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 .
This communication is in response to Application filed on October 21, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: elements 602-614 in Fig 6; 702-716 in Fig 7; 802-812 in Fig 8A; 814-802 in Fig 8B and 902 in Fig 9A. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite the term ‘UI/UX design’ without reciting what the terms stand for. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the limitation "the at least one loaded NOODL extension file" in lines 15-16, 11-12 and 12-13 of the respective claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. For purposes of examination, Examiner will assume that the limitation reads “the at least one retrieved NOODL extension file”.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 recite the limitation ‘at a high level of abstraction’. However the terms ‘high level’ are indefinite because the specification does not provide a standard for the terms ‘high level’ for measuring abstraction.
All claims depending from the aforenoted claims are also rejected by virtue of their dependencies.
Due to the 35 USC 112 rejection, the claims have been examined as best understood by the Examiner.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPub 2018/0121260 by Nadig et al (hereafter Nadig), as disclosed by Applicant in IDS filed on 10/21/2024, and further in view of US 2021/0182248 by Jayanthi.
Referring to claim 1, Nadig discloses a computing system [variability configuration system 600, Fig 6], comprising:
a plurality of user devices [client device 120, plurality of users, para 20-21, Fig 1];
a storage device configured to store one or more neuron organic object description language (NOODL) files [storage 610, para 55-56, Fig 6];
a computing device comprising at least one processor in communication with a memory device [system 600 includes CPU 602 connected to memory 608, para 56, Fig 6], the at least one processor configured to:
receive, from one or more of the plurality of user devices, at least one user- defined data scheme and at least one attribute [wherein a definition of a variability schema and context information associated with the variability schema are received from a user, Abstract, para 58; query received from client device includes properties of requested data defined in a variability schema and context information, para 24-25; definition of variability schemas in API, para 20; management console 124 allows user to add variability schemas to variability schema repository 154 in schema data store 150 and edit existing variability schemas defined for an application executing in application server 130, para 23];
retrieve, from the storage device, at least one of the one or more NOODL extension files based, at least in part, on the at least one user-defined data scheme and the at least one attribute [based on selections received in user interface 122, client device 122 generates and transmits a query to application server 130 to determine a context of the query and retrieve a relevant variability schema to use in processing an API function call, para 21-22; schema data store 150 stores schema definition files for each node or query available in an API and variability schemas, para 31; variability schema files include markup or structured data files that define variations in workflow behavior relative to a base or default workflow such as a YAML file and can define extensions to a data object model, para 34; Examiner submits that the YAML extension definition files reads on the claimed NOODL extension files because the instant specification defines a YAML to be a data definition language and that the term ‘NOODL’ refers to the data definition language [para 32 of instant specification];
create at least one NOODL data object in accordance with ones of the NOODL extension files [wherein if configuration service 136 determines that received variability schema represents an extension to the API (e.g., a new data object model definition and corresponding schema defining rules for interacting with the new data object), configuration service 136 can add the new data object to the API, para 29];
implement at least one application utilizing at least one aspect of the at least one loaded NOODL extension file or the at least one NOODL data object [user interface 122 displays graphical user interface (GUI) elements that allow a user to interact with an application hosted on application server 130, para 21; management console 124 allows user to add variability schemas to variability schema repository 154 and edit existing variability schemas defined for an application executing in application server 130, para 23; when variability schema linker 634 commits a variability schema to a repository (e.g., variability schema 650 in storage 610), it makes the variation of the data object model and/or API function call available for use by applications interacting with the API, para 59].
Referring to claim 1, while Nadig discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses that the committing of variability schema to repository 650 makes variation of the data object model and API function call available to applications interacting with the API [para 59], it remains silent as to the computing system being an edge computing system; and providing the one or more of the plurality of user devices access to the implemented application.
Jayanthi teaches an on-demand database service environment including a client machine that can communication with the cloud 204 via one or more edge routers 208,212 [para 43, Fig 2A]. Jayanthi also discloses that Application platform 18 is a framework that enables the creation, management and execution of one more applications developed by the provider of the on-demand database service and providing users access to the on-demand database service [para 19-20].
Nadig and Jayanthi are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- management of applications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the functionality of the variability configuration system of Nadig to include using the edge routers within a cloud framework and to include providing users access to the created application of the on-demand database service, as in Jayanthi, because it would achieve predicable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because these limitations further refine the type of network environment and the delivery of the application data taught in Nadig.
Referring to claim 8, the limitations of the claim are similar to those of claim 1 in the form of a non-transitory computer readable medium coupled to a processor instructions [Nadig, para 7]. As such, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Referring to claim 15, the limitations of the claim are similar to those of claim 1 in the form of a method [Nadig, para 6]. As such, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Referring to claims 2, 9, and 16, Nadig/Jayanthi discloses that the at least one application is a cloud-based application [Jayanthi, database instance in cloud computing environment, Abstract].
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadig in view of Jayanthi, as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of US Patent 10,936,631 issued to Zarick et al (hereafter Zarick).
Referring to claims 3, 10 and 17, while Nadig/Jayanthi discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses that the at least one NOODL extension file generates a mapping of a computer application for at least one of the plurality of user devices [Nadig, wherein based on the input query that could include information about a location of the user (i.e. the client device 122), application service 130 determines a context of the query and retrieves a relevant variability schema to use in processing an API function call, para 21; schema data store 150 stores schema definition files for each query available in an API, para 30], it remains silent as to the mapping being based on the operating system of the at least one of the user devices.
Zarick teaches storing representations of one or more people as entries in a global storage structure 104 within an operating system 102, wherein the entries may include information identifying relationship information between (i.e. a mapping between) the person logged into the operating system 102 and the person with an entry in the global storage structure 104 [col. 3, lines 24-29, 37- col. 4, line 3].
Nadig, Jayanthi and Zarick are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- management of applications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the schema data store 150 storing schema definition files in Nadig to include metadata relating to the operating system of the user devices, as in Zarick, because it would achieve predicable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because the specification of users as operating system related entries within the global storage structure 104 of Zarick further refines the type of data stored within the schema data store 150 of Nadig.
Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadig in view of Jayanthi, as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of US 2012/0311614 by DeAnna et al (hereafter DeAnna).
Referring to claims 4, 11, and 18, while Nadig/Jayanthi discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses a User interface (GUI) 122 that allows a user to interact with an application hosted on application server 130 in the querying for relevant variability schema to use in processing API function calls [Nadig, para 21], however remains silent as to connection of the UI/UX design with a frontend application, a backend data- model design, or a human-machine information exchange input-output.
DeAnna teaches connection of the UI/UX design with a frontend application [wherein any node running on a Pervasive software platform that wishes to have their native application contain a user interface that is described in Javascript/HTML/CSS can do so by utilizing the Universally available API, para 221-222].
Nadig, Jayanthi and DeAnna are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- management of applications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the design of UI 122 in Nadig to include a frontend application as in DeAnna because it would achieve predicable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because the Javascript/HTML/CSS design specification for a desired user interface of DeAnna further refines the objective design the GUI 122 of Nadig.
Referring to claims 5, 12, 19, while Nadig/Jayanthi discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses a User interface (GUI) 122 that allows a user to interact with an application hosted on application server 130 in the querying for relevant variability schema to use in processing API function calls [Nadig, para 21], however remains silent as to the variability schema files uniforming HTML, CSS and Javascript at a high level of abstraction.
DeAnna teaches that a device API abstraction layer operates as an interface between one or more applications operating on a device and comprises a universal set of APIs that enables applications to execute irrespective of the operating system and software platform of the host device [Abstract]. DeAnna also discloses that any node running on a Pervasive software platform that wishes to have their native application contain a user interface that is described in Javascript/HTML/CSS can do so by utilizing the Universally available API 28 [para 221-222].
Nadig/Jayanthi and DeAnna are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- execution of applications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the variability schema files in Nadig to include the abstraction capabilities of the Universally available API 28 in using Javascript/HTML/CSS for user interface design, as in DeAnna because it would achieve predicable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because the Javascript/HTML/CSS specification for a desired user interface of DeAnna further refines the type of design specification of the stored variability schema files in Nadig.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadig in view of Jayanthi, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of US Patent 6,078,948 issued to Podgorny et al (hereafter Podgorny).
Referring to claims 6 and 13, while Nadig/Jayanthi discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses implementation of the at least one application and providing users access to the implemented application [Nadig, variation of the data object model and/or API function call is made available for use by applications interacting with the API, para 59; Jayanthi, providing users access to the on-demand database service, para 19-20], it remains silent as to generation of a virtual exam room and transmission of an access link providing entry to the virtual exam room to at least one of the plurality of user devices.
Podgorny teaches generation of a virtual exam room and transmission of an access link providing entry to the virtual exam room to at least one of the plurality of user devices [web-based virtual communities are formed that have virtual rooms with collaborative sessions, Abstract; wherein control message sequences enable a user to enter a room, wherein Demon 1 sends a Room_Enter_Req message to server 240 and performs room-specific authentication procedures to determine whether the user RUID is allowed to enter the room, col. 11, lines 32-46; URL of login applet to implement login policy, wherein login class waits for user to provide username and password, col. 19, lines 45-66].
Nadig, Jayanthi and Podgorny are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- execution of applications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the users’ access to the on-demand database service in Jayanthi to include the URL login link to enter a virtual room in Podgorny because it would achieve predicable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because the URL login link to access the virtual room refines the type of user access to the on-demand database service in Jayanthi.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadig in view of Jayanthi, in view of Podgorny, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of US Patent 7,181,017 issued to Nagel et al (hereafter Nagel).
Referring to claims 7 and 14, while Nadig/Jayanthi/Podgorny discloses all of the above claimed subject matter and also discloses generation of a virtual exam room and transmission of an access link providing entry to the virtual exam room to at least one of the plurality of user devices [Podgorny, web-based virtual communities are formed that have virtual rooms with collaborative sessions, Abstract; wherein control message sequences enable a user to enter a room, wherein Demon 1 sends a Room_Enter_Req message to server 240 and performs room-specific authentication procedures to determine whether the user RUID is allowed to enter the room, col. 11, lines 32-46; URL of login applet to implement login policy, wherein login class waits for user to provide username and password, col. 19, lines 45-66]. However, it remains silent as to: the access being granted in response to provision a valid asymmetric key.
However Nagel teaches that asymmetric key encryption may be employed to provide the establishment of secure communications channels involving an intermediary, without making the intermediary privy to the decryption key or the message [col. 11, line 65- col. 12, line 2].
Nadig, Jayanthi, Podgorny and Nagel are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- execution of applications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user access to the a virtual room of Podgorny to include the use of asymmetric key encryption because it would achieve predicable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because the asymmetric key encryption of Nagel would keep the user’s login information in Podgorny remain secure and keep its integrity [see Nagel, col. 12, lines 2-5].
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadig in view of Jayanthi, as applied to claim 15 above, in view of Podgorny, and further in view of Nagel.
Referring to claim 20, while Nadig/Jayanthi/Podgorny discloses all of the above claimed subject matter also discloses implementation of the at least one application and providing users access to the implemented application [Nadig, variation of the data object model and/or API function call is made available for use by applications interacting with the API, para 59; Jayanthi, providing users access to the on-demand database service, para 19-20], it remains silent as to generation of a virtual exam room and transmission of an access link providing entry to the virtual exam room to at least one of the plurality of user devices in response to the at least one of the plurality of devices providing a valid asymmetric key.
Podgorny teaches generation of a virtual exam room and transmission of an access link providing entry to the virtual exam room to at least one of the plurality of user devices [web-based virtual communities are formed that have virtual rooms with collaborative sessions, Abstract; wherein control message sequences enable a user to enter a room, wherein Demon 1 sends a Room_Enter_Req message to server 240 and performs room-specific authentication procedures to determine whether the user RUID is allowed to enter the room, col. 11, lines 32-46; URL of login applet to implement login policy, wherein login class waits for user to provide username and password, col. 19, lines 45-66].
Nadig, Jayanthi and Podgorny are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- execution of applications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the users’ access to the on-demand database service in Jayanthi to include the URL login link to enter a virtual room in Podgorny because it would achieve predicable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because the URL login link to access the virtual room refines the type of user access to the on-demand database service in Jayanthi.
Still referring to claim 20, while Nadig/Jayanthi/Podgorny teaches all of the above and also discloses generation of a virtual exam room and transmission of an access link providing entry to the virtual exam room to at least one of the plurality of user devices [Podgorny, web-based virtual communities are formed that have virtual rooms with collaborative sessions, Abstract; wherein control message sequences enable a user to enter a room, wherein Demon 1 sends a Room_Enter_Req message to server 240 and performs room-specific authentication procedures to determine whether the user RUID is allowed to enter the room, col. 11, lines 32-46; URL of login applet to implement login policy, wherein login class waits for user to provide username and password, col. 19, lines 45-66]. However, it remains silent as to: the access being granted in response to provision a valid asymmetric key.
However Nagel teaches that asymmetric key encryption may be employed to provide the establishment of secure communications channels involving an intermediary, without making the intermediary privy to the decryption key or the message [col. 11, line 65- col. 12, line 2].
Nadig, Jayanthi, Podgorny and Nagel are analogous art because they are directed to the same field of endeavor- execution of applications. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user access to the a virtual room of Podgorny to include the use of asymmetric key encryption because it would achieve predicable results.
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification because the asymmetric key encryption of Nagel would keep the user’s login information in Podgorny remain secure and keep its integrity [see Nagel, col. 12, lines 2-5].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHERYL M SHECHTMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4018. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached on 571-270-1698. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
CHERYL M SHECHTMANPatent Examiner
Art Unit 2164
/C.M.S/
/AMY NG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2164