DETAILED ACTION
This application has been examined. Claims 1-21 are pending.
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 .
Making Final
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection.
The claim amendments regarding -- ‘an API monitor component embedded in the application’ -- clearly change the literal scope of the independent and dependent claims and/or the range of equivalents for such claims. The said amendments alter the scope of the claims but do not overcome the disclosure by the prior art as shown below.
The Examiner is presenting new grounds for rejection as necessitated by the claim amendments and is thus making this action FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection.
DeMonner disclosed (re. Claim 1) ‘an API monitor component embedded in the application’ (DeMonner-Paragraph 21, agent 330 may be embodied as a process isolated from the user application or as light-weight threads within the user application process… the agent may execute as one or more threads within the process of the user application so as to avoid inter-process communication (IPC) overhead at the expense of isolation from negative user application execution. )
DeMonner disclosed (re. Claim 1) wherein the API call data for each API call includes a response received by the application from a correspondinq one of the one or more API providers.(DeMonner-Paragraph 26, return values 434, 474 of the methods,Paragraph 31, capture for the method is referred to as a frame, i.e., a frame corresponds to code (e.g., a method) and its values. Other calls inside the frame are invoked and their called methods and arguments are captured. Notably, the return values and the return locations of called methods are also captured and displayed for the frame.)
Priority
This application claims benefits of priority from Provisional Application 63/600120 filed November 17, 2023.
The effective date of the claims described in this application is November 17, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Applicant is respectfully reminded that each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application has a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56.
There were no information disclosure statements filed with this application.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4,8-11,15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by DeMonner (USPGPUB 2023/0091719)
Regarding Claim 1
DeMonner Figure 4, Figure 5C,Paragraph 9 disclosed a user interface (UI) configured to display a recording of code execution in an intuitive manner that allows a user to navigate (walk-through according to temporal order or jump according to cross-reference, i.e., skip around) a visual rendering of the recorded code execution. The recording includes trace and application data embodied as one or more frames corresponding to invocations of code (i.e., one or more methods) and associated values (e.g., parameters, exceptions, return values and the like) as captured during code execution.
DeMonner disclosed (re. Claim 1) a method, comprising: executing one or more application programming interface (API) calls from an application;(DeMonner-Paragraph 9, Paragraph 31,trace and application data embodied as one or more frames corresponding to invocations of code (i.e., one or more methods) and associated values (e.g., parameters, exceptions, return values and the like) as captured during code execution.)
storing, by a component of the application, associated API call data for each of the one or more API calls in a data structure maintained by the application;(DeMonner-Paragraph 19, send the recordings via the dynamic computer network 150 to the APS infrastructure 350 for comprehensive analysis and storage.)
generating, by the component of the application, an interface presenting the API call data; and presenting the interface to a user.(DeMonner-Figure 5C,Paragraph 32, UI displays the captured recording of code execution in the form of a call graph that illustrates (i.e., visually depicts) the frames as corresponding code of the invoked methods and values of the frames)
DeMonner disclosed (re. Claim 1) ‘an API monitor component embedded in the application’ (DeMonner-Paragraph 21, agent 330 may be embodied as a process isolated from the user application or as light-weight threads within the user application process… the agent may execute as one or more threads within the process of the user application so as to avoid inter-process communication (IPC) overhead at the expense of isolation from negative user application execution. )
DeMonner disclosed (re. Claim 1) wherein the API call data for each API call includes a response received by the application from a correspondinq one of the one or more API providers.(DeMonner-Paragraph 26, return values 434, 474 of the methods,Paragraph 31, capture for the method is referred to as a frame, i.e., a frame corresponds to code (e.g., a method) and its values. Other calls inside the frame are invoked and their called methods and arguments are captured. Notably, the return values and the return locations of called methods are also captured and displayed for the frame.)
Regarding Claim 8
Claim 8 (re. system) recites substantially similar limitations as Claim 1. Claim 8 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15
Claim 15 (re. non-transitory computer readable medium) recites substantially similar limitations as Claim 1. Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2,9,16
DeMonner disclosed (re. Claim 2,9,16) wherein the interface presenting the API call data is presented in association with a user interface of the application. (DeMonner-Figure 5C,Paragraph 32, UI displays the captured recording of code execution in the form of a call graph that illustrates (i.e., visually depicts) the frames as corresponding code of the invoked methods and values of the frames)
Regarding Claim 3,10,17
DeMonner disclosed (re. Claim 3,10,17) wherein the API call data for an API call is associated with a portion of the user interface associated with that API call.(DeMonner-Figure 5C, Paragraph 33,Paragraph 34, UI displays relevant invoked code for the frame and simultaneously displays, in context, all parameters and call stacks of code execution as recorded)
Regarding Claim 4,11,18
DeMonner disclosed (re. Claim 4,11,18) wherein the association is a visual association identifying the portion of the user interface. (DeMonner-Figure 5C, Paragraph 33,Paragraph 34, UI displays relevant invoked code for the frame and simultaneously displays, in context, all parameters and call stacks of code execution as recorded)
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) 5,12,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMonner (USPGPUB 2023/0091719) further in view of Stratton (USPGPUB 2015/0128103)
Regarding Claim 5,12,19
DeMonner disclosed (re. Claim 5,12) wherein the one or more API calls comprise a frontend API call.(DeMonner-Paragraph 26, a captured recording may include one or more of (i) high-level programming text processed by the runtime system, which may be derived (generated) from source code stored in repositories, and (ii) symbols as labels representing one or more of the methods, variables, data and state of the executable code.)
While DeMonner substantially disclosed the claimed invention DeMonner does not disclose (re. Claim 5,12,19) wherein the one or more API calls comprise a backend API call.
Stratton Paragraph 58 disclosed wherein real-time feedback on progress and information about the API interaction sequence can be presented while the test is executing.
Stratton disclosed (re. Claim 5,12,19) wherein the one or more API calls comprise a backend API call.(Stratton-Paragraph 74, map values between the proxy API interactions (sent from the first entity to the API service platform) and the template requests to be sent to the target API. )
DeMonner and Stratton are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding API call analysis. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Stratton into DeMonner. The motivation for the said combination would have been to enable using the normalized API exposed by the API service platform and enable an account to selectively switch between different outside API services.(Stratton-Paragraph 75)
Claim(s) 6,13,20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMonner (USPGPUB 2023/0091719) further in view of Levert (US Patent 12166837)
Regarding Claim 6,13,20
While DeMonner substantially disclosed the claimed invention DeMonner does not disclose (re. Claim 6,13,20) wherein a delay is imposed between the one or more API calls based on a user interaction with the interface presenting the API call data.
Levert Column 5 Lines 20-30 disclosed wherein resource limiting parameter 120 may include an API call timing limitation 116 that limits how many API calls application 106 may make to API 152 within a predefined time period, add/or a computational burden limitation 118. When API proxy 110 detects that API calls from application 106 exceed resource limiting parameter 120 (e.g., too many or too large requests), API proxy 110 may avoid forwarding the API call to API 152 and send a simulated response to application 106, instructing application 106 to delay transmitting any more API calls to API 152 for some time period. API proxy 110 may use a timer 140 to determine whether application 106 is transmitting API calls too rapidly.
Levert disclosed (re. Claim 6,13,20) wherein a delay is imposed between the one or more API calls based on a user interaction with the interface presenting the API call data.( Levert Column 5 Lines 20-30 , instructing application 106 to delay transmitting any more API calls to API 152 for some time period. API proxy 110 may use a timer 140 to determine whether application 106 is transmitting API calls too rapidly.)
DeMonner and Levert are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding API call analysis. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Levert into DeMonner. The motivation for the said combination would have been to enable insulating the APIs from stress testing large numbers of calls or large amounts of requested data. This reduces the level of computing resources needed (Levert-Column 2 Lines 65)
Claim(s) 7,14,21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMonner (USPGPUB 2023/0091719) further in view of Gracia (USPGPUB 20250004926)
Regarding Claim 7,14,21
While DeMonner substantially disclosed the claimed invention DeMonner does not disclose (re. Claim 7,14,21) wherein the presented API call data for an API call is associated with documentation for an API in the interface presenting the API call data.
Gracia Paragraph 34 disclosed wherein the client stations 112 may send a request to the back-end platform 102 for certain API validation status data and/or a certain front-end software module, and the client stations 112 may then receive API validation status data (and perhaps related instructions) from the back-end platform 102 in response to such a request.
Gracia disclosed (re. Claim 7,14,21) wherein the presented API call data for an API call (Gracia-Figure 5,Paragraph 34, receive API validation status data (and perhaps related instructions) from the back-end platform 102 in response to a request ) is associated with documentation for an API in the interface presenting the API call data.(Gracia-Paragraph 58, the OAS may include documentation that describes the endpoints of the API in a format that is both human-readable and software-readable. For example, the OAS may include a number of json objects, each of which may describe a respective endpoint of the API.)
DeMonner and Gracia are analogous art because they present concepts and practices regarding API call analysis. Before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to combine Gracia into DeMonner. The motivation for the said combination would have been to enable (i) ingesting API guidelines of the service provider of the API, (ii) monitoring the development of endpoints of the API, and (iii) alerting developers working on the API when they veer away from the API guidelines of the service provider of the API.(Gracia-Paragraph 51)
Conclusion
Examiner’s Note: In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREG C BENGZON whose telephone number is (571)272-3944. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
/GREG C BENGZON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights