CTNF 18/923,339 CTNF 72172 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-9 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. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 1 recites the limitation “ the second metamodel ” in line 12 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The parent application included the limitation “receiving an API specification, wherein the API specification is generated based on a second metamodel and compatible with the predetermined protocol” however this limitation has been moved to dependent claim 2 in the current application as such “the second metamodel” does not have antecedent basis. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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). 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. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,124,859 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims move limitations of the patented claims to dependent claims . Patented claim 1 reads: A computer-implemented method for invoking a software component through a predetermined protocol, the method comprising: receiving a software component comprising at least one of a configuration, an operation, a trigger, and a parameter; providing a first metamodel of the software component, the first metamodel describing the configuration, the operation, the trigger and the parameter of the software component as named parameters; receiving a deployed microservice, wherein the microservice is generated based on the first metamodel ; receiving an API specification, wherein the API specification is generated based on a second metamodel and compatible with the predetermined protocol; creating a new configuration of the software component on the deployed microservice, the new configuration having a software component endpoint compatible with the descriptions provided by either the first metamodel or the second metamodel; receiving a resource identifier that identifies the new configuration of the software component; using the resource identifier to send subsequent requests to the API specification; invoking functions of the software component using the parameter of the software component; and responsive to the functions of the software component being invoked, receiving responses from the deployed microservice. Pending claim 1 reads: A computer-implemented method for invoking a software component through a predetermined protocol, the method comprising: receiving a software component comprising at least one of a configuration, an operation, a trigger, and a parameter; providing a first metamodel of the software component, the first metamodel describing the configuration, the operation, the trigger and the parameter of the software component as named parameters; receiving a deployed microservice, wherein the microservice is generated based on the first metamodel; creating a new configuration of the software component on the deployed microservice, the new configuration having a software component endpoint compatible with the descriptions provided by either the first metamodel or the second metamodel; invoking functions of the software component using the parameter of the software component; and responsive to the functions of the software component being invoked, receiving responses from the deployed microservice. The limitations of “receiving an API specification, wherein the API specification is generated based on a second metamodel and compatible with the predetermined protocol;” and “receiving a resource identifier that identifies the new configuration of the software component; using the resource identifier to send subsequent requests to the API specification;” have been moved to dependent claims 2 and 3 respectively . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The closest references Severin PN 2005/0005261 cited in the parent application teaches Abstract “ The present invention provides meta-implementation layer comprising: a metamodel repository containing a plurality of descriptors; a plurality of implementations for providing access to software components described by the plurality of descriptors; a metametamodel repository including a plurality of metamodel descriptors for describing the descriptors and a plurality of metamodel implementations for describing said implementations, wherein the meta-implementation layer provides access to an implementation of the plurality of implementations to thereby allow a user to have access to the software components of a software program . The present invention also provides a component integration engine using a meta-implementation layer .” [0084] “ Metadata is used to convey the description of data that is acceptable, filter values if they are not acceptable, get or set the current values on a specific object or data structure, and invoke execution of an operation ”. [0051] “ Feature descriptors for attributes are referred to as "attribute descriptors". Feature descriptors for operation parameters are referred to as " parameter descriptors ". Feature descriptors for constraints are referred to as "constraint descriptors". Feature descriptors for constructors are referred to as "constructor descriptors". Feature descriptors for destructor are referred to as "destructor descriptors" ” [0149] “ A configuration is used to construct a new instance of that implementation and "configure" it ”. [0567] “ A customizer or customizer manager is a component that knows how to configure , or setup, some other component for use. The customizer can build a metadata object containing all the constructor descriptors, method descriptors, attribute descriptors, and signal descriptors. A customizer can also access one attribute at a time or create a configuration object holding all attribute values . Configuration files can be stored and used to later reset all values ”. [0192] “ The attribute accessors use the table column, the operation accessors use the stored procedure, the signal accessors use the database triggers or message queues, the constructor accessors use a stored procedure or insert statement, and the destructor accessors use a stored procedure or delete statement ”. References were also found teaching microservices but no reference was found teaching “receiving a deployed microservice, wherein the microservice is generated based on the first metamodel;” Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL R MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-3639. The examiner can normally be reached telework M-F start 7-8 leave 4-5. 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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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. /Paul R. MYERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176 Application/Control Number: 18/923,339 Page 2 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 18/923,339 Page 3 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 18/923,339 Page 4 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 18/923,339 Page 5 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 18/923,339 Page 6 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 18/923,339 Page 7 Art Unit: 2176 Application/Control Number: 18/923,339 Page 8 Art Unit: 2176
Prosecution Insights