes a request for an environment lock that is applicable to the environment to which the deployment step is scheduled to deploy its software product (e.g. staging or production).” Paragraph 0099,0024);
communicate with a Environment from the Database 230, using the environmentUuid provided by the DeploymentJob.” Paragraph 0100. “Data stored in the Environment Table also includes the value of the ‘lock’ attribute of the designated environment, that value indicating whether the lock is an OpenLock or a ClosedLock,” paragraph 0105);
selectively trigger execution of the action based on whether the action is currently locked (“The Deploy Service 220 responds to the Result Service 210 with the pertinent information from the Environment Table. In the event that the returned information indicates that the designated environment is already locked by another deployment step,” paragraph 0107-0108,0024-0025, 0073-0074, Fig. 3, steps 304-318).
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 receive a configuration file associated with the action associated with the action, wherein the configuration file includes a concurrency indicator associated with the action; determine, on the concurrency indicator included in the configuration file, that the action is controlled for concurrency; communicate with a database to determine whether the action is currently locked; 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 provide optimal resource utilization.
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 securely interact with a centralized database from any location with an internet connection.
As to dependent claim 2, Gerling-Ospina teaches the system of claim 1, Gerling-Ospina does not appear to expressly teach wherein the one or more processors, to determine that the action is controlled for concurrency, are configured to:
determine, using the configuration file, a concurrency control group that includes the action.
Hodder teaches determine, using the configuration file, concurrency control group that includes the action (“A suitable configuration file (specified in the YAML data serialization language) that implements the concurrency control mechanisms according to an embodiment of the present disclosure is as follows: Table 1…” paragraph 0049, “Alternatively, an environment can be defined as having just the following attributes TABLE-US-00004 Environment: { environmentUuid: Uuid, name: String, lock: OpenLock | ClosedLock }” paragraph 0064, 0073-0100, Fig. 3).
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 provide optimal resource utilization.
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 a JavaScript object notation (JSON) file (generate JSON files, paragraph 0117). Hodder further teaches wherein the configuration file (specified in the YAML data serialization language) that implements the concurrency control mechanisms (paragraph 0049).
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 Hodder 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. Staelin et al. US 20130290656 A1 teaches concurrent request scheduling.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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