Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 9/12/2025 is entered and acknowledged by the Examiner. Claims 13-22 and 31 have been amended. Claims 13-32 are currently pending in the instant application.
The rejection for double patenting presented in the previous office action has been withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer filed on 10/15/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 13, 17 and 31 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 13-20 and 22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al Pub. No.: (US 2007/0239819 A1) (hereinafter “Wood”) in view of Wang et al Pat. No.: (US 8,666,907 A1) (hereinafter "Wang”) and Barton et al Pub. No.: (US 2014/0033271 A1) (hereinafter "Barton”).
With respect to claim 13.Wood discloses a system, comprising:
a computing node of a service provider that provides telecommunications services to a client of the service provider via a service provider network, the computing node comprising at least one processor and a memory, and the services comprising a plurality of network services provided for a container of the client and one or more personal third party applications provided for the container of the client (the one or more application services are deployed to and executed in the agent which is a container of services. The users may use the browser application to communicate with the applications [0028], [0084], [0112]);
the computing node configured to implement a proxy service that receives and manages API requests pertaining to the network services (an agent infrastructure includes SAMI which is an API, and the agent may be assigned to a peer management server which acts as its message proxy [0026], [0029], [0042]);
However, Wood does not explicitly disclose the computing node configured to implement a personal policy rules service that receives and manages applications programming interface (API) requests pertaining to the personal third party applications using a unique application identifier; and
the computing node configured to receives and manages API requests pertaining to the network services and that processes the personal policy rules to grant or deny access to one or more of the third party applications;
Wang discloses implement a personal policy rules service that receives and manages applications programming interface (API) requests pertaining to the personal third party applications (policy and rules on return requests are processed by the return processing engine for an online marketplace system, the policy can be set by the seller/merchant of the marketplace [Col 2 lines 16-45], [Col 4 lines 50-64], [Col 5 lines 7-21]. API for approving or denying return request [Col 10 lines 10-25]);
the computing node configured to receives and manages API requests pertaining to the network services and that processes the personal policy rules (policy and rules on return requests are processed by the return processing engine [Col 2 lines 16-45]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood in view of Wang in order to implement a personal policy pertaining to the network services;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide automated policy enforcement for the application services [Wang: Col 2 lines 16-45];
However, Wood-Wang does not explicitly disclose manages applications programming interface (API) requests pertaining to the personal third party applications using a unique application identifier; and
manages API requests pertaining to the network services and that processes the personal policy rules to grant or deny access to one or more of the third party applications
Barton discloses implement a personal policy rules service that receives and manages applications programming interface (API) requests pertaining to the personal third party applications using a unique application identifier (API calls from the application are intercepted and a policy setting is read to determine whether the operation from the API call is allowed or blocked, the applications are identified based on an application identifier [0181], [0168]);
the computing node configured to receive and manages API requests pertaining to the network services and that processes the personal policy rules to grant or deny access to one or more of the third party applications (API calls from the application are intercepted and a policy setting is read to determine whether the operation from the API call is allowed or blocked, the applications are identified based on an application identifier [0181], [0168]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood-Wang in view of Barton in order to implement a personal policy rules service that receives and manages applications programming interface (API) requests pertaining to the personal third party applications using a unique application identifier and processes the personal policy rules to grant or deny access to one or more of the third party applications;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide secured data and not comingled the date with other applications [Barton: Abstract, 0168].
With respect to claim 14. Wood-Wang-Barton discloses the system of claim 13 as set forth above.
Wood discloses wherein the API requests are related to a particular network on-device service (request for service from application [Fig. 5 step 504]. The system and method allows for the creation of consumer applications by facilitating the identification, location and assembly of services running in a network on a plurality of devices [Abstract]).
With respect to claim 15. Wood-Wang-Barton discloses the system of claim 14 as set forth above.
Wood discloses one or more of the API requests of a network on-device services framework (an agent infrastructure includes SAMI which is an API [0029], The system and method allows for the creation of consumer applications by facilitating the identification, location and assembly of services running in a network on a plurality of devices [Abstract]);
However, Wood does not explicitly disclose wherein an approval control is associated with one or more of the API requests of a network on-device services framework;
Wang discloses wherein an approval control is associated with one or more of the API requests of a network on-device services framework (approve control for return request [Col 9 lines 34-44], [Fig. 6]. API for approving or denying return request [Col 10 lines 10-25]. Operating in a network environment using logical connection to remote computing devices [Col 12 lines 10-26]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood in view of Wang in order to have an approval control;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide a user to enforce policy on the services [Wang: Col 9 lines 34-44].
With respect to claim 16. Wood-Wang-Barton discloses the system of claim 13 as set forth above.
However, Wood does not explicitly disclose wherein an approval control defines a sequence of two or more approval levels using the unique application identifier;
Wang discloses wherein an approval control defines a sequence of two or more approval levels using the unique application identifier (determining whether an item is in a category, a date range, a shipping weight, a dimension in order to be eligible for a return [Col 5 lines 7-21], [Col 7 lines 46-62]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood in view of Wang in order to have two sequence approval levels;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide customized policies on the services [Wang: Col 9 lines 34-44].
However, Wood-Wang does not explicitly disclose approval levels using the unique application identifier;
Barton discloses approval levels using the unique application identifier (API calls from the application are intercepted and a policy setting is read to determine whether the operation from the API call is allowed or blocked, the applications are identified based on an application identifier [0181], [0168]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood-Wang in view of Barton in order to have an approval using the unique application identifier;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide secured data and not comingled the date with other applications [Barton: Abstract, 0168].
With respect to claim 17. Wood discloses a method, comprising:
performing, by one or more service provider computers of a service provider network, receipt and management of application programming interface (API) requests for a network on-device services framework pertaining to provisioning, administering, and managing computing resources on behalf of one or more backend services of a service provider and one of more third party services for a plurality of clients of the service provider (the one or more application services are deployed to and executed in the agent which is a container of services. The users may use the browser application to communicate with the applications [0028], [0084], [0112]. an agent infrastructure includes SAMI which is an API, and the agent may be assigned to a peer management server which acts as its message proxy [0026], [0042]. Application services communicate using reliable messaging components [0036-0037], [0039]. Content server application performs operations associated with the provisioning of access to the contents [0104]. The system and method allows for the creation of consumer applications by facilitating the identification, location and assembly of services running in a network on a plurality of devices [Abstract]);
receiving and managing API requests pertaining to the backend services using the network container of the associated client (request for web services [0046]);
However, Wood does not explicitly disclose API requests triggering messages between the service provider network and one or more clients over a network external to the service provider network on behalf of the backend services that each include a unique application ID;
receiving and managing API requests pertaining to personal policy rules using a network container of an associated client;
Wang discloses API requests triggering messages between the service provider network and one or more clients over a network external to the service provider network on behalf of the backend services (buyer requesting a return, and triggers a return processing engine to automatically approve the request [Col 4 lines 39-49]);
receiving and managing API requests pertaining to personal policy rules using a network container of an associated client (policy and rules on return requests are processed by the return processing engine for an online marketplace system, the policy can be set by the seller/merchant of the marketplace [Col 2 lines 16-45], [Col 4 lines 50-64], [Col 5 lines 7-21]. API for approving or denying return request [Col 10 lines 10-25]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood in view of Wang in order to implement a personal policy pertaining to the network services;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide automated policy enforcement for the application services [Wang: Col 2 lines 16-45];
However, Wood-Wang does not explicitly disclose messages between the service provider network and one or more clients over a network external to the service provider network on behalf of the backend services that each include a unique application ID;
Barton discloses messages between the service provider network and one or more clients over a network external to the service provider network on behalf of the backend services that each include a unique application ID (API calls from the application are intercepted and a policy setting is read to determine whether the operation from the API call is allowed or blocked, the applications are identified based on an application identifier [0181], [0168]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood-Wang in view of Barton in order to have the backend services that each include a unique application ID;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide secured data and not comingled the date with other applications [Barton: Abstract, 0168].
With respect to claim 18. Wood-Wang-Barton discloses the method of claim 17 as set forth above, further comprising
However, Wood does not explicitly disclose determining, dependent on a received response, and a pre-determined criteria for approval or denial of the API request, a result of the API request;
Wang discloses determining, dependent on a received response and a pre-determined criteria for approval or denial of the API request, a result of the API request (determining whether an item is in a category, a date range, a shipping weight, a dimension in order to be eligible for a return and an automatic approval and denial [Col 5 lines 7-21], [Col 7 lines 46-62], [Col 8 lines 6-20]. API for approving or denying return request [Col 10 lines 10-25]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood in view of Wang in order to determine, dependent on a received response and a pre-determined criteria for approval or denial of the API request backend services;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide automated policy enforcement for the application services [Wang: Col 2 lines 16-45];
However, Wood-Wang does not explicitly disclose approval levels using the unique application identifier;
Barton discloses determining, dependent on a received response, the unique application ID and a pre-determined criteria for approval or denial of the API request, a result of the API request (API calls from the application are intercepted and a policy setting is read to determine whether the operation from the API call is allowed or blocked, the applications are identified based on an application identifier [0181], [0168]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood-Wang in view of Barton in order to have an approval using the unique application identifier;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide secured data and not comingled the date with other applications [Barton: Abstract, 0168].
With respect to claim 19. Wood-Wang-Barton discloses the method of claim 18 as set forth above.
However, Wood does not explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises, prior to receiving the API request, creating an approval control on behalf of the client of the service provider that uses the unique application ID of each backend service;
Wang discloses prior to receiving the API request, creating an approval control on behalf of the client of the service provider (generating a user interface for a seller to approve or deny a return request [Col 9 lines 54-64]. API for approving or denying return request [Col 10 lines 10-25]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood in view of Wang in order to creating an approval control on behalf of the client of the service provider;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide a seller to enforce a policy for the application services [Wang: Col 2 lines 16-45];
However, Wood-Wang does not explicitly disclose service provider that uses the unique application ID of each backend service;
Barton discloses service provider that uses the unique application ID of each backend service (API calls from the application are intercepted and a policy setting is read to determine whether the operation from the API call is allowed or blocked, the applications are identified based on an application identifier [0181], [0168]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood-Wang in view of Barton in order to have the backend services that each include a unique application ID;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide secured data and not comingled the date with other applications [Barton: Abstract, 0168].
With respect to claim 20. Wood-Wang-Barton discloses the method of claim 19 as set forth above, further comprising
However, Wood does not explicitly disclose associating the approval control with the API request using the unique application ID;
Wang discloses associating the approval control with the API request (generating a user interface for a seller to approve or deny a return request [Col 9 lines 54-64]. API for approving or denying return request [Col 10 lines 10-25]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood in view of Wang in order to associate the approval control with the API request;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide a seller to enforce a policy for the application services [Wang: Col 2 lines 16-45].
However, Wood-Wang does not explicitly disclose approval levels using the unique application identifier;
Barton discloses API request using the unique application ID (API calls from the application are intercepted and a policy setting is read to determine whether the operation from the API call is allowed or blocked, the applications are identified based on an application identifier [0181], [0168]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood-Wang in view of Barton in order to have an API request using the unique application ID;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide secured data and not comingled the date with other applications [Barton: Abstract, 0168].
With respect to claim 22. Wood-Wang-Barton discloses the method of claim 17 as set forth above.
However, Wood does not explicitly wherein an approval control is associated with one or more API requests using a transaction-specific security mechanism;
Wang discloses wherein an approval control is associated with one or more API requests using a transaction-specific security mechanism (generating a user interface for a seller to approve or deny a return request [Col 9 lines 54-64]. API for approving or denying return request [Col 10 lines 10-25]. Denying and approving return request costing a certain value or over a certain number of days [Col 11 lines 1-14]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood in view of Wang in order to associate the approval control with the API request;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide a seller to enforce a policy for the application services [Wang: Col 2 lines 16-45].
With respect to claim 23. Wood-Wang-Barton discloses the method of claim 17 as set forth above.
However, Wood does not explicitly disclose wherein an approval control defines a sequence of two or more approval levels;
Wang discloses wherein an approval control defines a sequence of two or more approval levels (determining whether an item is in a category, a date range, a shipping weight, a dimension in order to be eligible for a return [Col 5 lines 7-21], [Col 7 lines 46-62]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood in view of Wang in order to have two sequence approval levels;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide customized policies on the services [Wang: Col 9 lines 34-44].
With respect to claim 24. Wood-Wang-Barton discloses the method of claim 17 as set forth above,
However, Wood does not explicitly disclose wherein the API request comprises a time of day associated with the API request;
Wang discloses wherein the API request comprises a time of day associated with the API request (buyer must send a return request within a predetermined time window [Col 7 lines 32-46], [Col 8 lines 6-20]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood in view of Wang in order to have API request comprises a time of day associated with the API request;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide customized policies on the services [Wang: Col 9 lines 34-44].
With respect to claim 25. Wood-Wang-Barton discloses the method of claim 17 as set forth above,
Wood discloses wherein the client of the service provider consumes services provided by the service provider (user subscribes to the service [0054]).
With respect to claim 26. Wood-Wang-Barton discloses the method of claim 17 as set forth above,
However, Wood does not explicitly disclose wherein the client of the service provider consumes services provided by the service provider, including an approval service;
Wang discloses wherein the client of the service provider consumes services provided by the service provider, including an approval service (buyer requesting a return, and triggers a return processing engine to automatically approve the request [Col 4 lines 39-49], and generating a user interface for a seller to approve or deny a return request [Col 9 lines 54-64]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood in view of Wang in order provide a service including an approval service;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide the ability to customized policies on the services [Wang: Col 9 lines 34-44].
With respect to claim 27. Wood-Wang-Barton discloses the method of claim 26 as set forth above,
However, Wood does not explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises, prior to receiving the API request, receiving, from an administrator of the client, a request to create a control on behalf of the client;
Wang discloses wherein the method further comprises, prior to receiving the API request, receiving, from an administrator of the client, a request to create a control on behalf of the client (the user seta control for an automatic approval of return request [Col 4 lines 39 – Col 5 lines 6]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood in view of Wang in order create a control on behalf of the client;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide the ability to customized policies on the services [Wang: Col 9 lines 34-44].
With respect to claim 28. Wood-Wang-Barton discloses the method of claim 27 as set forth above further comprising
However, Wood does not explicitly disclose creating the control;
Wang discloses creating the control (the user sets a control for an automatic approval of return request [Col 4 lines 39 – Col 5 lines 6], generating a user interface for a seller to approve or deny a return request for a merchant [Col 9 lines 54-64]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood in view of Wang in order to create a control;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide the ability to customized policies on the services [Wang: Col 9 lines 34-44].
With respect to claim 29. Wood-Wang-Barton discloses the method of claim 28 as set forth above further comprising
However, Wood does not explicitly disclose receiving, from an administrator of the client, a request to associate the control with a specified service;
Wang discloses receiving, from an administrator of the client, a request to associate the control with a specified service (associating the automated control of approving or denying return request based on a category of the item from a merchant, such as digital item cannot be returned [Col 5 lines 7-21], [Col 7 lines 47-62]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood in view of Wang in order associate the control with a service;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide the ability to customized policies on the services [Wang: Col 9 lines 34-44].
With respect to claim 30. Wood-Wang-Barton discloses the method of claim 29 as set forth above further comprising
However, Wood does not explicitly disclose associating the control with the specified service;
Wang discloses associating the control with the specified service (generating a user interface for a seller to approve or deny a return request for a merchant [Col 9 lines 54-64]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood in view of Wang in order associate the control with the specified service;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide the ability to customized policies on the services [Wang: Col 9 lines 34-44].
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al Pub. No.: (US 2007/0239819 A1) (hereinafter “Wood”) in view of Wang et al Pat. No.: (US 8,666,907 A1) (hereinafter "Wang”) and Barton et al Pub. No.: (US 2014/0033271 A1) (hereinafter "Barton”) as applied to claims 13-20 and 22-30 above, further in view of Su et al Pub. No.: (US 2013/0265940 A1) (hereinafter "Su”).
With respect to claim 21. Wood-Wang-Barton discloses the method of claim 20 as set forth above, further comprising
However, Wood does not explicitly wherein the approval control defines the API request using data packets that contain the unique application ID;
Wang discloses wherein the approval control defines the API request (generating a user interface for a seller to approve or deny a return request [Col 9 lines 54-64]. API for approving or denying return request [Col 10 lines 10-25]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood in view of Wang in order to associate the approval control defines the API request;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide a seller to enforce a policy for the application services [Wang: Col 2 lines 16-45];
However, Wood-Wang-Barton does not explicitly disclose data packets that contain the unique application ID;
Su discloses data packets that contain the unique application ID (data packet containing application ID number [0018], [0110]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood-Wang-Barton in view of Su in order to have an data packets that contain the unique application ID;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would improve utilization performance of the mobile internet [Su: Abstract].
Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wood et al Pub. No.: (US 2007/0239819 A1) (hereinafter “Wood”) in view of Wang et al Pat. No.: (US 8,666,907 A1) (hereinafter "Wang”) and Gut et al Pub. No.: (US 2013/0305044 A1) (hereinafter "Gut”).
With respect to claim 31. Wood discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing program instructions that when executed on one or more computers cause the one or more computers to implement a service, wherein the service is configured to:
perform, by one or more service provider computers of a service provider network, receipt and management of application programming interface (API) requests pertaining to provisioning, administering, and managing computing resources on behalf of one or more backend services of a service provider and one of more third party services for a plurality of clients of the service provider (the one or more application services are deployed to and executed in the agent which is a container of services. The users may use the browser application to communicate with the applications [0028], [0084], [0112]. an agent infrastructure includes SAMI which is an API, and the agent may be assigned to a peer management server which acts as its message proxy [0026], [0042]. Application services communicate using reliable messaging components [0036-0037], [0039]. Content server application performs operations associated with the provisioning of access to the contents [0104]);
receive and manage API requests pertaining to the third party services using a network container of an associated client (request for web services [0046]. the one or more application services are deployed to and executed in the agent which is a container of services. The users may use the browser application to communicate with the applications [0028], [0084], [0012]. Exemplary architecture includes a first agent application, a second agent application and a third agent application [0025);
receive and manage API requests pertaining to the network backend services using the network container of the associated client (request for web services [0046]. the one or more application services are deployed to and executed in the agent which is a container of services. The users may use the browser application to communicate with the applications [0028], [0084], [0112]. Exemplary architecture includes a first agent application, a second agent application and a third agent application [0025);
However, Wood does not explicitly disclose API requests triggering messages between the service provider network and one or more clients over a network external to the service provider network on behalf of the backend services;
a unique identifiers in data packets for security;
Wang discloses API requests triggering messages between the service provider network and one or more clients over a network external to the service provider network on behalf of the backend services (buyer requesting a return, and triggers a return processing engine to automatically approve the request [Col 4 lines 39-49], API for approving or denying return request [Col 10 lines 10-25]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood in view of Wang in order to have a triggering message between the service provide and client on behalf of the backend services;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide automated policy enforcement for the application services [Wang: Col 2 lines 16-45];
However, Wood-Wang does not explicitly disclose a unique identifiers in data packets for security;
Gut discloses a unique identifiers in data packets for security (the security signature develops into unique identifiers for the data packets, and the security signature portion of the data packet contains identifier information [0083-0084]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood-Wang in view of Gut in order to a unique identifiers in data packets for security;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide secured data transmission [Gut: 0083-0084].
With respect to claim 32. Wood-Wang-Gut discloses the instructions of claim 31 as set forth above, further comprising
However, Wood does not explicitly disclose determining, dependent on a received response and a pre-determined criteria for approval or denial of the API request, a result of the API request;
Wang discloses determining, dependent on a received response and a pre-determined criteria for approval or denial of the API request, a result of the API request (determining whether an item is in a category, a date range, a shipping weight, a dimension in order to be eligible for a return and an automatic approval and denial [Col 5 lines 7-21], [Col 7 lines 46-62], [Col 8 lines 6-20]. API for approving or denying return request [Col 10 lines 10-25]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wood in view of Wang in order to determine, dependent on a received response and a pre-determined criteria for approval or denial of the API request backend services;
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would provide automated policy enforcement for the application services [Wang: Col 2 lines 16-45].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO DUC DUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2350. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952. 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.
/T. D./
Examiner, Art Unit 2446
/BRIAN J. GILLIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446