DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination in this application. The application filing date on 11/28/2023. Claims 1, 10 and 16 are independent.
Examiner notes
(A). Drawings submitted on 11/28/2023 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(d), have been fully considered by the Examiner.
(B). IDS submitted on 05/06/2024 considered by the Examiner.
(B) Limitations have been provided with the Bold fonts in order to distinguish from the cited part of the reference (Italic).
(C). Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, references, or figures in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses to fully consider the reference in entirety, as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §§ 2141.02 and 2123.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 10, line 8 and claim 16, line 5 “NLP”, must spell out.
Claim 1, replace “identify” (line 7), “apply” (line 8), “generate” (line 9), “apply” (line 11), “query” (line 12), “determine” (line 15), and “generate” (line 18) with --identifying--, --applying--, --generating--, --applying--, --querying--, --determining--, and –generating--, respectively. Please check claim 10 for the same issue.
Claim 4, replace “apply” (line 5), “generate” (line 8), “validate” (line 10), and “generate” (line 13) with --applying--, --generating--, --validating--, and –generating--, respectively. Please see claim 13 for the same issue.
Claim 9, replace “validate” (line 3), “rollback” (line 5), “commit” (line 7), and “transmit” (line 7) with --validating--, --rolling back--, --committing--, and –transmitting--, respectively.
“the processor” in line 5 of claim 10 and line 2 of claim 14 lack proper antecedent basis.
Claims 2, 3, 5-8, 11,12, 14, 15, and 17-20 are dependent claims of objected claims; therefor they inherit the same issue.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is: “processing device” in claims 1 and 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 10, “processing device” is interpreted under 112(f). However, the specification does not disclose equivalent structures.
Claims 2-9 and 11-15 depend on the rejected claims and inherit the same issue.
Claims 1-15 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 10, “processing device” is interpreted under 112(f). However, the specification does not disclose equivalent structures.
Claim 5 depends on itself. For the examining purpose examiner interpreted claim 5 depend on claim 4. Further, it is not clear whether “at least one pre-generated program action” is the same “at least one pre-generated program action” in line 14 of claim 1 or not. For the examination purposes, “at least one pre-generated program action” in claim 5 will be treated as --the at least one pre-generated program action--.
Claims 2-4, 6-9, and 11-15 depend on the rejected claims and inherit the same issue.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: Claims 1-9 are directed to computer implemented system, claims 10-15 are directed to product, and claims 16-20 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of processes. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes. With Step 1 being directed to a statutory category, the 2019 Interim Eligibility Guidance flowchart is directed to Step 2.
Analysis of Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim recites multiple limitations that recite an abstract idea. The limitations “identify at least one instruction associated with at least one current application;” , “query, by the application package orchestrator model, a programming template database based on the stepwise metadata package, wherein the programming template database comprises at least one pre-generated programming action;” and “determine, based on the query, whether the at least one pre-generated programming action resolve each of the standardized set of computer-readable instructions of the stepwise metadata packet;” recites a mental process since “identifying, determining and determining … , are concept that can be reasonably performed in the human mind (with the aid of pen and paper), which include observation, evaluation, judgement and/or opinion.
Analysis of 2A, Prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong 2): Additional elements “memory device with computer-readable program code stored thereon; , “at least one processing device, wherein executing the computer-readable code is configured to cause the at least one processing device to perform the following operations:” , “apply the at least one instruction to an NLP engine;” , “generate, by the NLP engine, a stepwise metadata packet, wherein the stepwise metadata packet comprises a standardized set of computer-readable instructions;” , “apply the stepwise metadata packet to an application package orchestrator model;” and “generate an application package based on a combination of the at least one pre- generated programming action that resolve each of the standardized set of computer- readable instructions.”, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity detailed in a high level of generality that they do not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The use of one or more processors and computing system amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Viewed as a whole (2019 PEG 2B), these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Since there are no elements or ordered combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, the claims are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC §101. As such, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 10 is not patent eligible for the same reasons given for claim 1, wherein the “A computer program product for improving computing performance by implementing an application package orchestrator in an electronic environment, wherein the computer program product comprises at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer- readable program code portions … metadata packet; and generate an application package based on a combination of the at least one pre- generated programming action that resolve each of the standardized set of computer- readable instructions.” are merely a generic computer component for applying the abstract idea, thus fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor an inventive concept.
Independent claim 16 is not patent eligible for the same reasons given for claim 1, wherein the “A computer implemented method for improving computing performance by implementing an application package orchestrator in an electronic environment, the computer implemented method … resolve each of the standardized set of computer-readable instructions of the stepwise metadata packet; and generating an application package based on a combination of the at least one pre- generated programming action that resolve each of the standardized set of computer- readable instructions.” are merely a generic computer component for applying the abstract idea, thus fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7-8, 11-12, 15 and 17-18 are not patent eligible for the same reasons given for claim 1, wherein the “… instruction. … ; arrangement of the set … ; modification of program, categorize the current application … ; and configured to automatically perform …” are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
Further dependent claims 4, 6, 9, 13-14 and 19-20 are not patent eligible for the same reasons given for claim 1, wherein the additional elements “applying … ; and validate … ; and rolling bae …” are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process. Further, “generate … ; store … ; and transmit package … ;” are merely recite insignificant extra solution activity which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2.
For the above reasons, the claims of this application are not patentable under 35 USC 101.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 10-12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Rumiantsau et al. (US 11188530 B2) in view of Delsart et al. (US 20150178054 A1, hereinafter Delsart), Straub et al.. (US 20200042295 A1, hereinafter Straub) and Yuan et al. (US 20220197953 A1, hereinafter Yuan).
As to claim 1, Rumiantsau discloses as to claim a system for improving computing performance by implementing an application package orchestrator in an electronic environment, the system comprising:
a memory device with computer-readable program code stored thereon (col. 2, ll. 65, ll. 6 of col. 3, an article of manufacture may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations in accordance with the first and/or second example embodiment. In a fourth example embodiment, a computing system may include at least one processor, as well as memory and program instructions);
at least one processing device, wherein executing the computer-readable code is configured to cause the at least one processing device to perform the following operations (col. 2, ll. 66-3 of col. 3, an article of manufacture may include a non-transitory computer-readable medium, having stored thereon program instructions that, upon execution by a computing system [i.e. processing device], cause the computing system to perform operations):
identify at least one instruction associated with at least one current application (col. 17, ll. 51-52, determine the operational state and applications executing on the discovered device);
query, by the application package orchestrator model, a programming template database based on the stepwise metadata package (col. 9, ll. 1-8, Server devices 202 may be configured to transmit data to and receive data from data storage 204. This transmission and retrieval may take the form [i.e. template] of SQL queries or other types of database queries, and the output of such queries, respectively. Additional text, images, video, and/or audio may be included as well. Furthermore, server devices 202 may organize the received data into web page or web application representations. Further, col. 25, ll. 19-39, the metadata may also include a flexible scheme for translating and/or mapping a wide and evolving array of natural language words and/or expressions to formal database query terminology through the parsing process. More specifically, example embodiments provide expansion of metadata that may represent formal database query input data in abbreviated forms referred to herein as “synonyms” and “semantic shortcuts.” Briefly, in the context of metadata, a synonym is a natural language word or phrase that may be used in equivalence to a formal term of a context-free grammar rule, which may be mapped by parsing to input of a formal database query),
wherein the programming template database comprises at least one pre-generated programming action (col. 6, ll. 17-33, The aPaaS system may also support a rich set of pre-defined [i.e. pre-generated] functionality that can be added to applications. … Such an aPaaS system may represent a GUI in various ways. For example, a server device of the aPaaS system may generate a representation of a GUI using a combination of HTML and JAVASCRIPT®. The JAVASCRIPT® may include client-side executable code, server-side executable code, or both. The server device may transmit or otherwise provide this representation to a client device for the client device to display on a screen according to its locally-defined look and feel. Alternatively, a representation of a GUI may take other forms, such as an intermediate form (e.g., JAVA® byte-code) that a client device can use to directly generate graphical output therefrom. Other possibilities exist);
Rumiantsau does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Delsart discloses determine, based on the query, whether the at least one pre-generated programming action resolve each of the standardized set of computer-readable instructions of the stepwise metadata packet (par. 0080, The compiler (e.g., as represented by the execution engine 76) then discovers previous results of the compilation, copies the saved code (called the pre-generated code) to the code heap (i.e., dumps the code) [i.e. determine], and then resolves all symbolic references when performing relocation (e.g., via the relocation and patching module 86). Further, par. 0096, Particular embodiments may be implemented in a computer-readable storage medium for use by or in connection with the instruction execution system, apparatus, system, or device. Particular embodiments can be implemented in the form of control logic in software or hardware or a combination of both. … . Note: the function of computer-readable medium herein interpreted as a standardized set of computer-readable instructions (e.g. instructions that would be understood by a computing component such as an application package orchestrator model), per applicant’s spec par. 0035); and
generate an application package based on a combination of the at least one pre- generated programming action that resolve each of the standardized set of computer- readable instructions (par. 0080 and 0096),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Rumiantsau to include determine, based on the query, whether the at least one pre-generated programming action resolve each of the standardized set of computer-readable instructions of the stepwise metadata packet and generate an application package based on a combination of the at least one pre- generated programming action that resolve each of the standardized set of computer- readable instructions, as disclosed by Delsart, because such inclusion will jumping code was replaced by optimized instructions. (see paragraph 0070).
Straub discloses apply the at least one instruction to an NLP engine (par. 0172, Computing device 500 also includes a software application 510, which may be stored on memory 506 or on any other suitable storage location or computer-readable medium. Software application 510 provides instructions that enable processor 502 to perform the functions described herein and other functions. … );
generate, by the NLP engine, a stepwise metadata packet, wherein the stepwise metadata packet comprises a standardized set of computer-readable instructions (par. 0044, a Natural Language Processor (NLP) 40 that includes code for processing and interpreting natural language input provided via the technician incident report UI display screen 28. Resulting processed natural language can be converted into one or more software commands (e.g., a command to “get a photo”) that may be input to a first AI module 36, which is also called the UI metadata generator herein. The UI metadata generator 36 includes code for generating a description of a UI to be generated for a micro app that is to be delivered to or otherwise made available to the customer 16 via the customer phone 18 … Further, par. 0172, Computing device 500 also includes a software application 510, which may be stored on memory 506 or on any other suitable storage location or computer-readable medium. Software application 510 provides instructions that enable processor 502 to perform the functions described herein and other functions … );
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Rumiantsau to include apply the at least one instruction to an NLP engine generate, by the NLP engine, a stepwise metadata packet, wherein the stepwise metadata packet comprises a standardized set of computer-readable instructions, as disclosed by Staub, for the purpose of processing the natural language portion of the input to determine what is specifically being requested by the received natural language. (see paragraph 0056).
Yuan discloses apply the stepwise metadata packet to an application package orchestrator model (par. 0097, At step S610, the model engine packages the model, a dependent runtime environment of the model, and metadata into a docker image named Image1, sends Image1 and the identity information of the orchestrator to a network management platform);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Rumiantsau to include apply the stepwise metadata packet to an application package orchestrator model, as disclosed by Yuan, for the purpose of processing the natural language portion of the input to identity information of the orchestrator to a network management platform (see paragraph 0097).
As to claim 2, Rumiantsau discloses the system wherein the at least one instruction comprises a combination of two or more instructions (col. 7, ll. 21-27, Memory 104 may store program instructions and/or data on which program instructions may operate. By way of example, memory 104 may store these program instructions on a non-transitory, computer-readable medium, such that the instructions are executable by processor 102 to carry out any of the methods, processes, or operations disclosed in this specification).
As to claim 3, Rumiantsau discloses the system wherein the stepwise metadata packet comprises a standardized arrangement of the set of computer-readable instructions (col. 30, ll. 67-ll. 5 of col. 31, a metadata generator, and a formal database query generator. The software application 902 is shown to include a grammar parser. Each of the functional components or modules may be implemented as executable instructions stored in one or another form of memory (e.g., non-transient computer-readable media) Note: the function of computer-readable medium herein interpreted as a standardized set of computer-readable instructions (e.g. instructions that would be understood by a computing component such as an application package orchestrator model), per applicant’s spec par. 0035).
As to claim 10, it is a product claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 11, it is the product claim, having similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 12, it is the product claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
As to claim 16, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 17, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 18, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4, 5, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Rumiantsau et al. , Delsart et al. , Straub et al. and Yuan et al. as applied to the claims 1, 10, and 16 above, and further in view of Franklin et al. (US 9552254 B1, hereinafter Franklin) and Kostello et al. (US 9946514 B1, hereinafter Kostello).
As to claim 4, Rumiantsau as modified by Delsart, Straub and Yuan does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Franklin discloses the system wherein, in an instance where the at least one pre-generated programming action does not resolve each of the standardized set of computer-readable instructions, execute the computer-readable code configured to cause the at least one processing device to perform the following operations: apply the standardized set of computer-readable instructions that are not resolved by the at least one pre-generated programming action to the application package orchestrator model (col. 13, ll. 58-64, At operation 615 an error detection code is generated for the replacement version of that erasure encoded fragment. At operation 620 the system obtains the previously-generated error detection code for the previously-generated version of that erasure encoded fragment. The system may obtain the previously-generated error detection code [i.e. program action not resolve], for example, receiving or retrieving the previously-generated error detection code. Further, col. 17, ll. 52-64, In one configuration, the mass storage device 712 or other computer-readable storage media is encoded with computer-executable instructions that, when loaded into the computer 700, transform the computer from a general-purpose computing system into a special-purpose computer capable of implementing the configurations described herein. These computer-executable instructions transform the computer 700 by specifying how the CPUs 702 transition between states, as described above. According to one configuration, the computer 700 has access to computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions which, when executed by the computer 700, perform aspects of one or more of the methods or procedures. Note: the function of computer-readable medium herein interpreted as a standardized set of computer-readable instructions (e.g. instructions that would be understood by a computing component such as an application package orchestrator model), per applicant’s spec par. 0035);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Rumiantsau to include the system wherein, in an instance where the at least one pre-generated programming action does not resolve each of the standardized set of computer-readable instructions, execute the computer-readable code configured to cause the at least one processing device to perform the following operations: apply the standardized set of computer-readable instructions that are not resolved by the at least one pre-generated programming action to the application package orchestrator model, as disclosed by Franklin, for the purpose of detecting error code which originally generated for that original version of the erasure encoded fragment. (see col. 14, ll. 1-3).
Kostello discloses generate, by the application package orchestrator model, at least one custom program action (col. 8, ll. 6-13, utilized by action generator 238 to determine an action to be executed with respect to the design. Furthermore, as discussed in greater detail below, a goal may also be used by action generator 238 to execute an action (e.g., based on intent, action, context, and goal). In embodiments, actions are typically in the form of creating or modifying an instance of a component at location x,y in a software application);
validate the at least one custom program action and determine the at least one custom program action resolves the standardized set of computer-readable instructions (col. 8, ll. 12-29, modifying an instance of a component at location x,y in a software application user interface being designed. In embodiments, the components are abstractions that define their respective functions (e.g., actions and responses), and not their respective visual representation. For example, a “button” components may be defined as an object that takes up a certain amount of space and responds to input, but there is no definition of the button's visual representation. The components visual representation is determined based on a theme applied to a software application user interface at runtime, a platform upon which a software application user interface is deployed, etc. These visual representations may be entirely different even though the actions/responses are the same in each environment. Therefore, action generator 238 creates or modifies an instance of an abstracted component, which are resolved at runtime according to the theme or platform in which the component is execute); and
generate, based on the validation and determination of the at least one custom program action, the application package based on at least the at least one custom program action (col. 8, ll. 6-29, then utilized by action generator 238 to determine an action to be executed with respect to the design. Furthermore, as discussed in greater detail below, a goal may also be used by action generator 238 to execute an action (e.g., based on intent, action, context, and goal). In embodiments, actions are typically in the form of creating or modifying an instance of a component at location x,y in a software application … The components visual representation is determined based on a theme applied to a software application user interface at runtime, a platform upon which a software application user interface is deployed, etc. These visual representations may be entirely different even though the actions/responses are the same in each environment. Therefore, action generator 238 creates or modifies an instance of an abstracted component, which are resolved at runtime according to the theme or platform in which the component is executed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Rumiantsau to include generate, by the application package orchestrator model, at least one custom program action; validate the at least one custom program action and determine the at least one custom program action resolves the standardized set of computer-readable instructions and generate, based on the validation and determination of the at least one custom program action, the application package based on at least the at least one custom program action, as disclosed by Kostello, for the purpose of testing of a functional design to determine the efficacy of different designs. (see col. 4, ll. 58-59).
As to claim 5, Rumiantsau discloses the system wherein the custom program action comprises a modification to at least one pre-generated programming action (col. 6, ll. 8-18, . This generated application may serve as the basis of further development for the user. Advantageously, the developer does not have to spend a large amount of time on basic application functionality. Further, since the application may be web-based, it can be accessed from any Internet-enabled client device. Alternatively or additionally, a local copy of the application may be able to be accessed, for instance, when Internet service is not available.
The aPaaS system may also support a rich set of pre-defined [pre-generated] functionality that can be added [i.e. customize] to application. Further, col. 6, ll. 17-31, The aPaaS system may also support a rich set of pre-defined functionality that can be added to applications. These features include support for searching, email, templating, workflow design, reporting, analytics, social media, scripting, mobile-friendly output, and customized GUIs).
As to claim 13, it is the product claim, having similar limitations of claim 4. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 19, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 4. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 6, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Rumiantsau et al., Delsart et al. , Straub et al. and Yuan et al. as applied to the claims 1, 10, and 16 above, and further in view of Konuri et al. (US 20220236957 A1, hereinafter Konuri).
As to claim 6, Rumiantsau as modified by Delsart, Straub and Yuan does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Konuri discloses the system wherein executing the computer-readable code is configured to cause the at least one processing device to perform the following operation store the at least one custom program action in the programming template database (par. 0053, … , the template database 46 may store data indicating previous driver definitions used to build validated custom applications. Responsive to receiving user inputs 44 identifying target outputs for a custom application, the discovery module 36 may be configured to query this data from the template database 46 to identify previous driver definitions that include at least one of the identified target outputs. …).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Rumiantsau to include the system wherein executing the computer-readable code is configured to cause the at least one processing device to perform the following operation store the at least one custom program action in the programming template database, as disclosed by Konuri, for the purpose to build validated custom applications. (see par. 0053)
As to claim 14, it is the product claim, having similar limitations of claim 6. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6.
As to claim 20, it is a method claim, having similar limitations of claim 6. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Rumiantsau et al. Delsart et al. , Straub et al. and Yuan et al. as applied to the claim 1 above, and further in view of Hughes et al. (IDS provided) (US 6889260 B1 A1, hereinafter Hughes).
As to claim 7, Rumiantsau as modified by Delsart, Straub and Yuan does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Hughes discloses the system wherein the application package orchestrator model categorizes the at least one current application as at least one of a simple category, medium category, or complex category (abstract, a method and system for application-to-application data exchange which provides data conversion from the format of a source application to the format of a target application upon receipt of data by the target application. To achieve compatibility among applications exchanging data, the preferred system uses a standard set [i.e. category] of terms and process names for building metadata packets that inform both applications as to their respective data representation. …).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Rumiantsau to include the system wherein the application package orchestrator model categorizes the at least one current application as at least one of a simple category, medium category, or complex category, as disclosed by Hughes, for the purpose to build the preferred system uses a standard set of terms and process names for building metadata packets that inform both applications as to their respective data representation. (see abstract)
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Rumiantsau et al. , Delsart et al. , Straub et al. and Yuan et al. as applied to the claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Lipka et al. (US 20180300218 A1, hereinafter Lipka).
As to claim 8, Rumiantsau as modified by Delsart, Straub and Yuan does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Lipka discloses the system wherein the application package orchestrator model is configured to automatically perform an upgrade, an install, or an uninstall of at least one of the at least one current application or the application package (par. 0103, environment 100 is package manager 142 that can automate the process of installing, upgrading, configuring, and removing computer programs for the computer's operating system. … ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Rumiantsau to include the system wherein the application package orchestrator model is configured to automatically perform an upgrade, an install, or an uninstall of at least one of the at least one current application or the application package, as disclosed by Lipka, for the purpose the software to run properly. (see par. 0103)
As to claim 15, it is the product claim, having similar limitations of claim 8. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 8.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Rumiantsau et al. Delsart et al. , Straub et al. and Yuan et al. as applied to the claim 1 above, and further in view of Harata (US 20210157569 A1, hereinafter Harata).
As to claim 9, Rumiantsau as modified by Delsart, Straub and Yuan does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Harata discloses the system wherein executing the computer-readable code is configured to cause the at least one processing device to perform the following operations:
validate the application package, wherein, in an instance where the application package is invalidated, rollback the application package, (par. 1295, When a verification result of the update data is NG, writing into the flash memory 28d is stopped. When a verification result of the new program written in the flash memory 28d is NG, the new program is invalidated, and a rollback process is performed as necessary. … ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Rumiantsau to include validate the application package, wherein, in an instance where the application package is invalidated, rollback the application package, as disclosed by Harata, because such inclusion will determination the condition or status (see paragraph 0520).
Conclusion
Prior arts made of record are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See MPEP § 707.05 (C) For Examples:
I. Agrawal et al. (US 9417854 B1) discloses: “With respect to sentence classification, in addition to entity mapping, domain tasks (i.e., tasks defined in a functional model) may be used for entity mapping. For example if an object is not located, the functional model repository 116 may be queried for tasks with the mapped subject and predicate, and the objects in resulting tasks may be considered as suggestions. If the intersection of the list of suggestions using JACCARD index and the suggestions from domain tasks includes one element, the element may be considered as the object, if more than one element is there, then the list of suggestions is the suggestion, and if no element is returned, then the union of the lists is the suggestion. The matching process may depend on a natural language processor's output, and it may include inaccuracies. Therefore, the sentence may be mapped to multiple tasks in a functional model instead of one, and the result of a query may be used as suggestions to a user.” (please see col. 11, 42-58).
II. Guggulla et al. (US 11829335 B1) discloses: “The systems and techniques use several different components to enable an enterprise to seamlessly and easily manage databases from multiple database providers. A first component is a user interface that is installed on a device used by, for example, a system administrator. The user interface (e.g., a graphical user interface (GUI)) enables a user to provide commands in English (or another spoken language). A second component is a natural language processor (NLP) and a machine learning algorithm that determines an intent of the commands provided in English (or another spoken language) and converts these into generic database commands, identifies one or more target databases (e.g., to which the commands are to be performed), and sends the generic database commands to the target databases. The term “generic database commands” refers to database commands that are used internally by the systems and techniques described herein and are not specific to any particular vendor's database” (please see col. 2, ll. 43-61).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohammad Kabir whose telephone number is (571)270-13411. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sam Sough can be reached on (571) 272-6799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohammad Kabir/
Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. Sough/SPE, Art Unit 2192