DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/502,269 filed on 11/06/2023 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Claim 1-11 and 13-21 is/are pending in the application.
Claims 1 and 13-14 is/are independent claims.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on applications filed on 11/08/2022.
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 07/11/2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
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 14, and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 14; claims 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 14 recites “[a] computer-readable storage media”. Under a recent precedential opinion, the scope of the recited “computer readable storage medium” encompasses transitory media such as signals or carrier waves, where, as here the Specification does not limit the computer readable storage medium to non-transitory forms. See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1862 (PTAB 2013) (precedential) (holding recited machine-readable storage medium ineligible under § 35 U.S.C. 101 since it encompassed transitory media). The Examiner respectfully suggests that the claim be amended to either “A non-transitory computer-readable storage media” or “a computer-readable storage device” to make the claim statutory under 35 USC 101; (emphasis added).
Claims 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter for at least the reason stated above. Claims 19-21 are depended on claim 14, however, they do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve any of the non-statutory deficiencies of claim 14.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-11, and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 19-21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
Prior arts:
US 2018/0136931 to Hendrich
software packages that are implemented using software containers may be stored in software registry 135 using container images, which may include all components (e.g., microservices or other components) and dependencies required to run a particular software package in a software container 115. In such cases, the software registry 135 may include a library of containers each configured to run a particular, corresponding software package hosted in the container. A container image may be a file format used to package the components and dependencies of a containerized software package, such as Docker container images, Open Container Initiative (OCI) based images, and/or any other container image format, among other examples.
US 2017/0364380 to Frye
By correctly specifying the complete set of dependencies between the application components, it is possible that the VMs can be launched in any order and the applications themselves sort out the order in which the application components are started (via the plugins). Additionally, embodiments described herein provide a framework by which application components may respond to changes within the shared application eco system.
US 2017/0163492 to Khazanchi
when the item needs to be deposited during execution of a different application-release-management pipeline associated with a different application, launches that execution pipeline in order to resolve the inter-application dependency. In other words, using the example of FIG. 22, the two execution pipelines 2202 and 2204 may be joined by a branch point represented by an inter-application-dependency term within the gating rule or rules of stage 2210 of pipeline 2202.
US 2014/0359588 to O'Boyle
loading a number of additional dependencies, e.g., external libraries that may be specified, e.g., in one or more configuration files, and in the language/framework format (e.g., bundler's gemfile format for rubygems), in order to get run-time state ready for application launch.
US 2014/0059573 to Jawa
The wrapping utility tool inserts the hook and injection manager into the application's object file that, upon launching the application, the operating system loader loads the hooking and injection manager before any module with dependencies. After the dynamic loader loads the application binary file and dependent library modules, the hook and injection manager dynamically loads an interposition library.
US 2008/0016517 to Ellison
The application launcher software component 202 is an executable software routine for executing an application by instantiating an application class 210. For example, the application launcher software component 202 is a platform dependent executable file, such as an "exe" file. Application classes 210 are stored in an application class library, such as a Java archive file (JAR). Each application class 210 has associated an application class identifier 212, such as a class name. The application launcher software component 202 has associated a name 204, such as a filename, for identifying the application launcher software component 202. The name 204 further represents an application class 210, and thus provides a link between the launcher software component 202 and a particular application class 210.
The prior art of record does not disclose and/or fairly suggest at least claimed limitations recited in such manners in dependent claims 3-11, 16-18 and 19-21.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0324215 to Borthakur in view of US 2007/0198970 to Horii et al. (hereafter “Horii”) and US 2011/0008023 to Potter.
As per claim 1, Borthakur discloses a method for application launch, the method comprising:
reading a dependency relationship of each application in a plurality of applications from a dependency description file (FIG. 1; paragraphs 0024, 0026, 0029 and 0125: “The application migration service 140a may obtain dependency information 155 from the application migration service 140b. The dependency information 155 may include information identifying the virtual machine the application 185 is running on (i.e., VMI 180a) as well as any other VMIs that the application 185 may use (or depend on) (i.e., VMIs 180b-180c).” [Wingdings font/0xE0] obtaining dependence info stored in in 140a/b);
generating an application launch according to the dependency relationship (FIGs. 1; paragraphs 0029-0032: VMIs 108a-108c); and
launching the plurality of applications according to the application launch (FIG. 1; paragraphs 0031-0032: “ launching the VMIs identified by the dependency information 155 (i.e., VMIs 108a-180c) onto VMIs of the selected VMI type, which are hosted by a host computer of the selected host computer type.”).
Borthakur does not explicitly disclose a dependency description file carried by each application; generating an application launch sequence chain; and sequentially launching the plurality of applications.
Horri further discloses a dependency description file carried by each application (FIG. 10-11; paragraphs 0070 and 0077: “The one dependency description file corresponds to one EUT as described earlier. Thus, for example, the dependency description file corresponding to the EUT 90b shown in FIG. 10 includes link information between the application and the EER 81a and link information between the application and the EER 82b.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Horii into Borthakur’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of executing an integration test of an application on a plurality of execution environments that are dependency-injected can be provided, by dependency-injecting execution environments into an application that requires testing in a plurality of execution environments (Horii, paragraph 0015).
Potter further discloses generating an application launch sequence chain (paragraphs 0040-0045: “Once the application chain is created and all necessary software tools and processing modules have been established …”); and
sequentially launching the plurality of applications (paragraphs 0040-0045: “Once the application chain is created and all necessary software tools and processing modules have been established, the application will launch the initial application specified in the chain”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Potter into Borthakur’s teaching and Horii’ teaching because it would provide for the purpose of determining necessary operations needed to complete the content processing, determine the applications available to the user, and configured to determine whether the user's applications are configured to perform the content processing (Potting, paragraph 0010).
As per claim 13, it is a device claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 14, it is a media claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borthakur in view of Horii and Potter, as applied to claims 1, and 13-14, and further in view of US 2002/0144254 to Owada.
As per claim 2, Borthakur does not explicitly disclose wherein the dependency relationship of each application is written into a dependency description file carried by a current application in a development stage of the current application.
Horii further discloses the dependency relationship of each application is written into a dependency description file carried by a current application (FIG. 10-11; paragraphs 0070 and 0077: “The one dependency description file corresponds to one EUT as described earlier. Thus, for example, the dependency description file corresponding to the EUT 90b shown in FIG. 10 includes link information between the application and the EER 81a and link information between the application and the EER 82b.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Horii into Borthakur’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of executing an integration test of an application on a plurality of execution environments that are dependency-injected can be provided, by dependency-injecting execution environments into an application that requires testing in a plurality of execution environments (Horii, paragraph 0015).
Owada further discloses wherein the dependency relationship of each application is written into a dependency description file in a development stage of the current application (paragraph 0014).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine a teaching of Owada into Borthakur’s teaching, Horii’ teaching, and Potter’s teaching because it would provide for the purpose of generating a program with a plurality of software modules linked statically, which is provided with a configuration designating section that designates a configuring order of software modules based on a relationship between the dependence of the software modules, and a program link section that configures each of the software modules according to the designated configuring order (Owada, paragraph 0014).
As per claim 15, it is a device claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 19, it is a media claim, which recite(s) the same limitations as those of claim 2. Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan Dao whose telephone number is (571) 270 3387. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 09am to 05pm. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272 4215. 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.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TUAN C DAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198