DETAILED ACTION
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 have been submitted for examination and are pending further prosecution by the United States Patent & Trademark Office.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10 and 13-19 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of various informalities. It is suggested that Applicant amend the abstract as follows:
-- Embodiments disclose a component [[an]] integration method, an apparatus, a device, and a storage medium, and relate to the computer technology field. The method is applied at a service-side of a customized development system and comprises: obtaining a customized component corresponding to a customized function submitted by a [[the]] client, wherein the customized component is developed based on a development protocol provided by the service-side; performing a pre-integration test for the customized component; in case that test is passed, sending to the client a debugging installation package including the customized component; after receiving a component release request corresponding to the customized component sent by the client, generating a customized installation package including the customized component and a [[the]] host application. --
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
When re-submitted, the new abstract must be in a separate sheet, apart from other sheets.
Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of informalities and antecedence issues. It is suggested Applicants amend these claims as follows:
-- 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the first debugging installation package is obtained through performing joint compiling and building on the first customized component and the host application. --
-- 4. The method of claim 1, wherein performing a pre-integration test for the first customized component includes: ...
performing an owned service logic test of the host application for the initial debugging installation package, wherein the first debugging installation package includes the [[an]] initial debugging installation package after the owned service logic test is passed. --
-- 5. The method of claim 4, wherein performing a content test on the first customized component includes at least one of: ...
determining whether a dependency relationship graph corresponding to the first customized component conflicts with a dependency relationship corresponding to the host application, wherein a dependency relationship graph corresponding to the first customized component is submitted by the first client to the service-side; --
-- 6. The method of claim 1, wherein generating a customized installation package including the first customized component and the host application after receiving a component release request corresponding to the first customized component sent by the first client includes: ...
in case that a test result of the integration test on the hosted customized component is PASS, generating a customized installation package including the hosted customized component and the host application. --
-- 8. The method of claim 6, wherein performing an integration test on a hosted customized component of the target user includes: ...
performing an owned service logic test of the host application for the initial installation package, wherein the customized installation package includes the [[an]] initial customized installation package after the owned service logic test is passed. --
-- 12. The electronic device of claim 11, wherein the first debugging installation package is obtained through performing joint compiling and building on the first customized component and the host application. --
-- 14. The electronic device of claim 11, wherein performing a pre-integration test for the first customized component includes: ...
performing an owned service logic test of the host application for the initial debugging installation package, wherein the first debugging installation package includes the [[an]] initial debugging installation package after the owned service logic test is passed. --
-- 15. The electronic device of claim 14, wherein performing a content test on the first customized component includes at least one of: ...
determining whether a dependency relationship graph corresponding to the first customized component conflicts with a dependency relationship corresponding to the host application, wherein a dependency relationship graph corresponding to the first customized component is submitted by the first client to the service-side; --
-- 16. The electronic device of claim 11, wherein generating a customized installation package including the first customized component and the host application after receiving a component release request corresponding to the first customized component sent by the first client includes: ...
in case that a test result of the integration test on the hosted customized component is PASS, generating a customized installation package including the hosted customized component and the host application. --
-- 18. The electronic device of claim 16, wherein performing an integration test on a hosted customized component of the target user includes: ...
performing an owned service logic test of the host application for the initial installation package, wherein the customized installation package includes the [[an]] initial customized installation package after the owned service logic test is passed. --
Claims 5, 7, 8, 15, 17 and 18 are additionally objected to due to their dependence on objected parent claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20170228229 A1 - hereinafter "Jain" in view of US 10303586 B1 - hereinafter "Falko" and US 20150254067 A1 - hereinafter "Nigam".
With respect to claim 1, Jain teaches,
A component integration method being applied at a service-side of a customized development system, the customized development system further includes a first client, the method comprises:
obtaining a first customized component corresponding to a first customized function submitted by the first client, - "In more detail, the administrator system 110 (first client) can be a computing system used by an administrator of a client organization that uses the publishing system 130 (service-side) to create and distribute a customized module (customized component/function). The administrator system 110 can access an administrator portal 112 that is provided by the publishing system 130. The administrator portal 112 can be used by the administrator to create or update a set of module specifications that configure a health management modules for a specific client organization." [0048]; wherein the first customized component is developed based on a development protocol provided by the service-side, - "The administrator system 110 can access an admin portal 112 provided by the publishing system 130 (service-side). The publishing system 130 can include a repository 134 for storing content and information associated with the publishing system 100, such as templates (development protocol) for creating new modules and previously-created custom modules and associated content." [0047] "As discussed above, a module can represent a combination of a template and customization settings." [0080] the first customized function is used for meeting customization needs of a target user for a host application; - "The server system also receives customization parameters that customize the selected module template for a particular organization. The server system then generates a customized health management module for the particular organization based on the selected template and the customization parameters." (Abstract) "Using a customized module, the client organization can provide the user the experience of a native mobile application without the need for the client organization to code and register an application with an app store (e.g., the Apple App Store, or Google Play for Android Apps, etc.)." [0042]
Jain does not explicitly teach the following limitations which, in the analogous field of software testing, are taught by Falko as follows:
performing a pre-integration test for the first customized component; - "At operation 130, the continuous integration system (e.g., continuous integration system 506 shown in FIG. 5) may generate a new code build which includes the code change." (col. 4:13-15) "At operation 140, the CICD server system may test the generated new code build by performing a code trace for at least one phase of the testing..." (col. 4:25-27) "A test phase may include a unit test of the code change (e.g., unit test 310 shown in FIG. 3A), an integration test of the code change (e.g., integration test 320 shown in FIG. 3A)," (col. 4:34-37)
in case that a test result of the pre-integration test is PASS, sending to the first client a first debugging installation package including the first customized component and the host application; - "In some implementations, one or more code changes (first customized component) may be integrated into different code builds (host applications)." (col. 4:22-24) "At operation 210 shown in FIG. 2A, a deployment system (e.g., deployment system 510 shown in FIG. 5) of the CICD server system (e.g., CICD server system 500) may receive the tested new code build (first debugging installation package). In some implementations, the deployment system 510 (first client) may receive the tested new code build from the continuous integration system 506, which may have used the instrumentation library 508 to test the new code build for one or more test phases. A new code build and/or code changes that pass the different test phases may be provided to the deployment system 510 for deployment and testing." (col. 6:4-14) "The deployment system 510 may manage the deployment of the new code build that has been tested for the at least on test phase to at least one production environment (e.g., one or more datacenters that may be located at different geographic locations)." (col. 10:60-64)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement Jain with Falco's teachings because doing so would provide Jain's system with the ability to facilitate the testing of code updates, as suggested by Falco (col. 3:38-43).
Jain does not explicitly teach after receiving a component release request corresponding to the first customized component sent by the first client, generating a customized installation package including the first customized component and the host application.
However, in the analogous field of software deployment, Nigam teaches:
"The method 200 then, upon request generates an installation package for download to a second client device where the installation package incorporates the application configuration data. Upon a request from the second client device, the method 200 provides for download to the second client device, the generated installation package." [0035]
"The second device may be the same device as the first device or a different device from the first device." [0018]
"The installation package for the second device includes exactly the same configuration of the software application with same updates, extensions, plug-ins as the software application installed on the first device." [0043]
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement Jain and Falco with Nigam's teachings because doing so would provide Jain/Falco's system with the ability to provide accurate and convenient application migration and synchronization, as suggested by Nigam [0022].
With respect to claim 11, Jain teaches,
An electronic device comprising: one or more processors; a storage for storing one or more programs; when the one or more programs are executed by the one or more processors, the one or more processors are caused to implement a component integration method being applied at a service-side of a customized development system, the customized development system further includes a first client, the method comprises: - Fig. 7
The remaining limitations are rejected using the mapping from analogous claim 1.
With respect to claim 20, Jain teaches,
A non-transitory storage medium containing computer executable instructions which, when executed by a computer processor, perform a component integration method being applied at a service-side of a customized development system, the customized development system further includes a first client, the method comprises: - Fig. 7
The remaining limitations are rejected using the mapping from analogous claim 1.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain, Falko and Nigam, in view of US 20110119651 A1 - hereinafter "Utschig-Utschig".
With respect to claims 2 and 12, Jain does not explicitly teach,
wherein the first debugging installation package is obtained thorough performing joint compiling and building on the first customized component and the host application.
However, in the analogous field of software deployment, Utschig-Utschig teaches:
"Referring back to FIG. 4, a package may then be created for the customized application (step 414). In one embodiment, the process of creating a package involves performing merge processing, validation of the application, and compilation of the application. A merging process may be executed as part of 414 that merges the base application with the customizations made by the customizer to create a new customized application. This new customized application represents the base application for the next downstream customizer." [0105]
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement Jain, Falco and Nigam with Utschig-Utschig's teachings because doing so would provide Jain/Falco/Nigam's system with a controlled and flexible infrastructure for customizing applications, as suggested by Utschig-Utschig [0010].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The NPL document "Integration testing" is Wikipedia's entry on the subject.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY R ST LEGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7720. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (IFP) ~9:00-5:00 pm.
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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/GEOFFREY R ST LEGER/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192