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 .
Detail Action
This office action is in response to the application filed on 6/3/2024.
Preliminary amendment filed on 8/8/2025 is entered.
Claims 1-10 and 15-24 are pending.
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) 1-3, 10, 15-16, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cattan et al. (US 2018/0181482 Al) in view of Hohler (US 10,623,417 Bl)
Per claim 1, Cattan discloses
receiving, by a computing system, a software development kit bundle, wherein the software development kit bundle includes one or more software development kit builds; ([0049], discloses SDK repository 105 offering SDKs to developer, for example, CocoaPods , corresponds to a SDK build/bundle)
packaging, by the computing system, the software development kit bundle into a software development kit package configured to be installed on a device for access by one or more applications installed on the device, ([0052], discloses distribution package sent to a server [0054], disclose program 120 corresponds to one or more applications. [0055], discloses dynamic frameworks associated with SDK [0056], discloses address table related binary file scanned for execution. [0058] discloses execution platform…to execute program after install, [0058] execute Program)
wherein each application from the one or more applications installed on the device is dependent upon a software development kit build from the one or more software development kit builds during runtime; ([0081], disclose SDK information included in distribution program and included at runtime appears to disclose execution of application/program is dependent on SDK) and
Cattan does not, however, Hohler discloses
providing, by the computing system and to the device, the software development kit package including the one or more software development kit builds, wherein each software development kit build from the one or more software development kit builds is configured to run in a process on the device distinct from one or more processes in which the one or more applications run on the device. (C6:5-30, Fig. 1, discloses SDK fraud detection with applications associated with SDK with wrapper is isolated from applications. Such isolation appears corresponds to running application and DSK in distinct processes.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Hohler into the teachings of Cattan to include the limitation disclosed by Hohler. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to enable monitor and detect fraudulent SDKs for security reason as suggested by Hohler (c3: 43-5)
Per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Cattan/Hohler discloses
receiving, by the computing system, an application bundle, wherein the application bundle includes an application build configured to be installed on the device and configured to access the software development kit build from the one or more software development kit builds during runtime on the device; and packaging, by the computing system, the application bundle into an application package configured to be received and installed by the device. (Cattan, ([0049], discloses SDK repository 105 offering SDKs to developer, for example, CocoaPods , corresponds to a SDK build/bundle; ([0052], discloses distribution package sent to a server [0054], disclose program 120 corresponds to one or more applications. [0055], discloses dynamic frameworks associated with SDK [0056], discloses address table related binary file scanned for execution. [0058] discloses execution platform…to execute program after install)
Per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Cattan/Hohler discloses
receiving, by the computing system, an updated software development kit bundle that includes an updated version of the software development kit build from the one or more software development kit builds. (Cattan, [0050], disclose new version of SDK. Fig. 2, [0062-0063] see new version of SDK)
Per claim 10, see rejection of claim 1.
Per claim 15, see rejection of claim 2.
Per claim 16, see rejection of claim 3.
Per claim 20, see rejection of claim 1.
Per claim 21, see rejection of claim 2.
Claim(s) 4-6, 17, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cattan et al. (US 2018/0181482 Al) in view of Hohler (US 10,623,417 Bl) and further in view of Lazim et al. (US 2023/0102816 Al)
Per claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated.
Cattan/Hohle does not, however, Lazim discloses
wherein the updated version of the software development kit build is a minor version of the software development kit build.([0024], discloses SDK library update with version number being minor. [0032]. See SDK injection service update to minor version)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lazim into the teachings of Cattan/Hohle to include the limitation disclosed by Lazim. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to ensure security of feature update as suggest by Lazim ([0011])
Per claim 5, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated.
Cattan/Hohle does not, however, Lazim discloses
wherein the updated version of the software development kit build is based on a major version of the software development kit build declared by at least one application of the one or more applications.([0024], discloses SDK library update with version number being major. [0032]. See SDK injection service update version)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lazim into the teachings of Cattan/Hohle to include the limitation disclosed by Lazim. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to ensure security of feature update as suggest by Lazim ([0012], see update without developer involvement)
Per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Cattan/Hohle does not, however, Lazim discloses
wherein the one or more software development kit builds from the software development kit bundle includes a plurality of major versions and one or more minor versions that each correspond to a major version from the plurality of major versions. ([0024], see version of SDK update being minor or major)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lazim into the teachings of Cattan/Hohle to include the limitation disclosed by Lazim. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to ensure security of feature update as suggest by Lazim ([0012], see update without developer involvement)
Per claim 17, see rejection of claim 6.
Per claim 22, see rejection of 6.
Claim(s) 7-8, 18, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cattan et al. (US 2018/0181482 Al) in view of Hohler (US 10,623,417 Bl) and further in view of Lu et al. (CN 101165648 A)
Per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Cattan/Hohler does not, however, Lu discloses
including one or more software development kit internal dependencies in the software development kit package, wherein one or more software development kit internal dependencies are dependencies accessed by the one or more applications installed on the device; (pp. 3 discloses mapping library function corresponding to internal dependencies) and avoiding dependency conflicts with the one or more applications by renaming each of the one or more software development kit internal dependencies. (pp. 4, Discloses SDK renaming library file name to avoid conflict caused by same name.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lu into the teachings of Cattan/Hohler to include the limitation disclosed by Lu. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to ensure normal software operation as suggested by Lu (see abstract)
Claim 8. (Original): The method of claim 7,
Cattan/Hohler / Lu discloses
each of the one or more software development kit internal dependencies is a library file. (Lu. pp4, see library file renaming)
Per claim 18, see rejection of claim 7.
Per claim 23, see rejection of claim 7.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cattan et al. (US 2018/0181482 Al) in view of Hohler (US 10,623,417 Bl) and further in view of Wang (CN 103383719 A)
Per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Cattan/Hohler does not, however, Wang discloses
wherein the software development kit package is configured to prevent the device from initiating an uninstall of the software development kit package from the device. (pp. 2 [0005], prevent vicious uninstall of target software.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lu into the teachings of Cattan/Hohle to include the limitation disclosed by Wang. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to protect system operation as suggested by Wang ([0005])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 and 24 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip Wang whose telephone number is 571-272-5934. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:00AM -4:00PM. Any inquiry of general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC2100 Group receptionist: 571-272-2100.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lewis Bullock, can be reached at 571-272-3759. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/PHILIP WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights