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 .
The instant Office Action replaces the Final Office Action, mailed December 05, 2025.
A telephone call was made in an attempt to discussed the issues described below. However, no response has been received from the voicemail left for Bethany K. Love on December 01, 2025.
REMARKS
On page 11 of the Response filed September 02, 2025, Applicant’s summary of the interview, August 05, 2025, is acknowledged.
On pages 11-16, Applicant’s argument by claim amendment to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection as applied to claims 1-20 is persuasive. The 35 USC 101 rejection as applied to claims 1-20 is withdrawn.
On pages 16-20, Applicant’s argument by claim amendment to overcome the 35 USC 103 rejection as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, and 18-20 is persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, and 18-20 is withdrawn.
PENDING MATTERS
Claims 1-20, filed September 02, 2025, are examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 5-6, recites “one or more analytics payloads…” and lines 12-13, recites “ “serializing..the one or more analytics payloads…”, while, the subsequent steps in claim 1 recite “the corresponding one or more analytics payloads” (lines 16-17), “the request includes the one or more analytics payloads…” (line 21), and “the one or more analytics payloads” (line 24). The claim is not clear as to whether the antecedent for or the “the one or more analytics payloads” from lines 5-6 or the serialized analytics payloads in lines 12-13. Clarification of the metes and bounds of the claim is required. The same issue is present in claims 8 and 15. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected for being dependent from claim 1, 8, or 15, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pletter et al. (US 2011/0289479 A1) in view of Thomas et al. (US 20240195675 A1) and Katz et al. (Katz hereafter, US 2022/0027417 Al).
Claim 1, Pletter discloses a computer-implemented method for a passthrough payload system, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a content management module of a server system, a resource request for a page rendering from a user device, wherein the resource request includes one or more resource identifiers ([0099], e.g. a server receives and parses a request from a client. In this example, the request is for an instance of a component definition, and [0171], e.g. A Reader and a Writer can be retrieved from the Source, as well as lastModified information and a unique identifier (in the case of File, the file path). Factories that deal with parsers can be initialized with a group of SourceLoaders that contain logic about how to locate and load code, and create Source instances that may then passed be to the parser by the factory);
in response to receiving the resource request, retrieving and/or computing, by the content management module of the server system, one or more analytics payloads ([0303], e.g. load balancer 928 may include multilayer switches to analyze and forward traffic) that correspond to the one or more resource identifiers ([0101], e.g. the server either builds or retrieves the component definition. First, the server may determine whether the component definition is already cached, and [0103], e.g. a component definition may have a server-side controller whose purpose may include providing, during initial rendering time, the initial payload of data that is needed by the client);
serializing, by the content management module of the server system, the one or more analytics payloads ([0107], e.g. the server will then serialize the results for transmission to the client);
sending, by the content management module of the server system, in response to the resource request, a resource response to the user device, wherein the resource response includes one or more resources and the corresponding one or more analytics payloads, and wherein the user device is configured to render the page with the one or more resources on a corresponding interface of the user device ([0238], e.g. Sending a serialized representation of the instance tree to the client machine may allow the client machine to reconstruct the instance tree);
receiving, by a data platform of the server system, a request from the user device, wherein the request includes the one or more analytics payloads and resource information ([0103], e.g. a component definition may have a server-side controller whose purpose may include providing, during initial rendering time, the initial payload of data that is needed by the client);
deserializing, by the data platform of the server system, the one or more analytics payloads based on the one or more schemas to determine user data ([0252], e.g. Deserialization on the client may reestablish the references substantially as they were on the server); and
storing, by the data platform of the server system, the user data in one or more data stores ([0099]), e.g. a server receives and parses a request from a client. In this example, the request is for an instance of a component definition. However, a client may request other data structures, such as models, events, event definitions, data stores).
However, Pletter does not discloses the one or more payloads based on one or more schemas…receiving, by the data platform of the server system, the one or more schemas for the one or more payloads from a schema repository. Thomas discloses the one or more payloads based on one or more schemas…receiving, by the data platform of the server system, the one or more schemas for the one or more payloads from a schema repository ([0064], e.g. Within the global event data stream 310, the event bus system 106 maintains each network event using a standard envelope schema (from the schema repository 302) containing metadata, such as event time, device identification (e.g., for providers and requesters), location information, and serialized schematized payload information as well as payload schema information).
Thomas discloses the disclosed systems can improve computational efficiency, flexibility, and network reliability by utilizing a network event data streaming platform to generate and distribute network event data using a self-service approach ([0006]). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention would have been motivated by Thomas to improve the method of Pletter. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of Pletter with the schema repository of Thomas. The benefit would be to improve computational efficiency, flexibility, and network reliability.
However, Pletter as modified does not disclose retrieving, by the content management module of the server system, one or more schemas from a schema database based on a payload type for each of the one or more analytics payloads. Katz discloses disclose retrieving, by the content management module of the server system, one or more schemas from a schema database based on a payload type for each of the one or more analytics payloads ([0005], e.g. edited within the schema editor interface. Individual MAS schemas may be associated with individual data sources, such that when the MAS receives a data packet (e.g., an enhanced location or additional data) from a data source, the MAS can retrieve a MAS schema associated with the data source from the schema database and validate the data packet (also referred to as a "data payload") against the MAS schema associated with the data source, and [0250], e.g. prompted to transmit a data payload including an identifier of the Company B schema to the Just In Time clearinghouse, which employs the modular API system (MAS). Upon receiving the data payload, the MAS uses the schema identifier to retrieve the Company B schema from the schema database (which now stores at least two schemas-the Company B schema and the Company A schema-and therefore, in this example, the MAS requires the schema identifier to select the proper schema, the Company B schema)).
Katz discloses an improvement for facilitating the efficient integration of various data sources (Abstract). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention would have been motivated by Katz to improve the method of Pletter as modified. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use teachings of Katz with the method of Pletter as modified. The benefit would be for facilitating the efficient integration of various data sources.
As for the limitation of “more resources on a corresponding interface of the user device, and wherein the one or more schemas are unknown to the user device,” the limitation is an omission of an element with retention of the element's function. The Court has held that the omission of an element and retention of its function is an indicium of nonobviousness. See In re Edge, 359 F.2d 896, 149 USPQ 556 (CCPA 1966)
Claim 2, Pletter as modified discloses each of the one or more analytics payloads includes a unique identifier (Pletter, [0171], e.g. A Reader and a Writer can be retrieved from the Source, as well as lastModified information and a unique identifier (in the case of File, the file path))and a payload type (Pletter, [0208], e.g. its attribute values are loaded. An attribute value may be a value, a string, or any object, e.g., any Apex or Java object).
Claim 4, Pletter as modified discloses the one or more resource identifiers correspond to a page rendering and one or more corresponding widgets for display on the user device (Pletter, [0007], e.g. the browser would render web pages that were handed down by the server).
Claim 5, Pletter as modified discloses the resource request was generated based on a received interaction with the interface of the user device (Pletter, [0115], e.g. client knows that the top-level node is a component, because the client had requested a component instance. The client device knows what the properties of that component instance will be, including properties such as the definition of that component).
Claim 6, Pletter as modified discloses wherein data in the one or more analytics payloads that were sent to the user device is the same as the data in the one or more analytics payloads that were received from the user device ([0243], e.g. if the same object is encountered later during the same serialization, that same object can be serialized as "serRefId," where the serId that was used in the previous serialization is also utilized in the current serialization).
Claims 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, and 18-20 are directed to a system and a computer-readable medium comprising the same steps as claim 1, 2, and 4-6. These claims are similarly rejected under the same rationale as claims 1, 2, and 4-6, supra.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pletter et al. (US 2011/0289479 A1) in view of Thomas et al. (US 20240195675 A1) and Katz et al. (Katz hereafter, US 2022/0027417 Al), as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, and 18-20 above, in further view of Ziskind et al. (Ziskind hereafter, US 20190246281 A1).
Claims 7 and 14, Pletter as modified discloses the claimed invention except for the limitation of the user data into one or more machine-learning models. Ziskind the user data into one or more machine-learning models ([0032]), e.g. the IoT firewall 106 may construct or update the data exchange policy automatically using machine learning, for example, based on what payload types and values are manually approved or denied by users over time). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention would have been motivated by Ziskind to improve the method of Pletter as modified. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the method of Pletter as modified with the machine-learning models of Ziskind. The benefit would be to improve computational efficiency, flexibility, and network reliability.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bogrett (US 9,787,671 B) discloses At block 610, the process parses the payload to retrieve one or more database instructions for DBMS to execute. The one or more database instructions may be arranged in a pre-defined format. For example, the payload may be in a semi-structured data format such as JSON or XML. The process may use a data schema identified by the payload or pre-configured for parsing payloads to extract the one or more database instructions from the payload (column 10, lines 37-44).
Claims 3 and 10 are free of any prior art.
CONCLUSION
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Patent applicants with problems or questions regarding electronic images that can be viewed in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR) can now contact the USPTO's Patent Electronic Business Center (Patent EBC) for assistance. Representatives are available to answer your questions daily from 6 am to midnight (EST). The toll free number is (866) 217-9197. When calling please have your application serial or patent number, the type of document you are having an image problem with, the number of pages and the specific nature of the problem. The Patent Electronic Business Center will notify applicants of the resolution of the problem within 5-7 business days. Applicants can also check PAIR to confirm that the problem has been corrected. The USPTO's Patent Electronic Business Center is a complete service center supporting all patent business on the Internet. The USPTO's PAIR system provides Internet-based access to patent application status and history information. It also enables applicants to view the scanned images of their own application file folder(s) as well as general patent information available to the public.
For all other customer support, please call the USPTO Call Center (UCC) at 800-786-9199. The USPTO's official fax number is 571-272-8300.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to C. Dune Ly, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0716. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8 A.M. to 4 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Neveen Abel-Jalil, can be reached on 571-270-0474.
/Cheyne D Ly/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2152
2/12/2026
Prosecution Insights