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
2. The following is a Final Office action in response to applicant's amendment and response received 04/08/2026, responding to the 01/28/2026 non-final/final office action provided in rejection of claims 1-20.
3. Claims 2, 4, 6, 9-10, 13-14, and 16 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and are addressed in this office action. New grounds of rejection are presented in view of the newly presented limitation(s).
Examiner notes
(A). Limitations have been provided with the Bold fonts in order to distinguish from the cited part of the reference (Italic).
(B). 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).
Response to Amendments and Arguments
In light of the amendment of claims, the Previous Action's objection / rejections of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 and 35 U.S.C. § 101 are hereby withdrawn.
With respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103(a), Applicant argues that Rumiantsau, Yuan Straub and Delsart does not disclose receiving human-readable text instructions associated with a current application, converting those instructions via an NLP engine into programming language formatted for an application package orchestrator model, or applying the converted instructions to a machine learning-based orchestrator model trained on previously generated application packages.
Examiner have been considered applicant’s argument but moot in view of new ground rejections.
Applicant offers no other arguments beyond arguing allowability for the reasons cited for the independent claim(s) or dependence upon said claims. These arguments are considered met.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 13, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 4, “the at least one custom program action” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 13, line 3, after “instructions,”, insert --the operations further comprising:--.
Claim 14, “the processing device” in line 2 and “the at least one custom program action” in line 4 lack proper antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 depends on itself. For the examination purposes, it will be treated as depending 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--.
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 Straub et al.. (US 20200042295 A1, hereinafter Straub), Yuan et al. (US 20220197953 A1, hereinafter Yuan), and Delsart et al. (US 20150178054 A1, hereinafter Delsart),
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 processor, wherein executing the computer- readable code is configured to cause the at least one processor 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. processor], cause the computing system to perform operations):
receiving, from a user device (col. 21, ll. 7-11, retrieve data requested by a user in a query, particularly when there is a large amount of data through which to search for the specific information that the user seeks. At a high level, for example, this can involve a computing device receiving a text query from a use) and via a network (col. 26, ll. 10-16, FIG. 8 depicts an example communication environment in which a software application can receive and process NLQs in order to provide search results to client [i.e. user] devices of managed network 300. As shown, computational instance 322 (of remote network management platform 320) can include a computing device 800 on which software application 802 is executable.), at least one instruction associated with at least one current application, wherein the at least one instruction comprises a command, a request (col. 10, ll. 47-56, Remote network management platform 320 is a hosted environment that provides aPaaS services to users, particularly to the operator of managed network 300. These services may take the form of web-based portals, for example, using the aforementioned web-based technologies. Thus, a user can securely access remote network management platform 320 from, for example, client devices 302, or potentially from a client device outside of managed network 300. By way of the web-based portals, users may design, test, and deploy applications ),
querying, 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 but Straub discloses applying the at least one instruction to a natural language processor (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. … );
generating, by the NLP engine, a stepwise metadata packet, wherein the stepwise metadata packet comprises the at least one instruction converted into a standardized set of computer-readable instructions in a programming language formatted for processing by an application package orchestrator model (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 [i.e. programming language formatted for processing by an application package], 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 applying the at least one instruction to a natural language processor (NLP) engine; generating, by the NLP engine, a stepwise metadata packet, wherein the stepwise metadata packet comprises the at least one instruction converted into a standardized set of computer-readable instructions in a programming language formatted for processing by an application package orchestrator model, 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).
Rumiantsau as modified does not but Yuan discloses applying the stepwise metadata packet to the 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), wherein the application package orchestrator model comprises a machine learning model trained based on previously generated application packages (par. 0077, The model described below refers to a system that is obtained by learning existing data [i.e. previously generated application] or experience through machine learning, deep learning or other methods and is configured to perform a specific function such as analyzing or predicting. Further, par. 0081, … a reinforcement learning model with an ID of 1002 configured to realize intelligent resource allocation of the slices according to traffic information …);
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 applying the stepwise metadata packet to the application package orchestrator model, wherein the application package orchestrator model comprises a machine learning model trained based on previously generated application packages, 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).
Rumiantsau as modified does not but Delsart discloses determining, 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
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 (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 determining, 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 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, as disclosed by Delsart, because such inclusion will jumping code was replaced by optimized instructions. (see paragraph 0070).
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., Straub et al., Yuan et al., and Delsart 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 processor 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 processor 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 generating, 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);
validating 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
generating, 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., Straub et al., Yuan et al., and Delsart et alas 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 Straub, Yuan, and Delsart, 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 process to perform the following operation storing 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 processor 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., Straub et al., Yuan et al., and Delsart 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 Straub, Yuan, and Delsart, 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., Straub et al., Yuan et al., and Delsart 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 Straub, Yuan, and Delsart, 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., Straub et al., Yuan et al., and Delsart 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 Straub, Yuan, and Delsart, 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 process to perform the following operations:
validating the application package, wherein, in an instance where the application package is invalidated, rolling back 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).
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.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights