Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 6-12 and 15-20 are withdrawn from consideration as directed to non-elected invention. Claims 1-5 and 13-14 are being examined.
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
It is noted that the examiner inadvertently issued a restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 on 6/4/26 that should have been a Restriction Requirement in National Stage Applications Submitted Under 35 U.S.C. 371 where a restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372 (MPEP FPs 18.18, 18.19, 18.06.01, 18.07, 18.07.01) such that groups I and II identified in the action mailed on 11/15/18 do not share the same or corresponding technical feature irrespective of the error, therefore the restriction requirement was proper.
Applicant's election with traverse of invention Group I, claims 1-5 and 13-14 in the reply filed on 8/4/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the requirement is improper because there is no same or corresponding special technical feature among the groups of inventions and that that Group II “cannot be performed” without performing the steps of Group I.
Applicant's argument is not persuasive because although inventions Group I and Group II are related they do not share the same or corresponding special technical feature. Group I relates to a development method for obtaining a plug-in file by plug-in development based on a reserved interface and Group II relates to a control method for detecting a trigger event of a processing component, processing of the trigger event by calling a loaded plug-in corresponding to a reserved interface. In response to applicant’s remark regarding Group II “cannot be performed” without performing the steps of Group I, applicant is reminded that if this is indeed true and that invention Group I steps are “essential” in performing the function of invention Group II, applicant should consider incorporating the limitations of Group I in future filing of invention Group II (see MPEP 2172.01). Since the burden for examining multiple inventions were established, the applicant's argument is not persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 6-12 and 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/4/26.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Translation of CN108446141 to Zhang et al. (hereafter Zhang).
Zhang was cited in applicant’s IDS filed on 2/20/24.
As to claim 1, Zhang teaches the invention as claimed including a development method, comprising:
determining a processing flow of any node in a message queue system, wherein the processing flow involves at least one processing operation [p. 4, Step 301, from a message queue, obtaining a message between plug-ins and a message between the plug-ins and the platform];
reserving an interface before and/or after a processing component that performs any processing operation in the node is called [p. 3, bottom of page, the event function is provided with a pre-execution interface and a post-execution interface, the plug-in layer achieves a service function, which is independent of the framework, interacts with the platform by means of a standard interface, and achieves dynamic calling and unloading, so that the functional plug-in is independently developed by utilizing the standard interface specification of the plug-in];
determining a plug-in file obtained by performing plug-in development on the basis of at least one reserved interface [p. 3, bottom of page, in this way, the functional plug-in is independently developed by using the standard interface specification of the plug-in];
deploying the plug-in file to a designated storage location in the node [p. 4, the plug-in stored in group storage according to different types].
As to claim 4, Zhang teaches the invention as claimed including defining, in a software development kit, the interface reserved in the node, wherein the plug- in file is obtained by selecting, according to a to-be-extended function, at least one interface from the software development kit for the development of the plug-in [p. 3, bottom of page, attributes of the plug-in comprise basic attributes and extension attributes, the basic attributes are related to the plug-in entity itself, and the extension attributes are related to the plug-in function and characteristic, and the implementation function of the plug-in. An event function of operating, sleeping, stopping and awakening is set for the plug-in, and a pre-execution interface and a post execution interface are provided in the event function so as to obtain the current state of the plug-in. The plugin layer achieves a service function, which is independent of the framework, interacts with the platform by means of the standard interface, and achieves dynamic calling and unloading, so that the functional plug-in is independently developed by utilizing the standard interface specification of the plug-in. Use of an interface inherently requires definition/implementation/reservation in a node as defined in a development kit of the software].
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(s) 2 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang above.
As to claim 2, Zhang does not specifically teach wherein the message queue system is a RocketMQ system. However, RocketMQ system as well as various messaging brokers or systems are well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify Zhang’s message queue management platform to include any known message queue system as a matter of design choice.
As to claim 14, this claim is rejected for the same reason as claim 4 above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG Pub. 2021/0132962 disclosed extending an application via plugins without modifying core code [paragraph 115]; a logic builder component including flow control component interacting with various blocks for building the logic to carry out a task [paragraph 55].
“How to Enable Plugins in RabbitMQ” disclosed adding additional features/functions to RabbitMQ broker/system without changing core code.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5 and 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior arts of record when taken individually or in combination do not expressly teach or render obvious, in the context of the claims taken as a whole, the invention as recited in claims 3, 5 and 13.
The prior art(s) of record when taken individually or in combination do not expressly teach or render obvious the invention as a whole “the plug-in file comprises a code package file and a description file; the description file defines an identification, a version, a calling priority and a calling class library of the plug-in; the deploying the plug-in file to the designated storage location in the node comprises: determining whether an existing file having a same identification as the plug-in file exists in the designated storage location; based on that the existing file having the same identification as the plug-in file exists in the designated storage location, using the plug-in file to update the existing file” as recited in claims 3 and 13 and the “broker server” and “name server” as recited in claim 5.
Neither a reference uncovered that would have provided a basis of evidence for asserting a motivation, nor one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, knowing the teaching of the prior arts of record would have combined them to arrive at the present invention as recited in the context of claims 3, 5 and 13 as a whole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QING YUAN WU whose telephone number is (571)272-3776. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-6PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 571-272-3759. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QING YUAN WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights