DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16-19, 21 and 22 are presented for consideration.
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, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16-19, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alurralde Iturri et al. [ US Patent Application No 2021/0034336 ], in view of Frazier et al. [ US Patent Application No 2022/0391281 ].
As per claim 1, Alurralde Iturri discloses the invention as claimed including a method for creating a connector connecting an application on an intranet with a client on an extranet [ i.e. creating connectors ] [ Figure 2; Abstract; and paragraphs 0031, 0032, and 0035 ], the method comprising:
in response to a connector creation operation triggered by a user in a first page [ i.e. user options for displaying and accessing additional UI display screens with additional controls for facilitating creation and/or selection of SOAP connectors ] [ 116, 118, 120, Figure 4; and paragraphs 0086-0089 ], displaying a second page that is a connector configuration page [ i.e. wizard for creating a SOAP connector ] [ Figure 5; and paragraphs 0090-0094 ];
in response to an interface parameter configuration operation triggered by the user in the second page [ i.e. user select the next button ] [ 144, Figure 5; and paragraph 0094, and 0095 ], acquiring interface parameters configured by the user [ i.e. configure basic or advance properties for connectors ] [ Figures 6, and 7; and paragraphs 0095-0103 ]; and
generating, based on the interface parameters, a target connector [ i.e. user may select the create button to trigger automatic generation of a connector ] [ 150, Figure 7; and paragraphs 0097; and 0102 ].
Alurraldi Iturri does not specifically disclose
in response to an error code indicating an abnormality associated with a data interaction between the application and the client, triggering an error code configuration operation by the user in the second page,
acquiring, in response to the trigger the error code configuration operation, error code information configured by the user;
generating, based on the interface parameters and the error code information, a connector, wherein the connector is configured to convert a message encapsuled using a first data protocol into a message encapsuled using a second data protocol.
Frazier discloses
in response to an error code indicating an abnormality associated with a data interaction between the application and the client [ i.e. error code or error identifier received upon attempting execution of the integration process ] [ paragraph 0054 ], triggering an error code configuration operation by the user in the second page [ i.e. error revision suggestion system may access this resolve database with correction of user input errors ] [ paragraphs 0022-0024 ],
acquiring, in response to the trigger the error code configuration operation, error code information configured by the user [ i.e. user instruction to search for erroneous user input ] [ 412, Figure 4; and paragraphs 0079-0082 ];
generating, based on the interface parameters and the error code information, a connector, wherein the connector is configured to convert a message encapsuled using a first data protocol into a message encapsuled using a second data protocol [ i.e. invoking an application-specific connector, transforming data from one format to another ] [ Figure 3; and paragraphs 0031, 0057, and 0068 ].
It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Alurraldi Iturri and Frazier because the teaching of Frazier would enable to logging, tracking, and suggesting resolutions for errors detected during execution of customized data integration processes based on past performance of such suggested resolutions [ Frazier, paragraph 0002 ].
As per claim 2, Alurralde Iturri discloses in response to an interface configuration file uploading operation triggered by the user in the second page, acquiring the interface configuration file, and parsing the interface configuration file to acquire the interface parameters [ i.e. to upload connector-related data from a file ] [ 140, Figure 5; and paragraphs 0091-0093 ].
As per claim 3, Alurralde Iturri discloses in response to an interface parameter input operation triggered by the user in the second page, acquiring interface parameters input by the user [ i.e. UI control selection ] [ Figure 6; and paragraphs 0092, and 0093 ].
As per claim 5, Alurraldi Iturri discloses in response to a trigger configuration operation triggered by the user in the second page, acquiring trigger information configured by the user, wherein the trigger information is configured to indicate an application which is deployed in an intranet and interacts with the connector [ i.e. launching an enterprise software application, and enterprise include private and shared content on internet Web servers ] [ paragraphs 0028, 0110, and 0128 ]; and generating a connector based on the interface parameters comprises: generating the connector based on the interface parameters and the trigger information [ paragraphs 0047, 0088, and 0128 ].
As per claim 6, Alurraldi Iturri discloses wherein generating a connector based on the interface parameters comprises: generating the connector based on the interface parameters and a predetermined connector template [ i.e. wizards ] [ 22, Figure 2; and paragraphs 0049, and 0053 ].
8. As per claim 10, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 1.
9. As per claim 11, it is rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claim 1.
10. As per claims 13, and 14, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 2, and 3.
11. As per claims 16, and 17, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 5, and 6.
12. As per claims 18, and 19, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 2, and 3.
13. As per claims 21, and 22, they are rejected for similar reasons as stated above in claims 5, and 6.
Claim(s) 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alurralde Iturri et al. [ US Patent Application No 2021/0034336 ], in view of Frazier et al. [ US Patent Application No 2022/0391281 ], and further in view of Palmeri et al. [ US Patent Application No 2005/0228863 ].
15. As per claim 7, Aluralde Iturri in view of Frazier does not specifically disclose wherein the first data protocol is a universal data protocol, and the second data protocol is a private data protocol; or, the first data protocol is a private data protocol, and the second data protocol is a universal data protocol. Palmeri discloses wherein the first data protocol is a universal data protocol, and the second data protocol is a private data protocol; or, the first data protocol is a private data protocol, and the second data protocol is a universal data protocol [ i.e. translating between formats ] [ Figure 6; and paragraphs 0032, and 0075-0083 ]. It would have been obvious to a person skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Alurraldi Iturri, Frazier and Palmeri because the teaching of Palmeri would enable to provide and manage highly individualized, on demand access to applications and services in network environment [ Palmeri, paragraph 0002 ].
As per claim 8, Palmeri discloses wherein the connector is configured to enable a client deployed in a public network to have mutual access with an application deployed in an intranet, the client deployed in the public network using the first data protocol to encapsule a message, and the application using the second data protocol to encapsule a message; or, the client deployed in the public network using the second data protocol to encapsule a message, and the application using the first data protocol to encapsule a message [ i.e. rich client widgets ] [ Figure 7; and paragraphs 0091-0094 ].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16-19, 21 and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kravchenko [ US Patent Application No 2022/0244936 ] discloses dynamically evolving and updating connector modules in an integration platform
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUSTIN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3971. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6 PST.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 571-2727952. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DUSTIN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights