Detailed Action
This action is in response to application filed on 04/25/2024.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Drawings
The drawings figure 7 objected to because it includes text that is blurry and difficult to read. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 recites the limitation "the description" (line 6). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 11 recites the limitation "the description" (line 5). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5 and 15 recite the term “URL”. All abbreviations should be written at least once in the claims
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Representative claim 1 is directed to a system for automatic configuration and deployment of application programming interface (API) functionality in a distributed computing environment, the system comprising a server computing device having a memory for storing computer-executable instructions and a processor that executes the computer executable instructions to:
create an API description for an API to be deployed to the distributed computing environment, the description defining one or more functional features of the API;
validate the API description based upon one or more technical constraints and one or more compliance constraints;
automatically generate first source code files for the API based upon the API description and store the first source code files in a software development platform;
receive, from a remote computing device, one or more updates to the first source code files and apply the updates to the first source code files in the software development platform;
configure one or more resources in the distributed computing environment to be used for deployment of the API in the distributed computing environment;
generate an API build based upon the updated source code files in the software development platform;
deploy the API build to the distributed computing environment using the configured resources; and
publish the deployed API build in the distributed computing environment to enable external computing resources to access the deployed API build.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, mental processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper (see, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942, hereinafter “PEG”). For instance, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper to mentally and/or via pen/paper to create an API description for an API to be deployed to the distributed computing environment, the description defining one or more functional features of the API; validate the API description based upon one or more technical constraints and one or more compliance constraints; generate first source code files for the API based upon the API description and store the first source code files… apply the updates to the first source code files.
.
Per prong 2, Step 2A, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above, are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. For instance,
“automatic configuration and deployment of application programming interface (API) functionality in a distributed computing environment, the system comprising a server computing device having a memory for storing computer-executable instructions and a processor that executes the computer executable instructions to” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
“automatically… in a software development platform” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
“receive, from a remote computing device, one or more updates to the first source code files… in the software development platform” are mere data gathering/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“generate an API build based upon the updated source code files in the software development platform” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
“deploy the API build to the distributed computing environment using the configured resources; and” are mere data gathering/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
“publish the deployed API build in the distributed computing environment to enable external computing resources to access the deployed API build” are mere data gathering/sending/publishing/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results and does not sufficiently tie any limitations or combination of limitation to any improvement (if any) to the functionality of the electronic device or achieving improved technical results.
Per Step 2B, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above, are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). . For instance,
“automatically… in a software development platform” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
“receive, from a remote computing device, one or more updates to the first source code files… in the software development platform” are mere data gathering/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g), and Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo
“generate an API build based upon the updated source code files in the software development platform” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
“deploy the API build to the distributed computing environment using the configured resources; and” are mere data gathering/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo
“publish the deployed API build in the distributed computing environment to enable external computing resources to access the deployed API build” are mere data gathering/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g) and are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 11 is a method claim corresponding to system claim 1 and is of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-9, and 12-20 when considered individually or in combination per steps as noted above are rejected under the same rational as set forth above for claims 11, and 11, and the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. In particular,
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the distributed computing environment comprises a cloud computing environment.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 further incorporated, further recites wherein the one or more compliance constraints comprise linting rules for the API.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 further incorporated, further recites wherein the first source code files comprise an API template, an API stub, one or more environment configuration files, one or more deployment pipeline files, and one or more publication files.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper to generate various files/templates.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein configuring one or more resources in the distributed computing environment comprises: enabling a URL address for the API in a traffic routing resource in the distributed computing environment; deploying a load balancer resource associated with the API in the distributed computing environment; and allocating a virtual computing resource for hosting the API in in the distributed computing environment.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 further incorporated, further recites wherein the API build is generated by executing a first job associated with the API in the software development platform.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 further incorporated, further recites wherein the API build is deployed to the distributed computing environment by executing a second job associated with the API in the software development platform.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 further incorporated, further recites wherein publishing the deployed API build comprises exposing the API to traffic from the external computing resources via the URL address for the API.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the server computing device deploys the updated source code files for the API to a testing environment and validates the one or more functional features of the API in the testing environment before configuring the one or more resources in the distributed computing environment.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the server computing device validates the one or more functional features of the API in the distributed computing environment after the deployed API build is published in the distributed computing environment.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claims 12-20:
Claims 12-20 are method claims corresponding to system claims 2-10 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claim 12-20 is rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 2-10.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 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.
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.
Claim 1-3, 9-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pitchai muthu et al. (US 20220057999 A1, referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Mihalcea et al. (US 20160321033 A1, referred hereafter as D2) in view of Rossetti et al. (US 20240430238 A1, referred hereinafter as D3).
As per claim 1, D1 discloses,
A system for automatic configuration and deployment of application programming interface (API) functionality in a distributed computing environment, the system comprising a server computing device having a memory for storing computer-executable instructions and a processor that executes the computer executable instructions to, (D1, abstract, fig. 1-2 and accompanying text discloses end-to-end API development system/server having processors/memory and client devices coupled via network).
create an API description for an API to be deployed to the distributed computing environment, the description defining one or more functional features of the API, (D1, 0008, 0079, figure 5 and accompanying text discloses create/designing an API description/specification for an API to be deployed to the distributed computing environment, the description defining one or more functional features of the API).
validate the API description based upon one or more technical constraints and one or more compliance constraints, (D1, 0009-0010, 0092figure 5 and accompanying text discloses validating the API description/specification based upon one or more technical constraints and one or more compliance constraints (e.g. firm-wide standards and semantics)).
automatically generate first source code files for the API based upon the API description and store the first source code files in a software development platform, (D1, 0008, 0015, 0081, 0089, claim 1, figure 5 discloses automatically generate first source code files (e.g. specification and code files) for the API based upon the API description and store the first source code files in a software development platform to be versioned controlled and subsequently published and deploy the API accordingly.).
the distributed computing environment to be used for deployment of the API in the distributed computing environment, (D1, 0008, 0015, 0081, 0089-091, claim 1, figure 5 discloses the distributed computing environment/API gateway to be used for deployment/on boarding of the API in the distributed computing environment.).
generate an API build based upon the… source code files in the software development platform, (D1, 0008-0009, 0015, 0081, 0089-092, claim 1, figure 5 discloses generate an API build based upon the… source code files in the software development platform and publishing/deploying the API to be used by consumers.).
deploy the API build to the distributed computing environment using the configured resources, (D1, 0008-0009, 0015, 0081, 0089-092, claim 1, figure 5 discloses deploy the API build to the distributed computing environment using the configured resources.).
and publish the deployed API build in the distributed computing environment to enable external computing resources to access the deployed API build, (D1, 0008-9, 0015, 0064, 0081, 0089-092, claim 1, figure 5 discloses publish the deployed API build in the distributed computing environment to enable external computing resources (consumers) to access the deployed API build, where consumers maybe external or internal).
D1 discloses first source code files in the software development platform; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose – receive, from a remote computing device, one or more updates to the first source code files and apply the updates to the first source code files… and based upon the updated source code files.
D2 (0045) discloses receive, from a remote computing device, one or more updates to the first source code files and apply the updates to the first source code files… and based upon the updated source code files.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teaching of D2 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of updating/synchronizing source code files based on remote edits /updates as disclosed by D2.
D1 fails to expressly disclose – configure one or more resources in the distributed computing environment to…
D3 (0032) discloses configure one or more resources in the distributed computing environment to [API].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teaching of D3 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of allocating resources to API as mitigation operation as disclosed by D3 (0032).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the distributed computing environment comprises a cloud computing environment, (D1, 1-3, 0040 discloses distributed computing environment comprises a cloud computing environment).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the one or more compliance constraints comprise linting rules for the API, (D1, 0005, 0009-0010, 0092, figure 5 and accompanying text wherein the one or more compliance constraints comprise linting rules for the API (e.g. firm-wide standards, dictionary and semantics)).
As noted above, firm-wide standards, dictionary and semantics as disclosed by D1 can fairly be considered as linting rules; nevertheless, for the sake completeness, the examiner takes official notice that - linting rules was well known before the effective fling of the invention.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include, linting rules. This would have been obvious with predicable results of using linting rules to enforce standards/rules as known in the art and to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the server computing device deploys the… source code files for the API to a testing environment and validates the one or more functional features of the API in the testing environment before configuring the one or more resources in the distributed computing environment, (D1, figure 4-5, 0009, 0091 discloses system of D1 deploys/publishes the… source code files for the API to a testing environment and validates/tests the one or more functional features of the API in the testing environment before configuring the one or more resources in the distributed computing environment
D1 fails to expressly disclose - the updated source code files.
D2 (0045) discloses receive, from a remote computing device, one or more updates to the first source code files and apply the updates to the first source code files… and based upon the updated source code files.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teaching of D2 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of updating/synchronizing source code files based on remote edits /updates as disclosed by D2.
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the server computing device validates the one or more functional features of the API in the distributed computing environment after the deployed API build is published in the distributed computing environment, (D1, figure 4-5, 0095 discloses the server computing device validates the one or more functional features/security of the API in the distributed computing environment after the deployed API build is published in the distributed computing environment, and rolling back the API if the security fails).
As per claims 11-13, and 19-20:
Claims 11-13, and 19-20 are method claims corresponding to system claims 1-3, and 9-10 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claim 11-13, and 19-20 is rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1-3, and 9-10.
Claims 4, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pitchai muthu et al. (US 20220057999 A1, referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Mihalcea et al. (US 20160321033 A1, referred hereafter as D2) in view of Rossetti et al. (US 20240430238 A1, referred hereinafter as D3) in view of Dougherty et al. (US 20130007603 A1, referred hereinatter as D4)
As per claims 4, and 14, the rejection of claims 3, and 13 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the first source code files comprise an API template, an API stub, one or more environment configuration file , one or more deployment pipeline file (D1, 0015 discloses an API template (e.g. source code) , an API stub (e.g. model and interfaces), one or more environment configuration file (e.g. drive custom configuration), one or more deployment pipeline (e.g. predefined configuration).).
D1 fails to expressly disclose – and one or more publication files.
D4 (0109) discloses various configuration files including publication files (e.g. display-options.xml).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teaching of D4 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of using application files to publish content/data as disclosed by D4.
Claims 5-8, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pitchai muthu et al. (US 20220057999 A1, referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Mihalcea et al. (US 20160321033 A1, referred hereafter as D2) in view of Rossetti et al. (US 20240430238 A1, referred hereinafter as D3) in view of Melnyk et al. (US 20240004785 A1, referred hereinafter as D5) in view of Hurst et al. (US 20240126566 A1, referred hereinafter as D6).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
a virtual computing resource for hosting the API in in the distributed computing environment, (D1, 0008-0009, 0015, 0058, 0064, 0081, 0089-092, claim 1, figure 5 discloses publish the deployed API build in the distributed computing environment/virtual machines to enable external computing resources (consumers) to access the deployed API build, where consumers maybe external or internal).
D1 fails to expressly disclose - wherein configuring one or more resources in the distributed computing environment comprises… and allocating a virtual computing resource for hosting the API in in the distributed computing environment.
D3 (0032) discloses configure/allocate one or more resources in the distributed computing environment to [API].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teaching of D3 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of allocating resources to API as mitigation operation as disclosed by D3 (0032).
D1 discloses API in the distributed computing environment; D1 fails to expressly disclose - enabling a URL address for the API in a traffic routing resource.
D5 (0036) discloses known methods/systems of enabling a URL address for the API in a traffic routing resource.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teaching of D5 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results access API via url as known in the art and disclosed by D5.
D1 discloses API in the distributed computing environment; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose - deploying a load balancer resource associated with the API.
D6 (0041-0042, 079) discloses deploying a load balancer resource associated with the API.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teaching of D6 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of load balancing requests to API as disclosed by D6 (0079).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the API build is generated by executing a first job associated with the API in the software development platform, (D1, figure 4, 0088-0095 discloses executing coding module 416 to generate code (e.g. first job in the process to produce API build for deployment) and push to code/specification to CI/CD which executes/builds/publishes and deploys the API building computing environment for consumers to use).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the API build is deployed to the distributed computing environment by executing a second job associated with the API in the software development platform, (D1, figure 4, 0088-0095 discloses executing coding module 416 to generate code (e.g. first job in the process to produce API build for deployment) and push to code/specification to CI/CD which executes/builds/publishes (e.g. second job) and deploys the API building computing environment for consumers to use).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein publishing the deployed API build comprises exposing the API to traffic from the external computing resources..., (D1, 0008-0009, 0015, 0058, 0064, 0081, 0089-092, claim 1, figure 5 discloses publish the deployed/expose API build in the distributed computing environment/virtual machines to enable external computing resources (consumers) to access the deployed API build, where consumers maybe external or internal).
D1 fails to expressly disclose – [exposing the API to traffic from the external computing resources] via the URL address for the API.
D5 (0036) discloses known methods/systems of enabling a URL address for the API in a traffic routing resource.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teaching of D5 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results access API via url as known in the art and disclosed by D5.
As per claims 15-18:
Claims 15-18 are method claims corresponding to system claims 5-8 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claim 15-18 is rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 5-8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING OF API SPECIFICATIONS FOR AUTOMATIC ARTIFACT GENERATION
DOCUMENT ID
US 20230244552 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2023-08-03
Abstract
In some embodiments, an API specification document is processed to extract metadata representing API elements. Dependencies are mapped between the API elements using orders and ranks to create a metamodel that includes a map of metadata attributes and links that represent functional and operational aspects of program elements accessible via the API. The metamodel is stored for use in generating support infrastructure artifacts. In some embodiments, database entities are compared to a metamodel to generate matches. Each match indicates a confidence score and a relationship between a database entity and a metadata attribute. A selection of a metadata attribute is received for inclusion in the new API, and a selection of a database entity to be associated with the metadata attribute for the new API is received. The computing system updates the confidence score for the match that indicates the relationship between the database entity and the metadata attribute.
See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA A AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3181. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young, can be reached on 571-270-3180. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MUSTAFA A AMIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights