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 . 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.
Status of the application
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Application filed on 08/22/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending for this examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS’s) submitted on 08/23/2024 and 04/08/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Foreign Priority Claimed
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on August 25, 2023. A certified copy of the application 202311085046.3 has been received as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Objection to the specification
Specification recites in paragraph [0029] last sentence “Applications 130 may be various types of computing systems/ servers capable of providing computing power, including, but not limited to, mainframes, edge computing nodes, computing devices in a cloud environment, and so forth.” It appears that the sentence should have been “]]Applications]] Servers 130 may be various types of computing systems/ servers capable of providing computing power, including, but not limited to, mainframes, edge computing nodes, computing devices in a cloud environment, and so forth.” Appropriate correction or explanation is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims use the term “digital assistant”. The specification recites in [0031] “As briefly mentioned above, a digital assistant may assist a user in using a terminal device
or application.” Further specification recites in paragraph [0034] “In an embodiment of the present disclosure, the digital assistant is configured to interact with a user. An interaction window between the user and the digital assistant may be presented in the user interface. The interaction window between the user and the digital assistant may include a session window, and the interaction between the user and the digital assistant in the session window may be presented in a form of a session message. Alternatively or additionally, the interaction window between the user and the digital assistant may further include other types of windows, such as a window of a floating window mode, where the user may trigger the digital assistant to perform a corresponding operation by inputting an instruction, selecting a shortcut instruction, or the like.” In light of the above description, the examiner considers any application running on a terminal device can be considered as a digital assistant. For example, a web browser can be considered a digital assistant because it assists a user in browsing web pages.
Double Patenting
Claim 1, 17 and 20 of this application is patentably indistinct from claims 1 and 15 of Application No. 18/815,337. Pursuant to 37 CFR 1.78(f), when two or more applications filed by the same applicant or assignee contain patentably indistinct claims, elimination of such claims from all but one application may be required in the absence of good and sufficient reason for their retention during pendency in more than one application. Applicant is required to either cancel the patentably indistinct claims from all but one application or maintain a clear line of demarcation between the applications. See MPEP § 822.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
Comparison of the claims of the two applications are shown below:
Claim
Examining Claims (18/812,878)
Claim
Copending claims (18/815,337)
1
A method for creating a plug-in, comprising:
1
A method for plugin creation, comprising:
providing a plug-in creation portal in a first page associated with an interaction window between a digital assistant and a first user;providing a second page for creating a target plug-in based on a selection of the plug-in creation portal;
providing a creation page for creating a target plugin, wherein the creation page presents a plugin creation template corresponding to a type of the target plugin to be created, and the plugin creation template comprises at least one information input component;
obtaining inputted plug-in creation information about the target plug-in via the second page; and
obtaining plugin creation information about the target plugin at least via the at least one information input component in the plugin creation template; and
in response to receiving an operation of releasing the target plug-in, releasing the target plug-in based on the plug-in creation information, the released target plug-in being selectable for an interaction between a user and the digital assistant.
releasing the target plugin based on the plugin creation information, the released target plugin being selectable for interaction between a user and a digital assistant.
Claims 17 and 20 of the examining application are substantially similar to claim 1 of the examining application and can be shown they are not patentably distinguishable from claim 1 of the copending application. As such, claims 1, 17 and 20 are rejected.
Claims 2-16, 18 and 19 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anning et al (hereinafter Anning, Publication No.: CN114020381A)
As per claim 1, Anning teaches,
A method for creating a plug-in, comprising:
providing a plug-in creation portal in a first page associated with an interaction window between a digital assistant and a first user; (Anning recites in [n0007] “The display is configured to show the interface of the terminal device during operation;”. Anning recites in [n0009] “The processor is configured to, in response to a received add plugin operation, display a plugin selection interface on a monitor;”. The terminal interface is the first page, which has a add plugin section. Please note that the terminal interface is the digital assistant in this case. Please see the “Claim Interpretation” section above.)
providing a second page for creating a target plug-in based on a selection of the plug-in creation portal; (Anning recites in [n0009] “The processor is configured to, in response to a received add plugin operation, display a plugin selection interface on a monitor; the plugin selection interface includes selectable candidate plugins; in response to a trigger operation for a target plugin, determine at least one candidate position in a first display desktop for displaying the icon of the target plugin;”. Here the “plugin section interface” is the second page.)
obtaining inputted plug-in creation information about the target plug-in via the second page; (Anning recites in [n0009] “The processor is configured to, in response to a received add plugin operation, display a plugin selection interface on a monitor; the plugin selection interface includes selectable candidate plugins; in response to a trigger operation for a target plugin, determine at least one candidate position in a first display desktop for displaying the icon of the target plugin;”. This shows obtaining input and selecting a target plugin.)
in response to receiving an operation of releasing the target plug-in, releasing the target plug-in based on the plug-in creation information, the released target plug-in being selectable for an interaction between a user and the digital assistant. (Anning recites in [0038] “The terminal device, plugin deployment method, and storage medium provided in this application embodiment allow users to select a target plugin
in the plugin selection interface. This enables the user to determine at least one candidate position for displaying the icon of the target plugin in the currently displayed first desktop. This allows the user to select the target position for displaying the icon of the target plugin from the determined candidate positions. This process not only simplifies user operations and helps users quickly deploy desktop plugins, but also helps users save time.” Here “terminal device” is the user device and “displayed first desktop” is the “first page”. This shows that the user selects and places the plug-in icon on the desktop and hence deploy or releases the plug-in. This icon is selectable by the user using the desktop.)
As per claim 2, Anning teaches,
wherein the plug-in creation information comprises at least information of at least one tool contained in the target plug-in. (Each plug-in provides one or more service. As such, a plug-in is a tool. Anning teaches in [n0103] “It is understandable that the extended plugin set is used to store functional plugins developed and built by third parties, which can be flexibly changed according to different functional requirements; the core component set is used to store functional components commonly used in online sessions, such as toolbar UI plugins, user list UI plugins, content selection UI plugins, screen sharing UI plugins, interactive whiteboard UI plugins, and plugin management UI plugins.” This shows that a plug-in is selected depending on its function, which is a plug-in creation information.)
As per claims 17 and 18, these are device claims that substantially parallel the limitations of the method claims 1 and 2. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as devices.
As per claim 20, this is a medium claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a medium.
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.
Claims 2, 10 and 19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anning as applied to claims 1 and 17 in view of Jun et al. (hereinafter Jun, Publication No.: CN113419707A).
As per claim 3, Anning teaches plug-in creation. Anning does not explicitly teach, “wherein the obtained plug-in creation information further comprises at least one of the following: identification information of the target plug-in, the identification information comprising a text identifier and / or an image identifier; a description text of the target plug-in; plug-in permission information indicating at least a user range capable of using the target plug-in.” However, in analogous art of plug-in creation, Jun teaches,
wherein the obtained plug-in creation information further comprises at least one of the following: identification information of the target plug-in, the identification information comprising a text identifier and / or an image identifier; a description text of the target plug-in; plug-in permission information indicating at least a user range capable of using the target plug-in. (Jun recites in [0005] starting at line 3, “detects and acquires the ID, name, icon and functional metadata information of each plug-in, and stores the metadata information into a database table of the tool editing
module;”.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Anning of plug-in creation by incorporating the teaching “wherein the obtained plug-in creation information further comprises at least one of the following: identification information of the target plug-in, the identification information comprising a text identifier and / or an image identifier; a description text of the target plug-in; plug-in permission information indicating at least a user range capable of using the target plug-in.” of Jun. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of plug-in creation by obtaining and using identity information of an existing plug-in as template and modifying it as required.
As per claim 10, Jun teaches,
wherein obtaining the inputted plug-in creation information about the target plug-in comprises:
obtaining, via the second page, tool creation information about a second tool to be created from the first user; creating the second tool based on the tool creation information; and determining the created second tool to be a tool to be comprised in the target plug-in. (Jun recites in [0005] starting at line 6, “the client side plug-in interface comprises a foreground interface of the tool editing module, presents various metadata information of the plug-ins to be selected to a user through a database table stored in a background,”. This shows that tool editing module can edit metadata of a selected tool [or plug-in] and this creates a second tool.)
As per claim 19, this is a device claim that substantially parallels the limitations of the method claim 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to implement the prescribed method steps as a device.
Claims 4, 6, 8 and 16 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anning as applied to claims 1 in view of Gelfenbeyn et al. (hereinafter Gelfenbeyn, Publication No.: US 2023/0153876).
As per claim 4, Anning teaches plug-in creation. Anning does not explicitly teach, “wherein the first page further provides plug-in description information of a set of existing plug-ins associated with the digital assistant, wherein the plug-in description information comprises identification information of the set of existing plug-ins.” However, in analogous art of plug-in creation, Gelfenbeyn teaches,
wherein the first page further provides plug-in description information of a set of existing plug-ins associated with the digital assistant, wherein the plug-in description information comprises identification information of the set of existing plug-ins. (Gelfenbeyn recites in [0049] starting at line 2, “The marketplace 170 may also include a marketplace interface 174 for enabling the developers to review, select, purchase, and/or optionally customize selectable plugins. Metadata may accompany each plugin and include content associated therewith. For example, the metadata may include one or more of the following: a description of plugins, example images, example audio messages, tags, developer comments, ranks, publisher information, payment information, statistical information”…..Here “marketplace interface is the “first page”.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Anning of plug-in creation by incorporating the teaching “wherein the first page further provides plug-in description information of a set of existing plug-ins associated with the digital assistant, wherein the plug-in description information comprises identification information of the set of existing plug-ins.” of Gelfenbeyn. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of plug-in creation by selecting a template plug-in from a set of templates and selecting the appropriate plug-in by using the template plug-in’s description.
As per claim 6, Gelfenbeyn teaches,
wherein obtaining the inputted plug-in creation information about the target plug-in comprises:
displaying a set of candidate tools in the second page; and (Gelfenbeyn recites in [0049] starting at line 2, “The marketplace 170 may also include a marketplace interface 174 for enabling the developers to review, select, purchase, and/or optionally customize selectable plugins. Metadata may accompany each plugin and include content associated therewith. For example, the metadata may include one or more of the following: a description of plugins, example images, example audio messages, tags, developer comments, ranks, publisher information, payment information, statistical information”…..)
determining the plug-in creation information based at least on a selection by the first user for a first tool in the set of candidate tools. (Gelfenbeyn recites in [0109] starting at line 6, “End users may view and select (purchase) particular dialog system
extension elements through a marketplace interface.”)
As per claim 8, Gelfenbeyn teaches,
wherein determining the plug-in creation information based at least on the selection by the first user for the first tool in the set of candidate tools comprises:
determining the selected first tool to be a tool to be comprised in the target plug-in. (Gelfenbeyn recites in [0049] starting at line 2, “The marketplace 170 may also include a marketplace interface 174 for enabling the developers to review, select, purchase, and/or optionally customize selectable plugins. Metadata may accompany each plugin and include content associated therewith. For example, the metadata may include one or more of the following: a description of plugins, example images, example audio messages, tags, developer comments, ranks, publisher information, payment information, statistical information”…..Here description of the plug-in describes what kind of tool the plug-in is or what service does it provide.)
As per claim 16, Gelfenbeyn teaches,
wherein, the interaction window between the first user and the digital assistant is a session window; and the first page is a message presentation area of the session window. (Gelfenbeyn recites in [0023] “The term "Dialog System Interface" refers to a computer-human interface, which is configured to acquire user inputs in the form of audio messages or text messages, and deliver dialog system responses to the users in the form of audio messages or displayable messages.” Gelfenbeyn recites in [0026] starting at line 3, “The present technology also provides for an online marketplace, such as the online marketplace implemented as a website or web service, which may include a plurality of dialog system extension elements, including various plugins, add-ons, extensions, updates, or software codes allowing the enhancement of the functionality of Dialog Systems maintained by the platform. For simplicity, "dialog system extension elements" are referred to herein as "plugins."”)
Claim 5 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gelfenbeyn as applied to claims 4 in view of Nakagawa et al. (hereinafter Nakagawa, Publication No.: US 2019/0243693).
As per claim 5, Gelfenbeyn teaches plug-in creation. Gelfenbeyn does not explicitly teach, “further comprising: in response to the target plug-in being released, updating the plug-in description information to comprise identification information of the target plug-in.” However, in analogous art of plug-in creation, Nakagawa teaches
further comprising: in response to the target plug-in being released, updating the plug-in description information to comprise identification information of the target plug-in. (Nakagawa recites in [0274] “The control message 1504 to update a plug-in includes fields of ID, time, type, target state name, information on location of plug-in to be updated, information on location of new plug-in, start time, and end time. The fields of ID, time, type, target state name, information on location of plug-in to be added, and information on location of new plug-in are the same as those in the control message 604 to update a plug-in illustrated in FIG. 6, and thus description thereof is omitted. In the start time field, a time at which the expiration of a new plug-in starts is set. In the end time field, a time at which the expiration of the new plug-in ends is set.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Gelfenbeyn of plug-in creation by incorporating the teaching “further comprising: in response to the target plug-in being released, updating the plug-in description information to comprise identification information of the target plug-in.” of Nakagawa. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of plug-in creation by selecting a template plug-in from a set of templates, modifying the template and modifying the description of the plug-in as appropriate.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gelfenbeyn as applied to claim 6 in view of Jun et al. (hereinafter Jun, Publication No.: CN113419707A).
As per claim 7, Gelfenbeyn teaches plug-in creation. Gelfenbeyn does not explicitly teach “wherein the set of candidate tools comprises at least one of:
a first set of candidate tools determined based on permission information of the first user; a second set of candidate tools edited or uploaded by the first user; and a third set of candidate tools determined based on a target application associated with the target plug-in.” However, in analogous art of plug-in creation, Jun teaches,
wherein the set of candidate tools comprises at least one of:
a first set of candidate tools determined based on permission information of the first user; (Not considered)
a second set of candidate tools edited or uploaded by the first user; and (Jun recites in [0005] starting at line 6, “the client side plug-in interface comprises a foreground interface of the tool editing module, presents various metadata information of the plug-ins to be selected to a user through a database table stored in a background,”. This shows that tool editing module can edit metadata of a selected tool [or plug-in].)
a third set of candidate tools determined based on a target application associated with the target plug-in. (Not considered)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Gelfenbeyn of plug-in creation by incorporating the teaching teach “wherein the set of candidate tools comprises at least one of: a first set of candidate tools determined based on permission information of the first user; a second set of candidate tools edited or uploaded by the first user; and a third set of candidate tools determined based on a target application associated with the target plug-in.” of Jun. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of Gelfenbeyn of plug-in creation by selecting a template plug-in from a set of templates and selecting the appropriate plug-in and editing it as appropriate and uploading it for future use by other users.
As per claim 9, Jun teaches,
wherein determining the plug-in creation information based at least on the selection by the first user for the first tool in the set of candidate tools comprises:
receiving an editing operation by the first user with respect to the first tool; and
determining the edited first tool to be a tool to be comprised in the target plug-in. (Jun recites in [0005] starting at line 6, “the client side plug-in interface comprises a foreground interface of the tool editing module, presents various metadata information of the plug-ins to be selected to a user through a database table stored in a background,”. This shows that tool editing module can edit metadata of a selected tool [or plug-in].)
Claim 11 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun as applied to claim 10 in view of Gelfenbeyn et al. (hereinafter Gelfenbeyn, Pub. No.: US 2023/0153876).
As per claim 11, Jun teaches plug-in creation. Jun does not explicitly teach, “wherein the tool creation information comprises at least a code representation associated with the second tool.” However, in analogous art of plug-in creation, Gelfenbeyn teaches,
wherein the tool creation information comprises at least a code representation associated with the second tool. (Gelfenbeyn recites in [0026] starting at line 3, “The present technology also provides for an online marketplace, such as the online marketplace implemented as a website or web service, which may include a plurality of dialog system extension elements, including various plugins, add-ons, extensions, updates, or software codes allowing the enhancement of the functionality of Dialog Systems maintained by the platform. For simplicity, "dialog system extension elements" are referred to herein as "plugins." “)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Jun of plug-in creation by incorporating the teaching teach “wherein the tool creation information comprises at least a code representation associated with the second tool.” of Gelfenbeyn. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of Jun of plug-in creation by selecting a template for which source code is provided for user’s modification.
Claim 12 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gelfenbeyn as applied to claim 11 in view of Yang et al. (hereinafter Yang, Pub. No.: US 2018/0088915).
As per claim 12, Gelfenbeyn teaches plug-in creation. Gelfenbeyn does not explicitly teach, “wherein the code representation comprises: a first code representation inputted via a code edit control in the second page; and / or a second code representation uploaded by the first user.” However, in analogous art of plug-in creation, Yang teaches,
wherein the code representation comprises:
a first code representation inputted via a code edit control in the second page; and / or (Yang recites in claim 8 “The method of claim 1 further comprising, in response to selection of a third input control, presenting a modal window that allows editing of the program code of the first plug-in.”)
a second code representation uploaded by the first user. (Not considered)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Gelfenbeyn of plug-in creation by incorporating the teaching of “wherein the code representation comprises: a first code representation inputted via a code edit control in the second page; and / or a second code representation uploaded by the first user.” of Yang. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of Gelfenbeyn of plug-in creation by selecting a template plug-in from a set of templates and editing the template to fit the user’s requirement.
Claim 13 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gelfenbeyn as applied to claim 11 in view of Perry et al. (hereinafter Perry, Patent No.: US 9,280,677).
As per claim 13, Gelfenbeyn teaches plug-in creation. Gelfenbeyn does not explicitly teach, “wherein creating the second tool based on the tool creation information comprises: in response to the code representation passing a verification, creating the second tool, and wherein the method further comprises: in response to the code representation failing to pass the verification, providing an error prompt associated with the code representation.” However, in analogous art of plug-in creation, Perry teaches,
wherein creating the second tool based on the tool creation information comprises:
in response to the code representation passing a verification, creating the second tool, and wherein the method further comprises:
in response to the code representation failing to pass the verification, providing an error prompt associated with the code representation. (Perry recites in column 14 starting at line 44, “If the browser does not find a valid manifest file or the messaging host is not verified (440, No) or if the extension is not a browser-based application allowed to communicate with the native application (450, No), the browser may generate an error response at block 460. The error response may include sending an error code or message back to the extension, logging the request for auditing purposes, failing to open a communications port with the native application messaging host, etc.” Please note that extension is the plug-in.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Gelfenbeyn of plug-in creation by incorporating the teaching of “wherein creating the second tool based on the tool creation information comprises: in response to the code representation passing a verification, creating the second tool, and wherein the method further comprises: in response to the code representation failing to pass the verification, providing an error prompt associated with the code representation.” of Perry. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of Gelfenbeyn of plug-in creation by incorporating the teaching of Perry of generating an error message in case the code modification causes an error.
Claim 14 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jun as applied to claim 10 in view of Belvins et al. (hereinafter Belvins, Patent No.: US 7,519,976).
As per claim 14, Jun teaches plug-in creation. Jun does not explicitly teach, “wherein the tool creation information further comprises tool permission information indicating a usage constraint by at least one other user with respect to the second tool.” However, in analogous art of plug-in creation Belvin teaches,
wherein the tool creation information further comprises tool permission information indicating a usage constraint by at least one other user with respect to the second tool. (Belvins recites in claim 13, “wherein: the plug-in API includes an Permission session EJB that enables a user to get and set security permissions for roles and user actions.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Jun of plug-in creation by incorporating the teaching of “wherein the tool creation information further comprises tool permission information indicating a usage constraint by at least one other user with respect to the second tool.” of Belvins. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of Jun of plug-in creation by incorporating the teaching of Belvins of creating a plug-in and restricting usage of the plug-in to certain users as needed by the creator of the plug-in.
Claim 15 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anning as applied to claim 1 in view of Xiaofei et al. (hereinafter Xiaofei, Publication No.: CN 113553070).
As per claim 15, Anning teaches plug-in creation. Anning does not explicitly teach “wherein releasing the target plug-in comprises: in response to an audit of the plug-in creation information being passed, releasing the target plug-in.” However, in analogous art of plug-in creation Xiaofei teaches,
wherein releasing the target plug-in comprises: in response to an audit of the plug-in creation information being passed, releasing the target plug-in. (Xiaofei recites on page 3 middle of the page “The developer tests successfully and applies with complete functions, packages the application through a developer tool, submits the application to an auditing platform, and simultaneously marks an application version number and corresponding functions and pages;
s13, auditor auditing and issuing. The auditor passes through the audit background to perform functional test, corresponding test is performed on the function filled by the developer by clicking the application in the audit, the auditor can click to release the approved application, the application can be searched in the application store,”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the above teaching of Anning of plug-in creation by incorporating the teaching of “wherein releasing the target plug-in comprises: in response to an audit of the plug-in creation information being passed, releasing the target plug-in.” of Xiaofei. The modification would have been obvious because one of the ordinary skills of the art would have implemented the function of Anning of plug-in creation by incorporating the teaching of Xiaofei of creating a plug-in and testing to confirm proper functioning of the plug-in before releasing the plug-in for use.
References of Note
Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, references, or figures in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses to fully consider the reference in entirety, as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §§ 2141.02 and 2123.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAIN MORSHED whose telephone number is (571)272-3335. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday12:00 PM – 9 PM Eastern Time. The email address for the examiner is hossain.morshed@uspto.gov.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or 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, Wei Mui can be reached on (571)272-3708.
/HOSSAIN M MORSHED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191 August 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights