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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claimed listing filed on 03/06/2024.
Claims 1-21 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-11, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Selvaraj et al., US Pat. No. 9661056 B2, in view Davis et al., US Pat. No. 12120124 B1.
As per Claim 1: Selvaraj disclose the limitations in bold below:
1. A system associated with a metadata-based application development platform (System 100), comprising:
a base application data store containing a base application source metadata file with at least one extension point that [ defines a permission] associated with the at least one extension point in connection with a base application; and
(See Figure 1, Base Application 122 of a Service Provider in an UI Environment . See in FIG. 3, View.xml 340, 350, and referred to Col. 5: lines 14-17, “…A view of base application 122 can include one or more extension points at specific places in the view where it is likely that customs
may want to insert custom content.” i.e., the xml files -metadata files - in the base application contains at least one extension point, and this extension point allows an insertion of custom contents.)
an extension application server, coupled to the base application data store, including:
a computer processor, and
a computer memory storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor (See FIG. 8, Server 815, and Local Network 820. In Fig 1, with Base Application)
cause the extension application to:
retrieve the base application source metadata file, cache the base application source metadata file as a read only file (FIG. 8, with memory 820, storage device 803, In FIG. 1, Base Application is provided from Data services 155, containing View.xml files as seen in FIG.3. See col. 1, lines 50-55 “for launching the custom application from inside a web browser, determining that the custom application extends a base application provided by a service provider, retrieving the base application from the service provider, merging the base application and the custom application, and executing the merged application on the web browser.” This file in base application read only. It allows the change from only custom application via an execution to the merge execution ),
is not and 140 could enter change data: ) , and
automatically generate a merge map file with an extension change to the base application metadata file,
(FIG. 3, Refer to Custom Application 124, it has the components 1-1 with bases application; especially, for S2Ext.view.xml file 345 and S3Ext.fragment,xml 355 are map files of xml files 340 and 350 in Base Application. See above as referred to col. 1, lines 50-55 “...for launching the custom application from inside a web browser… merging the base application and the custom application, and executing the merged application on the web browser”. Thus, custom application reads on “merge map file”. And see col. 6, lines 13-27 , “According to component 315, S2 extension view 345 is a replacement of S2 view 340. In other words, S2 extension view 345 is configured to replace S2
view 340 in custom application 124.” . The replacement reads on “an extension change” ),
wherein the base application source metadata file and the merge map file are merged in accordance with the [defined permission] to create a result metadata file for the base application.
(See Col. 1 lines 50-55, as given, and col. 6, lines 13-27, it shows the fragment S3Ext are merged into the S3 view .xml . See col. 5, 28-35 “A custom application can modify the view by changing a control in a view. View replacement is the replacement of a view in base application 122. Custom application 124 can replace an entire view in base application 122. View replacement can be appropriate when the desired changes are too cumbersome or complicated to be expressed using view modification or view extension.” : View replacement, especially for the xml files in base application 122, reads on ‘result metadata file’ ).
As per above limitations, Selvaraj does not explicitly mention “defines a permission” and “defined permission” as a feature where the changed is permitted in the metadata file.
Davis discloses “defines a permission” and “defined permission” (See Davis: See FIG. 1, with Network 108, Frontend service 118 and Extension Framework 166. And see col.16, lines 39-43, “In some examples, an apps listing interface further enables users to create new
apps and to modify the implementation of existing apps, if desired, and assuming a user has sufficient permissions to modify a particular app.”. See col.20, the last line, continued to col.21, lines 1-7, “the app editor generally enables any user account with permissions to develop apps to modify apps in draft status. The app editor can also enable user accounts with sufficient privileges to view app implementations without the ability to modify the apps (e.g., in a read-only mode), such that users can observe how an app is implemented and use app source code and configuration in other apps, if desired.” .
Permission is common feature in editor for allows texts to be modified or changed, with text in read-only, many editors permit only admins or privilege users to change. And it appear permission is for security purpose or at least to avoid the damage of a file.
Therefore, it would be obvious to an ordinary of skills in the art before the effective filing to modify the extension points in the base application of Selvaraj with permission definitions within extension framework of Davis. Modification with defining permission would enhance security and limit the damage of extensions.
As per claim 2: Selvaraj and combining Davis, where
Selvaraj discloses
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the extension application server subscribes to application updates for the base application.
(See Abstract , “When the web browser launches the custom application, the base application
can be identified and retrieved.” . It should be noted that custom application is the application with updates to the base application)
As per claim 6: Selvaraj and combining Davis, where
Selvaraj discloses the limitation in bold as below:
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one extension point [ and permission ] are associated with a simple property and comprise an indication of which properties are allowed to be extended.
(Selvaraj: Col. 4, lines 16-20, “In another embodiment, the extended property can be stored in a database of backend environment 150 and can be made available to custom application 124 through data request calls to data services 155.”).
Selvaraj shows extended property as a simple property, in this manner as shown in FIG. 3, the property is “Views” and this property would be allowed to extended in custom application.
But Selvaraj does not address “permission”.
Davis discloses “permission” (see col.16, lines 39-43, and col.20, the last line, continued to col.21, lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would be obvious to an ordinary of skills in the art before the effective filing to modify the extension points with properties of Selvaraj with permission definitions within extension framework of Davis. Modification with defining permission would enhance security and limit the damage of extensions.
As per claim 7: Selvaraj and combining Davis, where
Selvaraj discloses the limitation in bold as below:
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one extension point [and permission] are associated with an object property and comprise an ability to add, remove, or override an object property.
(Selvaraj: Col. 4, lines 16-20, “In another embodiment, the extended property can be stored in a database of backend environment 150 and can be made available to custom application 124 through data request calls to data services 155.”. See col. 5 lines 21-24, “View modification is the modification of the appearance of a view. A view can be modified by removing fields, rearranging fields, or otherwise changing the presentation of data in the view.”).
Selvaraj shows extended property as a simple property and this property would be allowed to extended in custom application.
But Selvaraj does not address “permission”.
Davis discloses “permission” (see col.16, lines 39-43, and col.20, the last line, continued to col.21, lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would be obvious to an ordinary of skills in the art before the effective filing to modify the extension points with properties and customized/modified abilities of Selvaraj with permission definitions within extension framework of Davis. Modification with defining permission would enhance security and limit the damage of extensions.
As per claim 8: Selvaraj and combining Davis, where
Selvaraj discloses the limitation in bold as below:
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one extension point [and permission] are associated with an array property and an ability to reorder, remove, or insert information in an array.
(Selvaraj: Col. 4, lines 16-20, “In another embodiment, the extended property can be stored in a database of backend environment 150 and can be made available to custom application 124 through data request calls to data services 155.”. See col. 5 lines 21-24, “View modification is the modification of the appearance of a view. A view can be modified by removing fields, rearranging fields, or otherwise changing the presentation of data in the view.”).
Selvaraj shows Views as extended property and Views includes with S1, S2… which is a form of an array property. This Views property would be allowed to extended with inserting custom data as provided in claim 1 rationales or as in col. 5, lines 21-24.
But Selvaraj does not address “permission”.
Davis discloses “permission” (see col.16, lines 39-43, and col.20, the last line, continued to col.21, lines 1-7).
Therefore, it would be obvious to an ordinary of skills in the art before the effective filing to modify the extension points with properties and customized/modified abilities of Selvaraj with permission definitions within extension framework of Davis. Modification with defining permission would enhance security and limit the damage of extensions.
As per claim 9: Selvaraj and combining Davis, where
Selvaraj discloses the limitation in bold as below:
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the base application source metadata file includes a plurality of extension points that each [define at least one permission] in connection with the base application.
(Selvaraj: Figure 1, Base Application 122 of a Service Provider in an UI Environment . See in FIG. 3, View.xml 340, 350, and referred to Col. 5: lines 14-17, “…A view of base application 122 can include one or more extension points at specific places in the view where it is likely that customs
may want to insert custom content.” i.e., the xml files -metadata files - in the base application contains at least one extension point, and this extension point allows an insertion of custom contents.)
Selvaraj does not explicitly mention “define at least one permission”
Davis discloses “define at least one permission” (See Davis: See FIG. 1, with Network 108, Frontend service 118 and Extension Framework 166. And see col.16, lines 39-43; col.20, the last line, continued to col.21, lines 1-7.
Therefore, it would be obvious to an ordinary of skills in the art before the effective filing to modify the extension points in the base application of Selvaraj with permission definitions within extension framework of Davis. Modification with defining permission would enhance security and limit the damage of extensions.
As per claims 10-11, 15-18: The Claims are directed to a method which recites the limitations having functionality corresponding to the system of Claims 1-2, 6-9 above. The claims are rejected with the same rationales addressed in Claims 1-2, 6-9.
As per claim 19: The Claims are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium which recites the limitations having functionality corresponding to the method of Claim 1 above. The claim is rejected with the same rationales addressed in Claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 12-14, and 20-21 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ted T Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-3706. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wei Y Mui can be reached at (571) 272-3708. 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.
TTV
January 23, 2026
/Ted T. Vo/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191