DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: It recites “the displayed representation of first component” in lines 13 and viewed as a typo left out word and should be ““the displayed representation of the first component”. 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the graphical user interface" in 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-20 depend from claim 1 above and do not overcome the issue and thus rejected under the same reasoning.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson et al. (Patent No. US 7,913,185 B1), in view of Homma et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0044170 A1), in view of Utschig-Utschig et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0119651 A1), in view of Peck et al. (Pub. No. US 2006/0225034 A1) and further in view of Lo et al. (Pub. No. US 2009/0164521 A1).
As to claim 1, Benson discloses a method to provide granular control in a software applications, the method comprising: during configuration of a software application by a first entity using a model driven development application that provides a graphical development environment interactive with the first entity, wherein the software application includes a plurality of objects with each object having at least one component, and wherein the first software application includes a first component and a second component (Benson Col. 1 line 65- Col. 2 line 4 and Col. 4 lines 9-14 and 20-36 and Fig. 3; which shows as part of configuring/development for a web application/software application it includes a graphical development environment for developing applications, where there are a plurality of object/hotspots that can be selected/interacted with, and associated components/menus/tabs/behaviors/functions of those objects viewed as includes a first and second in a plurality, that can be associated with menus, sub-menus and list associated with the objects/components):
displaying within the graphical development environment, a representation of the graphical user interface of the first software application, including representation of the first and second components (Benson Col. 1 line 65- Col. 2 line 4 and Col. 4 lines 20-36; which shows the displaying in the graphical development environment where the objects/elements can be displayed on the screen/user interface associated with the application being developed),
displaying, by the model driven development application, only within the graphical development environment, a first graphical selection element in a first position proximate the displayed representation of first component, wherein the first position is indicative of an association between the first graphical selection element and the displayed representation of the first component (Benson Col. 4 lines 20-36 and Fig. 3; which shows as part of the graphical development environment being able to display an object icon at the center of the select hotspot/object/element and since is it displayed at the center it is also viewed as at a first position proximate to the displayer representation of the component and has a relationship between the selection element and the element/component being selected thus viewed as indicated of an association between them);
wherein each of the first and second components is a component of either the first of the second object (Benson Col. 4 lines 20-36; which is able to show that for the objects they are associated with the components/tabs/menus for function/behavior of the objects, thus viewed as components for the objects and since they are viewed as for the specific object it is viewed that each of these components are a component of the objects either a first or second object)
Benson does not specifically setting, by the model driven development application, a lock status of the first component to a locked state based at least in part on an input via the first graphical selection element.
However, Homma discloses setting, by the model driven development application, a lock status of the first component to a locked state based at least in part on an input via the first graphical selection element (Homma [0071] lines 17-21 and [0117] lines 1-7; which shows a component to set the locked state of a GUI component, where it is set by information, viewed as the input information for determining if the component/element will be locked).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Homma showing locking components information into the application component information of Benson for the purpose of helping to increase usability by being able for the user to visually recognize the locking state of components as taught by Homma [0117] lines 1-7.
Benson as modified by Homma does not specifically disclose wherein the first software application includes a first component and a second component in a hierarchical relationship in which the second component is hierarchically below the first component; setting, by the model drive development application, a lock status of at least the second component to the locked state based on the hierarchical relationship between the first and the second components.
However, Utsching discloses wherein the first software application includes a first component and a second component in a hierarchical relationship in which the second component is hierarchically below the first component (Utsching [0011] lines 10-17, [0048] lines 1-12 and [0064] lines 3-11; which shows elements of the application can be organized hierarchically thus a plurality of elements including a first and second elements that because of the hierarchy are below/dependent on higher above elements based on the hierarchically set up of the elements where the elements and associated with a GUI)
setting, by the model drive development application, a lock status of at least the second component to the locked state based on the hierarchical relationship between the first and the second components (Utsching [0011] lines 10-17, [0048] lines 1-12, [0064] lines 3-11 and [0073] lines 1-6; which shows elements of the application can be organized hierarchically and the ability for a second dependent element can have its information set/determined by information in it higher level elements including if the element can be customized or not customized, viewed as a form of locking to prevent editing/customization, where elements are associated with a GUI, and where the technology to implement the components include options including but not limited application, which in light of above teaching of Homma can be viewed as including the specifics of the locking status).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Utsching, showing the hierarchical order of elements that can be customized, into the application elements status of Benson as modified by Homma, for the purpose of helping to ensure the consistency of element information in a hierarchical set up, as taught by Utsching [0011].
Benson as modified by Homma and Utsching do not specifically disclose setting, by the model drive development application, a relationship lock status of a first relationship between a first object and a second object, wherein each of the first and second components is a component of either the first of the second object.
However, Peck discloses setting, by the model drive development application, a relationship lock status of a first relationship between a first object and a second object, wherein each of the first and second components is a component of either the first of the second object (Peck [0148] lines 3-11, [0161] lines 1-8 and [0166] lines 1-23; which shows being able to generate the application in a graphical program development environment where those application can have some or all of it being locked thus viewed as including locks on objects of the application, where locking is able to prevent any modification to the component/objects that are locked thus would prevent changes to relationship between elements/components as well it is viewed as a change in the relationship between one component/object and another is still a change/modification with to an individual component that can be preventing by lock to any change/modification to a component).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Peck showing the locking of relationships between objects, into the locking status of object information of Benson as modified by Homma and Utsching for the purpose of increasing the customization with locking by being able to have a number of different types of locks available that can be applied so as to prevent the desired elements/components form being modified, as taught by Peck [0167] lines 1-14.
Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching and Peck does not specifically disclose publishing, by the model driven development application, the first software application with the respective lock status of the first component and at least the second component, and the relationship lock status, persistently set to the locked state to prevent modification within the graphical development environment of the first and the second components and of the first relationship between the first object and the second object of the first software application by a second entity, different from the first entity.
However, Lo disclose publishing, by the model driven development application, the first software application with the respective lock status of the first component and at least the second component, and the relationship lock status, persistently set to the locked state to prevent modification within the graphical development environment of the first and the second components and of the first relationship between the first object and the second object of the first software application by a second entity, different from the first entity (Lo [0010] lines 17-21, [0022] lines 1-21 and [0036] lines 1-8; which shows the ability to publishing/authoring application information to other users, that is seen disclosed above as including such information as the unlocked/locked status of elements/components, when an element is lock it prevents other user from modifying the locked objects thus viewed as persistently set by the entity when not removed, where it is seen specifically disclosed above in Peck the locking of any/all parts of the application in a graphical development environment thus also locking relationships status between objects and thus also a relationship between a first and a second object, where it is also disclosed above the specifics of the setting of a lock status of elements thus viewed as including the first and second elements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Lo, showing the preserving locking status preventing other users from modifying application objects, into the development of the application of Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching and Peck, for the purpose of helping to ensure the consistency of data information, as taught by Lo [0008] and [0010].
As to claim 2, Benson does not specifically disclose however Homma disclose setting the lock status of the first component of the first software application to the locked state (Homma [0071] lines 17-21 and [0117] lines 1-7; which shows a component to set the locked state of a GUI component, where it is set by information, viewed as the input information for determining if the component/element will be locked).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Homma showing locking components information into the application component information of Benson for the purpose of helping to ensure the consistency of information as taught by Cao [0004] lines 1-10 and [0007] lines 1-3
Benson as modified by Homma does not specifically disclose setting the lock status of at least the second component of the software application to the locked state further includes setting a lock status of at least a third component of the software application to a locked state based on a hierarchical relationship between at least the first and the third components of the software application, wherein the first, the second and the third components of the software application are each associated with the graphical user interface of the software application, and the third component of the first software application is hierarchically below the second component of the first software application.
However, Utsching disclose setting the lock status of at least the second component of the software application to the locked state further includes setting a lock status of at least a third component of the software application to a locked state based on a hierarchical relationship between at least the first and the third components of the software application, wherein the first, the second and the third components of the software application are each associated with the graphical user interface of the software application (Utsching [0011] lines 10-17, [0048] lines 1-12, [0064] lines 3-11 and [0073] lines 1-6; which shows elements of the application can be organized hierarchically and the ability for a second and third dependent element, contained in a higher level eminent, can have its information set/determined by information in it higher level elements including if the element can be customized or not customized, viewed as a form of locking to prevent editing, where elements are associated with a GUI, and where the technology to implement the components include options including but not limited application, which in light of above teaching of Homma can be viewed as including the specifics of the locking status), and
the third component of the first software application is hierarchically below the second component of the first software application (Utsching [0011] lines 10-17 and [0064] lines 3-11; which shows that of a plurality of elements can have a third/another elements that are below/dependent on higher above elements, viewed as the second element, based on the hierarchically set up of the elements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Utsching, showing the hierarchical order of elements that can be customized, into the application elements status of Benson as modified by Homma for the purpose of helping to ensure the consistency of element information in a hierarchical set up, as taught by Utsching [0011].
Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching and Peck does not specifically disclose publishing the first software application with the respective lock status of the first component and the second component persistently set to the locked state includes publishing the first software application with the respective lock status of the first, the second and the third components persistently set to the locked state to prevent modification of the first, the second, and the third components of the first software application by the second entity.
However, Lo discloses publishing the first software application with the respective lock status of the first component and the second component persistently set to the locked state includes publishing the first software application with the respective lock status of the first, the second and the third components persistently set to the locked state to prevent modification of the first, the second, and the third components of the first software application by the second entity (Lo [0010] lines 17-21, [0022] lines 1-21 and [0036] lines 1-8; which shows the ability to publishing/authoring application information to other users, that is seen disclosed above as including such information as the unlocked/locked status of elements/components, where when in an element is lock it prevents other user from modifying the locked objects thus viewed as persistently set by the entity when not removed, where it is also disclosed above the specifics of the setting of a lock status of elements thus viewed as including the first, second and third elements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Lo, showing the preserving locking status preventing other users from modifying application objects, into the development of the application of Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching and Peck, for the purpose of helping to ensure the consistency of data information, as taught by Lo [0008] and [0010].
As to claim 3, Benson as modified by Homma does not specifically disclose, however, Utsching discloses setting the lock status of the first component of the first software application to the locked state, and setting the lock status of at least the second component of the software application to the locked state further includes: setting a lock status of a third component of the software application to a locked state based on a hierarchical relationship between at least the first and the third components of the software application(Utsching [0011] lines 10-17 and [0064] lines 3-11; which shows elements of the application can be organized hierarchically and the ability for a second and third dependent element contained within can have its information set/determined by information in it higher level elements, which in light of above teaching can be viewed as including the specifics of the locking status);
setting a lock status of at least a fourth component of the software application to a locked state based on a hierarchical relationship between at least the first and the fourth components of the software application (Utsching [0011] lines 10-17 and [0064] lines 3-11; which shows elements of the application can be organized hierarchically and the ability for a second, third and fourth dependent element contained within can have its information set/determined by information in it higher level elements including its ability to be customized or not customized, a form of locking, which in light of above teaching can be viewed as including the specifics of the locking status),
wherein the first, the second, the third, and the fourth components of the software application are each associated with the graphical user interface of the software application (Utsching [0011] lines 10-17, [0048] lines 1-12, [0064] lines 3-11 and [0073] lines 1-6; which shows for a plurality of components/elements of the application, thus viewed as including a first, second, third and fourth, where information associated with the application components/emends can be associated with a GUI),
the third component of the first software application is hierarchically below the second component of the first software application, and the fourth component of the first software application is hierarchically below the third component of the first software application (Utsching [0011] lines 10-17 and [0064] lines 3-11; which shows that of a plurality of elements can have a third/another elements that are below/dependent on higher above elements , viewed as the second element based on the hierarchically set up of the elements and that these hierarchical element containers can continue so on thus viewed as the a fourth element that is below/dependent on higher above elements, viewed as the third element, based on the hierarchically set up of the elements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Utsching, showing the hierarchical order of elements that can be customized, into the application elements status of Benson as modified by Homma for the purpose of helping to ensure the consistency of element information in a hierarchical set up, as taught by Utsching [0011].
Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching and Peck does not specifically disclose publishing the first software application with the respective lock status of the first component and the second component persistently set to the locked state includes publishing the first software application with the respective lock status of the first, the second, the third, and the fourth components persistently set to the locked state to prevent modification of the first, the second, the third, and the fourth components of the first software application by the second entity.
However, Lo discloses publishing the first software application with the respective lock status of the first component and the second component persistently set to the locked state includes publishing the first software application with the respective lock status of the first, the second, the third, and the fourth components persistently set to the locked state to prevent modification of the first, the second, the third, and the fourth components of the first software application by the second entity (Lo [0010] lines 17-21, [0022] lines 1-21 and [0036] lines 1-8; which shows the ability to publishing/authoring application information to other users, that is seen disclosed above as including such information as the unlocked/locked status of elements/components, where when in an element is lock it prevents other user from modifying the locked objects thus viewed as persistently set by the entity when not removed, where it is also disclosed above the specifics of the setting of a lock status of elements thus viewed as including the including the first, second, third and fourth elements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Lo, showing the preserving locking status preventing other users from modifying application objects, into the development of the application of Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching and Peck, for the purpose of helping to ensure the consistency of data information, as taught by Lo [0008] and [0010].
As to claim 4, Benson as modified by Homma does not specifically disclose, however, Utsching discloses setting the lock status of the first component of the first software application to the locked state includes setting a lock status of a tab of the user interface of the software application, setting the lock status of the second component of the software application to the locked state includes setting a lock status of a menu to the locked state where the menu is hierarchically below the tab (Utsching [0011] lines 10-17, [0048] lines 1-12 and [0064] lines 3-11; which shows elements of the application can be organized hierarchically and the ability for a second element contained within a first element can have its information set/determined by information in it higher level elements including its ability to be customized or not customized, a form of locking state, where the elements are not limited and thus viewed as including tab first element with the second element hierarchically below being a menu, which in light of above teaching can be viewed as including the specifics of the locking status being set).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Utsching, showing the hierarchical order of elements that can be customized, into the application elements status of Benson as modified by Homma, for the purpose of helping to ensure the consistency of element information in a hierarchical set up, as taught by Utsching [0011].
As to claim 5, Benson as modified by Homma does not specifically disclose, however, Utsching discloses setting the lock status of the third component of the first software application to the locked state includes setting a lock status of a field of the user interface of the software application, where the field is hierarchically below the menu (Utsching [0011] lines 10-17, [0048] lines 1-12 and [0064] lines 3-11; which shows elements of the application can be organized hierarchically and the ability for a third element contained within a second element within a first element can have its information set/determined by information in it higher level elements including its ability to be customized or not customized, a form of locking state, where the elements are not limited and thus viewed as including field third element hierarchically below second element being a menu, which in light of above teaching can be viewed as including the specifics of the locking status being set).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Utsching, showing the hierarchical order of elements that can be customized, into the application elements status of Benson as modified by Homma, for the purpose of helping to ensure the consistency of element information in a hierarchical set up, as taught by Utsching [0011].
As to claim 6, Benson as modified by Homma does not specifically disclose, however, Utsching discloses setting the lock status of the fourth component of the first software application to the locked state includes setting a lock status of a relationship of the user interface of the software application, where the relationship is hierarchically below the field (Utsching [0011] lines 10-17, [0048] lines 1-12 and [0064] lines 3-11; which shows elements of the application can be organized hierarchically and the ability for a fourth element contained within a third element contained within a second element within a first element can have its information set/determined by information in it higher level elements including its ability to be customized or not customized, a form of locking state, where the elements are not limited and thus viewed as including a relationship fourth element hierarchically below the third element being a field, which in light of above teaching can be viewed as including the specifics of the locking status being set).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Utsching, showing the hierarchical order of elements that can be customized, into the application elements status of Benson as modified by Homma, for the purpose of helping to ensure the consistency of element information in a hierarchical set up, as taught by Utsching [0011].
As to claim 7, Benson as modified by Homma does not specifically disclose, however, Utsching discloses setting the lock status of the first component of the first software application to the locked state includes setting a lock status of a menu of the user interface of the software application, setting the lock status of the second component of the software application to the locked state includes setting a lock status of a sub-menu to the locked state where the sub-menu is hierarchically below the menu (Utsching [0011] lines 10-17, [0048] lines 1-12 and [0064] lines 3-11; which shows elements of the application can be organized hierarchically and the ability for a second element contained within a first element can have its information set/determined by information in it higher level elements including its ability to be customized or not customized, a form of locking state, where the elements are not limited and thus viewed as including menu first element with the second element hierarchically below being a sub-menu, which in light of above teaching can be viewed as including the specifics of the locking status being set).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Utsching, showing the hierarchical order of elements that can be customized, into the application elements status of Benson as modified by Homma, for the purpose of helping to ensure the consistency of element information in a hierarchical set up, as taught by Utsching [0011].
As to claim 8, Benson as modified by Homma does not specifically disclose, however, Utsching discloses setting the lock status of the third component of the first software application to the locked state includes setting a lock status of a field of the user interface of the software application, where the field is hierarchically below the sub-menu (Utsching [0011] lines 10-17, [0048] lines 1-12 and [0064] lines 3-11; which shows elements of the application can be organized hierarchically and the ability for a third element contained within a second element within a first element can have its information set/determined by information in it higher level elements including its ability to be customized or not customized, a form of locking state, where the elements are not limited and thus viewed as including field third element hierarchically below second element being a sub- menu, which in light of above teaching can be viewed as including the specifics of the locking status being set).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Utsching, showing the hierarchical order of elements that can be customized, into the application elements status Benson as modified by Homma, for the purpose of helping to ensure the consistency of element information in a hierarchical set up, as taught by Utsching [0011].
As to claim 9, Benson as modified by Homma does not specifically disclose, however, Utsching discloses setting the lock status of the fourth component of the first software application to the locked state includes setting a lock status of a relationship of the user interface of the software application, where the relationship is hierarchically below the field (Utsching [0011] lines 10-17, [0048] lines 1-12 and [0064] lines 3-11; which shows elements of the application can be organized hierarchically and the ability for a fourth element contained within a third element contained within a second element within a first element can have its information set/determined by information in it higher level elements including its ability to be customized or not customized, a form of locking state, where the elements are not limited and thus viewed as including a relationship fourth element hierarchically below the third element being a field, which in light of above teaching can be viewed as including the specifics of the locking status being set).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Utsching, showing the hierarchical order of elements that can be customized, into the application elements status of Benson as modified by Homma, for the purpose of helping to ensure the consistency of element information in a hierarchical set up, as taught by Utsching [0011].
As to claim 10, Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching and Peck does not specifically disclose, however, Lo discloses wherein the first entity is a first tenant of the first software application and the second entity is a second tenant of the first software application, and wherein (Lo [0021] lines 5-14; which shows the plurality of users/tenants associated with locking of data objects of application thus viewed as including a first and second tenant where specific users can lock objects);
publishing the first software application with the lock status of the first component and at least the second component persistently set to the locked state prevents modification of the first and the second components of the first software application by the second tenant of the software application (Lo [0010] lines 17-21, [0022] lines 1-6 and [0036] lines 1-8; which shows the ability to publishing/authoring application information, that is seen disclosed above as including such information as the unlocked/locked status of elements/components, where when an element is locked it prevents other user from modifying the locked objects thus viewed as persistently set by the entity, where it is also disclosed above the specifics of the setting of a lock status of elements thus viewed as including the first, second, third and fourth elements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Lo, showing the preserving locking status preventing other users from modifying application objects, into the development of the application of Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching and Peck, for the purpose of helping to ensure the consistency of data information, as taught by Lo [0008] and [0010].
As to claim 11, Benson as modified by Homma does not specifically disclose, however, Utsching discloses wherein setting the lock status of the first component of the first software application to the locked state prevents the second tenant from modifying the first and the second components of the first software application (Utsching [0011] lines 10-17 and [0064] lines 3-11; which shows elements of the application can be organized hierarchically and the ability for a second dependent element can have its information set/determined by information in it higher level elements viewed as the first element, which in light of above teaching can be viewed as including the specifics of the locking status of elements which when locked prevent others for modifying the locked objects).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Utsching, showing the hierarchical order of elements that can be customized, into the application elements status of Benson as modified by Homma, for the purpose of helping to ensure the consistency of element information in a hierarchical set up, as taught by Utsching [0011].
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson, Homma, Utsching, Peck and Lo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schleimer et al. (Pub. No. US 2008/0275845 A1).
As to claim 12, Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching and Peck does not specifically disclose, however, Lo discloses wherein the first entity is a first tenant of the first software application and the second entity is a second tenant of the first software application, and further comprising (Lo [0021] lines 5-14; which shows the plurality of users/tenants associated with locking of data objects of application thus viewed as including a first and second tenant where specific users can lock objects).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Lo, showing the preserving locking status preventing other users from modifying application objects, into the development of the application of Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching and Peck, for the purpose of helping to ensure the consistency of data information, as taught by Lo [0008] and [0010].
Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching, Peck and Lo does not specifically disclose defining a first external object that provides access to at least one of a first external database or a first external data service.
However, Schleimer discloses defining a first external object that provides access to at least one of a first external database or a first external data service (Schleimer [0032] lines 11-13; which shows an external object that is able to provide access to an external database).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Schlemimer showing providing access to an external database into the application development system of Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching, Peck and Lo for the purpose of helping to increase ease of communication between different structures thus increasing ease of usability, as taught by Schleimer [0032].
As to claim 13, Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching and Peck does not specifically disclose, however, Lo discloses wherein defining the first external object that provides access to at least one of the first external database or the first external data service provides access to updates of the first external database or the first external data service (Lo [0010] lines 7-22 and [0021] lines 26-27; which shows a backbone layer viewed as a database that when accessed information contained within can be modified, where it is specifically disclosed above an external object is able to provide the access to the external database).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Lo, showing the preserving locking status preventing other users from modifying application objects, into the development of the application of Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching, and Peck for the purpose of helping to ensure the consistency of data information, as taught by Lo [0008] and [0010].
As to claim 14, Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching and Peck does not specifically disclose, however, Lo discloses wherein defining the first external object that provides access to at least one of the first external database or the first external data service provides immediate access to any updates of the first external database or the first external data service (Lo [0010] lines 7-22 and [0021] lines 26-27; which shows a backbone layer viewed as a database that when accessed information contained within can be modified and thus with the access to the database would have access to an updates/modification as well, where it is specifically disclosed above an external object is able to provide the access to the external database).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Lo, showing the preserving locking status preventing other users from modifying application objects, into the development of the application of Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching and Peck for the purpose of helping to ensure the consistency of data information, as taught by Lo [0008] and [0010].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson, Homma, Utsching, Peck, Lo and Schleimer as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Simeonov (Pub. No. US 2006/0143224 A1).
As to claim 15 Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching, Peck, Lo and Schleimer does not specifically disclose wherein defining the first external object that provides access to at least one of the first external database or the first external data service causes an object module to map elements of the first external database or the first external data service to fields of the first external object.
However, Simeonov discloses wherein defining the first external object that provides access to at least one of the first external database or the first external data service causes an object module to map elements of the first external database or the first external data service to fields of the first external object (Simeonov [0024] lines 12-16; which shows that with access to the database being map object field information to database elements, where it is disclosed specifically above of being able to access external database through the external object).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to incorporate the teachings of Simeonov showing mapping database information, into the application development of Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching, Peck, Lo and Schleimer for the purpose of providing more detailed information for mapping and thus have a more accurate picture of system being provided, as taught by Simeonov [0024].
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson, Homma, Utsching, Peck, Lo and Schleimer as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Minsky et al. (Pub. No. US 2005/0038764 A1).
As to claim 16, Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching, Peck, Lo and Schleimer does not specifically disclose wherein defining the first external object that provides access to at least one of the first external database or the first external data service provides access to at least one of a legacy database or a legacy data service of the first tenant.
However, Minsky discloses wherein defining the first external object that provides access to at least one of the first external database or the first external data service provides access to at least one of a legacy database or a legacy data service of the first tenant (Minsky [0105] lines 10-12; which shows that an external database that can be used can be a legacy database, where it is disclosed specifically above that an external object can provide access to an external database).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Minsky showing the external legacy database, into the application development system of Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching, Peck, Lo and Schleimer, for the purpose of more options for uses of external sources of data for modeling and thus providing more detailed modeling options, as taught by Minsky [0105].
As to claim 17, Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching, Peck, and Lo does not specifically disclose, however Schleimer discloses defining a second external object that provides access to at least one of a second external database or a second external data service (Schleimer [0032] lines 11-13; which shows an external object that is able to provide access to an external database which is not specifically limited to one form thus viewed as a second external object provided access to a second external database).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Schlemimer showing providing access to an external database into the application development system of Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching, Peck and Lo, for the purpose of helping to increase ease of communication between different structures thus increasing ease of usability, as taught by Schleimer [0032].
Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching, Peck, Lo and Schleimer does not specifically disclose that the external database provides access to at least one of a legacy database or a legacy data service of the second tenant.
However, Minsky discloses disclose that the external database provides access to at least one of a legacy database or a legacy data service of the second tenant (Minsky [0105] lines 10-12; which shows that an external database that can be used can be a legacy database, where it is disclosed specifically above that an external object can provide access to an external database where it is seen disclosed above in the teachings of Schleimer the specifics of a second external database).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Minsky showing the external legacy database, into the application development system of Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching, Peck, Lo and Schleimer, for the purpose of more options for uses of external sources of data for modeling and thus providing more detailed modeling options, as taught by Minsky [0105].
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson, Homma, Utsching, Peck and Lo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanner et al. (Patent No. US 7,606,888 B2).
As to claim 18 Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching, Peck and Lo does not specifically disclose providing, via the graphical development environment, a plurality additional graphical selection elements, each additional graphical selection element associated with a respective lockable component within the hierarchical relationship of the software application.
However, Tanner discloses providing, via the graphical development environment, a plurality additional graphical selection elements, each additional graphical selection element associated with a respective lockable component within the hierarchical relationship of the software application (Tanner Col. 6 lines 55-60; which shows the ability to have graphical/visual elements associated with components that can be selected thus showing a plurality of other/additional graphical selection elements where it is disclosed specifically above the specifics of lockable components/elements that can be in a hierarchical relationship).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Tanner, showing selectable user interface elements, into the application development system of Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching, Peck and Lo, for the purpose of increase ease of use and efficiency of managing information, as taught by Tanner Col. 1 lines 61-66 and Col. 6 lines 55-60.
As to claim 20, Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching, Peck and Lo does not specifically disclose, however, Tanner discloses allowing the first entity to explicitly set the locking status of the associated subcomponent within the hierarchical relationship of the software application using the graphical selection element associated with the subcomponent of the software application (Tanner Col. 6 lines 55-60; which shows the ability to have graphical/visual elements associated with components that can be selected to reflect object conditions, which as disclosed above can be the locking status of the element/component that can be composed of other elements/component (i.e. subcomponents) within the hierarchy).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Tanner, showing selectable user interface elements, into the application development system of Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching, Peck and Lo, for the purpose of increase ease of use and efficiency of managing information, as taught by Tanner Col. 1 lines 61-66 and Col. 6 lines 55-60.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson, Homma, Utsching, Peck, Lo, and Tanner as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Le Lann et al. (Pub. No. US 2006/0200583 A1).
As to claim 19 Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching, Peck, Lo and Tanner does not specifically disclose wherein providing the plurality of graphical selection elements comprises providing the first entity with remote access to the first software application hosted on an application server by a third entity, and further comprising: providing the second entity with remote access to the first software application by the third entity.
However, Le Lann discloses wherein providing the plurality of graphical selection elements comprises providing the first entity with remote access to the first software application hosted on an application server by a third entity, and further comprising (Le Lann [0037] lines 1-12 and claim 8; which shows the ability to provide a first entity remote access to services on a server, where it is disclosed above the specifics of the provided developer selectable GUI elements and the specifics of an application):
providing the second entity with remote access to the first software application by the third entity (Le Lann [0037] lines 1-12 and claim 8; which shows providing a plurality of entities, viewed as includes a second entity, remote access to services host on a server, where it is disclosed specifically above the service specifics of an application).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Le Lann, showing the providing remote access, into the application development system of Benson as modified by Homma, Utsching, Peck, Lo and Tanner, for the purpose of providing further ease of access to information, and thus increasing usability by providing more ways to interact with the information, as taught be Le Lann [0037].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD F WHEATON whose telephone number is (571)270-1779. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/BRADFORD F WHEATON/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
