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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
par. [0035] reads “The devices 4 can be external to enterprise system 6”, par. [0036] “a device 4a can be internal to the enterprise system 6”. These statements contradict each other. As a result the examiner suspects the later statement is a typo. Appropriate correction and/or adequate explanation is required.
par. [0040] reads “access and proposed changes”. It is believed this should read “access and propose[[d]] changes”.
par., [0053] reads “proposed changes can possible be in conflict”. It is believed this should read “proposed changes can possibly be in conflict”
par. [0056] reads “can be updated real time”. It is believed this should read par. [0056] “can be updated in real time”
par. [0069] reads “all edits from the environments 10 have be submitted”. It is believed this should read “all edits from the environments 10 have been submitted”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “configuration file to be an objected oriented”. It is believed this should read “configuration file to be an object oriented”.
Claim 11 recites “configuration file to be an objected oriented”. It is believed this should read “configuration file to be an object oriented”.
Claim 20 recites “configuration file to be an objected oriented”. It is believed this should read “configuration file to be an object oriented”.
Dependent claims inherit the objection of their parent.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2025/0208850 to Monty et al. (Monty) in view of US 12/483,601 to Nguyen et al. (Nguyen).
Claims 1, 11 and 20: Monty discloses a device for managing multi-user development systems, the device comprising:
a processor;
a communications module coupled to the processor; and
a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing computer executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to:
provide a platform that enables customization of objects associated with the platform through record based configurations (par. [0029] “receive operational configuration revisions and an associated terminal device identifier”);
provide a plurality of configuration files, each configuration file associated with a distinct functionality of the platform (e.g. par. [0038] “stores configuration files”, par. [0032] “a setting of any operational aspect of the terminal device”);
for each configuration file of the plurality of the configuration files:
structure the respective configuration file to be a feature-based data file for entering record based configuration changes for the respective functionality (par. [0032] “a setting of any operational aspect of the terminal device”); and
accept requests for customizations of objects in the platform through the plurality of configuration files (par.[0036] “enter one or more operational configuration changes through one or more file editing applications 128”).
Monty does not explicitly disclose:
structure the respective configuration file to be an objected oriented and a feature-based data file for entering record based configuration changes for the respective functionality.
Nguyen teaches:
structuring a configuration file to be an objected oriented and a feature-based data file for entering record based configuration changes for the respective functionality (col. 20, lines 55-56 “configurations fie3l 114 can be in … JSON”)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to structure the configuration files as object oriented, feature-based files. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as a known format for storing such data which would have produced only the expected results.
Claims 2 and 12: Monty and Nguyen teach claims 1 and 11, wherein the computer executable instructions cause the processor to:
provide access to the plurality of configuration files to a plurality of development environments (Monty par. [0047] “one or more configuration editing or development programs”, par. [0019] “workstations 104a, 104b, … 104n”).
Claims 3 and 13: The device of claims 2 and 12, wherein the access provided to the plurality of development environments is simultaneous (Monty par. [0084] “a first workstation may provide changes … and a second workstation may provide changes … at substantially the same time”).
Claims 4 and 14: Monty and Nguyen teach claims 1 and 11, wherein the computer executable instructions cause the processor to:
populate new development environments with the plurality of configuration files (Monty par. [0038] “workstation 200 stores configuration files locally”).
Claims 5 and 15: Monty and Nguyen teach claims 1 and 11, wherein the plurality of configuration files are in a JSON format (Nguyen col. 20, lines 55-56 “configurations fie3l 114 can be in … JSON”).
Claims 6 and 16: Monty and Nguyen teach claims 5 and 15, wherein the JSON format is structured such that configuration files utilize SOQL statements to handle a specific object for a corresponding feature (Nguyen col. 32, lines 13-15 invocations to such application may be coded using PL/SOQL”).
Claims 7 and 17: Monty and Nguyen teach claims 1 and 11, wherein the computer executable instructions cause the processor to:
update the plurality of configuration files in response to completion of a development cycle (e.g. Monty par. [0046] “placed in production mode 404 once the user confirms a particular operational configuration during testing”).
Claims 8 and 18: Monty and Nguyen teach claims 1 and 11, wherein the computer executable instructions cause the processor to:
route requests to customize objects of the platform to the plurality of configuration files (Monty par. [0036] “enter one or more operational configuration changes … save … the one or more operational configuration changes to the configuration file network directory 102”).
Claims 9 and 19: Monty and Nguyen teach claims 1 and 11, wherein the plurality of configuration files comprise configuration files for user interface functionality or for role definition functionality or product functionality (Monty par. [0032] “files for user interface configurations … security settings and the like”).
Claim 10: Monty and Nguyen teach claim 1, wherein the computer executable instructions cause the processor to:
automatically perform one or more development operations in response to receiving requests for customizations of objects in the platform through the plurality of configuration files (e.g. Monty par. [0046] “placed in production mode 404 once the user confirms a particular operational configuration during testing”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0221954 to Hashimoto et al., US 12/299437 to Patrick, US 2024/0231897 to Vigliotti et al., US 2025/0085944 to Bacon et al., US 2024/0259396 to Kerkar et al. US 2022/0147435 to Dellatorre Borges et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)272-3728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 7:00am - 4:30pm and alternate Fridays 7:00am 3:30pm.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached at (571)272-3759. 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.
/JASON D MITCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights