DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
2. The Amendment filed on March 2nd 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 19 and 20 have been amended. Claims 1 - 20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Double Patenting
3. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pp. 8, filed March 2nd 2026, with
respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under the Double Patenting rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that an electronic terminal disclaimer was filed concurrently
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that an electronic terminal disclaimer has not been accepted as approved in the prosecution history, therefore the Double Patenting rejection is maintained.
35 U.S.C. §101
4. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pp. 8, filed March 2nd 2026, with
respect to the rejections of claim 20 under the 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendment to claim 20 overcomes the statutory rejection
Examiner respectfully agrees and withdraws the statutory rejection
35 U.S.C. §103
5. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks pp. 8 - 11, filed March 2nd 2026, with
respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection have been fully considered and they are not persuasive.
The crux of Applicant’s argument is that the amendment is not taught by the statutory rejections
Applicant argues that the Gownder reference does not provide a two-tiered architecture where a template cum a restriction is provided for subsequent exposure via an API endpoint.
Examiner respectfully agrees
Upon further consideration new grounds of rejection have been necessitated due
to Applicant's amendments and are made in view of Tuatini et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20160020917) hereinafter Tuatini
Double Patenting
6. 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 §§ 706.02(l)(l) -
706.02(l)(3) 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 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.Eov/patenfs/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-Ljsp.
Claims 1 and 6 - 20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 12, 14 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11829369. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent. The subject matter claimed in the instant application recited in claims 1 and 6 – 20 is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent in claims 1 – 12, 14 and 18 since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter.
Claims 1, 6 - 18 recite a system, claim 19 recites a method and claim 20 recites a computer readable storage medium in the instant application whilst claims 1 – 12 and 14 recite a system whilst claim 18 recites a method and claims 15 and 16 recite non-transitory computer readable storage medium in of United States Patent Number 11829369. However, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 6 - 18 of the instant application are obviously encompassed by the boundaries of claims 1 – 12, 14 and 18 of United States Patent Number 11829369.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the referenced patent and is covered by the patent granted since the referenced patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter as follows:
Instant Application: 19/500,200
United States Patent Number: 11829369
1. A system comprising: at least one memory device configured to store an extract template for accessing data in a database, each extract template comprising a query to be run on the database, a set of input parameters and a set of output columns; and at least one processor configured to access the at least one memory device and to execute a data extract service program code, wherein the data extract service program code includes instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: storing, in the at least one memory device, first configuration information as an extract job template associated with the extract template, wherein the first configuration information includes a selected subset of a set of input parameters of the extract template; publishing an application program interface (API) endpoint for accessing the stored extract job template and exposing only the selected subset of the input parameters for configuration via the API endpoint ; receiving, via the published API endpoint, client-specified values for one or more input parameters in the selected subset of the input parameters; injecting, into the query, at least some of the received client-specified values to corresponding input parameters in the selected subset of the input parameters; running said query with the injected client-specified values; and outputting results of said running of said query, the results including one or more output columns from the set of output columns in the extract template.
1. A system comprising: at least one memory device configured to store an extract template for accessing data in a database, each extract template comprising a query to be run on the database, a set of input parameters and a set of output columns; and at least one processor configured to access the at least one memory device and to execute a data extract service program code, wherein the data extract service program code includes instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: in response to a first request message from a first client device, accessing the extract template in the at least one memory device and transmitting a first response message including information for displaying a first user interface enabling selection of a subset of the set of input parameters of the extract template; receiving first configuration information including a selected subset of the set of input parameters from the first client device; storing, in the at least one memory device, said first configuration information as an extract job template associated with the extract template; publishing an application program interface (API) endpoint for a second client device to access the saved extract job template; in response to a second request message from the second client device received via the published API endpoint: accessing the selected subset of the input parameters in the stored extract job template and transmitting a second response message including information for displaying a second user interface enabling the second client device to obtain client-specified values to the selected subset of the input parameters; receiving, from the second client device, client-specified values for one or more input parameters in the selected subset of the input parameters; injecting, into the query, at least some of the received client-specified values to corresponding input parameters in the selected subset of the input parameters; and running said query with the injected client-specified values; and outputting results of said running of said query, the results including one or more output columns from the set of output columns in the extract template.
6. The system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine the extract job template based on first configuration information received from a first user device, wherein the first configuration information includes parameter requirement information associating a mandatory configuration setting and a dynamic configuration setting with at least one input parameter from the subset of input parameters, wherein the mandatory configuration setting associated with the at least one input parameter indicates whether it is mandatory to have a value for the at least one input parameter and the dynamic configuration setting associated with the at least one input parameter indicates whether the at least one input parameter is restricted to a corresponding value set in the extract job template, and wherein the operations further comprise, in response to a request message received via the API endpoint, verifying said client-specified values against the parameter requirement information corresponding to each input parameter of the subset of input parameters.
2. The system according to claim 1, wherein the first configuration information includes parameter requirement information associating a mandatory configuration setting and a dynamic configuration setting with at least one input parameter from the subset of input parameters, wherein the mandatory configuration setting associated with the at least one input parameter indicates whether it is mandatory to have a value for the at least one input parameter and the dynamic configuration setting associated with the at least one input parameter indicates whether the at least one input parameter is restricted to a corresponding value set in the extract job template, and wherein the operations further comprise, in response to the second request message, verifying said client-specified values against the parameter requirement information corresponding to each input parameter of the subset of input parameters.
7. The system according to claim 6, in response to the receiving said client-specified values, performing said running said query only when, for each input parameter in the subset of input parameters for which the corresponding mandatory configuration setting indicates that parameter as a mandatory parameter, a valid value is provided, and, for each input parameter in the subset of input parameters for which the corresponding dynamic configuration setting indicates that parameter as a non-dynamic parameter, using a value set for that parameter in the stored extract job template.
3. The system according to claim 2, in response to the receiving said client-specified values, performing said running said query only when, for each input parameter in the subset of input parameters for which the corresponding mandatory configuration setting indicates that parameter as a mandatory parameter, a valid value is provided, and, for each input parameter in the subset of input parameters for which the corresponding dynamic configuration setting indicates that parameter as a non-dynamic parameter, using a value set for that parameter in the stored extract job template.
8. The system according to claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise, in response to a request message received via the published API endpoint: accessing the stored extract job template based on a first identifier for the API endpoint, wherein the first identifier is included in the request message; validating at least one of said client-specified values for one or more input parameters in the selected subset of input parameters based on the stored extract job template; accessing the extract template based on a second identifier for the extract template, wherein the second identifier is included in the stored extract job template; and, before said running the query, using said validated client-specified values for the injecting.
4. The system according to claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise, in response to the second request message: accessing the stored extract job template based on a first identifier for the API endpoint, wherein the first identifier is included in the second request message; validating at least one of said client-specified values for one or more input parameters in the selected subset of input parameters based on the stored extract job template; accessing the extract template based on a second identifier for the extract template, wherein the second identifier is included in the stored extract job template; and, before said running the query, using said validated client-specified values for the injecting.
9 The system according to claim 8, wherein the running said query is performed with a system-specified value for at least one input parameter in the selected subset of input parameters.
5. The system according to claim 4, wherein the running said query is performed with a system-specified value for at least one input parameter in the selected subset of input parameters.
10. The system according to claim 8, wherein the validating comprises, for each input parameter in the selected subset of input parameters for which a corresponding mandatory configuration setting in the stored extract job template indicates that parameter as a mandatory parameter, a valid value is provided, and, for each input parameter in the subset of input parameters for which a corresponding dynamic configuration setting in the extract job template indicates that parameter as a non- dynamic parameter, using a value set for that parameter in the stored extract job template.
6. The system according to claim 4, wherein the validating comprises, for each input parameter in the selected subset of input parameters for which a corresponding mandatory configuration setting in the stored extract job template indicates that parameter as a mandatory parameter, a valid value is provided, and, for each input parameter in the subset of input parameters for which a corresponding dynamic configuration setting in the extract job template indicates that parameter as a non-dynamic parameter, using a value set for that parameter in the stored extract job template.
11. The system according to claim 8, wherein the using said validated client-specified values for the injecting comprises accessing the query in the extract template and injecting said validated client-specified values as input parameters of the query.
7. The system according to claim 4, wherein the using said validated client-specified values for the injecting comprises accessing the query in the extract template and injecting said validated client-specified values as input parameters of the query.
12. 8 The system according to claim 1, wherein the set of input parameters and the set of output columns have one or more parameters in common.
8. The system according to claim 1, wherein the set of input parameters and the set of output columns have one or more parameters in common.
13. The system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one memory device includes stored permission information comprising a first level of permission, a second level of permission that is lower than the first level of permission, and a third level of permission that is lower than the second level of permission, wherein at least the first level of permission is required for a client device to modify the one or more extract templates, and at least the second level of permissions is required for the client device to display the first user interface.
9. The system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one memory device includes stored permission information comprising a first level of permission, a second level of permission that is lower than the first level of permission, and a third level of permission that is lower than the second level of permission, wherein at least the first level of permission is required for a client device to modify the one or more extract templates, and at least the second level of permissions is required for the client device to display the first user interface.
14. 10 The system according to claim 13, wherein the operations further comprise, in response to receiving a first request message from a first client device, checking user permission information stored in the at least one memory device to determine whether the first client device and/or a user of the first client device is assigned permissions sufficient to save the first configuration information.
10. The system according to claim 9, wherein the operations further comprise, in response to receiving the first request message, checking user permission information stored in the at least one memory device to determine whether the first client device and/or a user of the first client device is assigned permissions sufficient to save the first configuration information.
15. The system according to claim 1, wherein the stored extract job template includes an identifier of the extract template.
11. The system according to claim 1, wherein the stored extract job template includes an identifier of the extract template.
16. The system according to claim 1, wherein the outputting results comprises, in response to one or more polling request messages from a client device, transmitting the results to a client device.
12. The system according to claim 1, wherein the outputting results comprises, in response to one or more polling request messages from a client device, transmitting the results to the second client device.
17. The system according to claim 1, wherein a first user interface for proving the first configuration information includes user-selectable inputs for said saving, said publishing, and unpublishing published API endpoints.
14. The system according to claim 1, wherein the first user interface includes user-selectable inputs for said saving, said publishing, and unpublishing published API endpoints.
18. The system according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the input parameters in the set of input parameters is absent in the selected subset.
18. The system according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the input parameters in the set of input parameters is absent in the selected subset.
19. A method comprising: storing, by at least one processor in at least one memory device, first configuration information as an extract job template associated with an extract template, wherein the extract template is one of a plurality of extract templates for accessing data in a database, wherein the extract template comprises a query to be run on the database, a set of input parameters and a set of output columns, and wherein the first configuration information includes a selected subset of the set of input parameters of the extract template; publishing, by the at least one processor, an application program interface (API) endpoint for accessing the stored extract job template and exposing only the selected subset of the input parameters for configuration via the API endpoint; receiving, by the at least one processor and via the published API endpoint, client- specified values for one or more input parameters in the selected subset of the input parameters; injecting, by the at least one processor and into the query, at least some of the received client-specified values to corresponding input parameters in the selected subset of the input parameters; running, by the at least one processor, said query with the injected client-specified values; and outputting results of said running of said query, the results including one or more output columns from the set of output columns in the extract template.
1. A system comprising: at least one memory device configured to store an extract template for accessing data in a database, each extract template comprising a query to be run on the database, a set of input parameters and a set of output columns; and at least one processor configured to access the at least one memory device and to execute a data extract service program code, wherein the data extract service program code includes instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: storing, in the at least one memory device, first configuration information as an extract job template associated with the extract template, wherein the first configuration information includes a selected subset of a set of input parameters of the extract template; publishing an application program interface (API) endpoint for accessing the stored extract job template; receiving, via the published API endpoint, client-specified values for one or more input parameters in the selected subset of the input parameters; injecting, into the query, at least some of the received client-specified values to corresponding input parameters in the selected subset of the input parameters; running said query with the injected client-specified values; and outputting results of said running of said query, the results including one or more output columns from the set of output columns in the extract template.
20. A computer readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor connected to at least one memory device, causes the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: Storing, in the at least one memory device, first configuration information as an extract job template associated with an extract template, wherein the extract template is one of a plurality of extract templates for accessing data in a database, wherein the extract template comprises a query to be run on the database, a set of input parameters and a set of output columns, and wherein the first configuration information includes a selected subset of the set of input parameters of the extract template; Publishing an application program interface (API) endpoint for accessing the stored extract job template and exposing only the selected subset of the input parameters for configuration via the API endpoint ; Receiving, via the published API endpoint, client-specified values for one or more input parameters in the selected subset of the input parameters; injecting, into the query, at least some of the received client-specified values to corresponding input parameters in the selected subset of the input parameters; running said query with the injected client-specified values; and outputting results of said running of said query, the results including one or more output columns from the set of output columns in the extract template.
1. A system comprising: at least one memory device configured to store an extract template for accessing data in a database, each extract template comprising a query to be run on the database, a set of input parameters and a set of output columns; and at least one processor configured to access the at least one memory device and to execute a data extract service program code, wherein the data extract service program code includes instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: storing, in the at least one memory device, first configuration information as an extract job template associated with the extract template, wherein the first configuration information includes a selected subset of a set of input parameters of the extract template; publishing an application program interface (API) endpoint for accessing the stored extract job template; receiving, via the published API endpoint, client-specified values for one or more input parameters in the selected subset of the input parameters; injecting, into the query, at least some of the received client-specified values to corresponding input parameters in the selected subset of the input parameters; running said query with the injected client-specified values; and outputting results of said running of said query, the results including one or more output columns from the set of output columns in the extract template.
Claim 1 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 United States Patent Number 11829369. Although the claim at issue is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of claim 1 the reference patent are encompassed in claim 1 of the instant application.
Claims 19 and 20 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected accordingly
Claim 6 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 United States Patent Number 11829369. Although the claim at issue is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of claim 2 the reference patent are encompassed in claim 6 of the instant application.
Claim 7 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 United States Patent Number 11829369. Although the claim at issue is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of claim 3 the reference patent are encompassed in claim 7 of the instant application.
Claim 8 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 United States Patent Number 11829369. Although the claim at issue is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of claim 4 the reference patent are encompassed in claim 8 of the instant application.
Claim 9 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 United States Patent Number 11829369. Although the claim at issue is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of claim 5 the reference patent are encompassed in claim 9 of the instant application.
Claim 10 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 United States Patent Number 11829369. Although the claim at issue is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of claim 6 the reference patent are encompassed in claim 10 of the instant application.
Claim 11 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 United States Patent Number 11829369. Although the claim at issue is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of claim 7 the reference patent are encompassed in claim 11 of the instant application.
Claim 12 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 United States Patent Number 11829369. Although the claim at issue is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of claim 8 the reference patent are encompassed in claim 12 of the instant application.
Claim 13 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 United States Patent Number 11829369. Although the claim at issue is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of claim 9 the reference patent are encompassed in claim 13 of the instant application.
Claim 14 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 United States Patent Number 11829369. Although the claim at issue is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of claim 10 the reference patent are encompassed in claim 14 of the instant application.
Claim 15 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 United States Patent Number 11829369. Although the claim at issue is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of claim 11 the reference patent are encompassed in claim 15 of the instant application.
Claim 16 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 United States Patent Number 11829369. Although the claim at issue is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of claim 12 the reference patent are encompassed in claim 16 of the instant application.
Claim 17 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 United States Patent Number 11829369. Although the claim at issue is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of claim 14 the reference patent are encompassed in claim 17 of the instant application.
Claim 18 of the instant application is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 United States Patent Number 11829369. Although the claim at issue is not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of claim 18 the reference patent are encompassed in claim 18 of the instant application.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103
7. 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.
8. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ
459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art
b. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
c. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
d. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or nonobviousness
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15 – 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srilekha Krishnan Gownder (United States Patent Publication Number 20060015483) hereinafter Gownder, referencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Select_(SQL)#:~:text=An%20asterisk%20(%22%20*%20%22),s)%20to%20retrieve%20data%20from.(Year:2004) hereinafter “Select * From” in view of Slaughter et al. (United States Patent Number 6789077 ), hereinafter referred to as Slaughter and in further view of Tuatini et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20160020917) hereinafter Tuatini
Regarding claim 1 Gownder teaches a system comprising: at least one memory device (Fig. 1, memory [0018]) configured to (configures [0017]) store (storing [0019]) an extract template (query template [0022]) such as "extract template" for accessing data in a database, (access the database 160 [0021]) each extract template(query template [0022]) such as "extract template" comprising a query (query clauses [0023]) to be run(implemented [0023]) on the database, (database 160 [0021]) a set of input parameters (Parameter data 415 comprises pairs of data type character 425 and program variable 430. [0023]) and a set of output columns; (Figs. 4 & 7, result of SELECT* statement [0023] [0027]) and at least one processor (processor [0018]) configured to access the at least one memory device (Fig. 1, memory [0018]) and to execute (run-time [0022]) such as "execute" a data extract service program code, (Fig. 6, source code [0027]) wherein the data extract service program code (Fig. 6, source code [0027]) includes instructions (Fig. 6, Knowledge Markup Language source code (KML) [0027]) which, when executed(run-time [0022]) such as "execute" by the at least one processor, (processor [0018]) cause the at least one processor(processor [0018]) to perform operations (Fig. 6, actions [0027]) see Page 5 of 9 comprising: storing, (storing [0019]) in the at least one memory device, (in the memory [0019]) first configuration information (configurations of client program 120 and the database [0019]) as an extract job template (modified query template 320 (330) [0025]) such as "extract job template" associated with the extract template, (query template [0022]) such as "extract template" wherein the first configuration information (configurations of client program 120 and the database [0019]) includes a selected subset (a user may enter one or
more [0022]) of a set of input parameters (Parameter data 415 comprises pairs of data type
character 425 and program variable 430. [0023]) see also dynamic parameters [0022] of the extract template; (query template [0022]) such as "extract template" client-specified values (string value of "BUTTON" [0027]) (string value of "BUTTON" [0027]) for one or more input parameters(a first dynamic parameter and second dynamic parameter [0027]) in the selected subset (a user may enter one or more [0022]) of the input parameters; (Parameter data 415 comprises pairs of data type character 425 and program variable 430. [0023]) see also dynamic parameters [0022] injecting, (appends [0026]) such as “injecting” into the query, (the query [0026]) at least some of the received client-specified values (string value of "BUTTON" [0027]) (string value of "BUTTON" [0027]) to corresponding input parameters (Parameter data 415 comprises pairs of data type character 425 and program variable 430. [0023]) see also dynamic parameters [0022]in the selected subset (a user may enter one or more [0022]) of the input parameters; (Parameter data 415 comprises pairs of data type character 425 and program variable 430. [0023]) see also dynamic parameters [0022] running said query (Fig. 3, (330), generate query string from modified query template [0025]) with the injected (appends [0026]) such as “injecting” client-specified values; (string value of "BUTTON" [0027]) (string value of"BUTTON" [0027])
Gownder does not fully disclose publishing an application program interface (API) endpoint for accessing the stored extract job template and exposing only the selected subset of the input parameters for configuration via the API endpoint; receiving, via the published API endpoint, and outputting results of said running of said query, the results including one or more output columns from the set of output columns in the extract template.
Slaughter teaches publishing (publishing of information Col. 44 In 39)an application program interface (API) endpoint (secure message endpoints (gates) addressed by URIs Col. 60 In 61 - 63) for accessing the stored extract job template; (message template in a data representation language message schema Col 73 ln 60 - 61) such as “extract job template” receiving, (receiving Col 13 ln 46) via the published API endpoint, (secure message endpoints (gates) addressed by URIs Col. 60 In 61 – 63) and outputting results (return results to a client Col 75 In 3) of said running of said query, (query Col 24 ln 14 – 15) see example XML query Col 13 ln 25 - 30 the results (return results to a client Col 75 In 3)including one or more output columns (one field at a time Col. 79 In 47) from the set of output columns (fields within objects Col. 79 In 47) in the extract template (message template Col 74 ln 1) such as “extract template”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gownder to incorporate the teachings of Slaughter whereby publishing an application program interface (API) endpoint for accessing the stored extract job template; receiving, via the published API endpoint, and outputting results of said running of said query, the results including one or more output columns from the set of output columns in the extract template. By doing so the message gate may also provide for authentication and/or other security mechanisms to ensure that the message endpoint is secure. Slaughter Col 17 ln 10 - 15
Tuatini teaches and exposing only the selected subset of the input parameters (personalized messages [0065]) such as “subset of input parameters” for configuration via the API endpoint; (The personalized messages are then sent to a gateway (e.g., the generic gateway 114, as shown) to be processed for transmission to the campaign targets [0065])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gownder in view of Slaughter to incorporate the teachings of Tuatini whereby and exposing only the selected subset of the input parameters for configuration via the API endpoint. By doing so a technique to configure generic gateways so as to provide services specific to a particular respective channel partner. Tuatini [0079]
Claims 19 and 20 correspond to claim 1 and are rejected accordingly
Regarding claim 2 Gownder in view of Slaughter and Tuatini teaches the system according to claim 1,
Gownder does not fully disclose wherein the published API endpoint is one of a plurality of API endpoints, wherein each API endpoint is configured for controlling access to a respective extract job template of a plurality of extract job templates.
Slaughter teaches wherein the published (published Col 54 ln 66) API endpoint (message endpoint Col 62 ln 18) is one of a plurality of API endpoints, (associated endpoints Col 62 ln 39) wherein each API endpoint (any one of the associated endpoints Col 62 ln 39) is configured for controlling access (verifying permission Col 27 ln 38) to a respective extract job template (message template Col 74 n 1) of a plurality of extract job templates (object templates Col 3 ln 35)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gownder in view of Tuatini to incorporate the teachings of Slaughter wherein the published API endpoint is one of a plurality of API endpoints, wherein each API endpoint is configured for controlling access to a respective extract job template of a plurality of extract job templates. By doing so Gate creation checks may ensure that a client has permission to use some or all of the service capabilities designated by the XML message schema. Slaughter Col 67 ln 35 - 37
Regarding claim 5 Gownder in view of Slaughter and Tuatini teaches the system according to claim 1,
Gownder as modified further teaches a user interface (Fig. 3, (305) display GUI [0022]) to obtain the client-specified values (string value of "BUTTON" [0027]) (string value of"BUTTON" [0027]) to the selected subset (a user may enter one or more [0022]) of input parameters (Parameter data 415 comprises pairs of data type character 425 and program variable 430. [0023])
Gownder does not fully disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to transmit to a user device, in response to a request received from the user device via the API endpoint, a response message including information for displaying on the user device
Slaughter teaches wherein the at least one processor (CPUs Col 107 ln 19) is further configured to transmit (transmit Col 53 ln 46 – 47)to a user device, (client device 1700 Col 107 ln 10) in response to a request (request-response message Col 62 ln 41) received from the user device(client device 1700 Col 107 ln 10) via the API endpoint, (message endpoint Col 62 ln 17 – 18) a response message(request-response message Col 62 ln 41) including information for displaying (display of the results Col 87 ln 17 – 18)on the user device (client device 1700 Col 107 ln 10)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gownder in view of Tuatini to incorporate the teachings of Slaughter wherein the at least one processor is further configured to transmit to a user device, in response to a request received from the user device via the API endpoint, a response message including information for displaying on the user device. By doing so after or during completing operations requested by client 1300, service 1310 may send the results of the operations to display service 1304 in the manner specified by the schema for display service 1304 ( e.g. encapsulated in XML messages specified in the XML message schema or by reference as parameters for the display service). Slaughter Col 88 ln 8 - 13
Regarding claim 6 Gownder in view of Slaughter and Tuatini teaches the system according to claim 1,
Gownder as modified further teaches wherein the at least one processor (processor [0018]) is further configured to: determine (determine [0026]) the extract job template(modified query template 320 (330) [0025]) such as "extract job template" based on first configuration information (configurations of client program 120 and the database [0019]) received (receive [0027]) from a first user device, (Fig. 1, a computer [0010]) such as “first user device” wherein the first configuration information (configurations of client program 120 and the database [0019]) includes parameter requirement information (parameter data [0023]) such as “parameter requirement information” associating a mandatory configuration setting (Parameter data 415 comprises pairs of data type character 425 and program variable 430. Each such pair is ordered within parameter data 415 so that each pair appears in the same relative order as its associated parameter marker appears within WHERE-clause 410. [0023]) such as “mandatory configuration setting” and a dynamic configuration setting (dynamic parameters based on runtime conditions [0022]) such as “dynamic configuration settings” with at least one input parameter (Fig. 3, (310) user enters run-time parameters through GUI [0022]) from the subset (a user may enter one or more [0022]) of input parameters, (Parameter data 415 comprises pairs of data type character 425 and program variable 430. [0023]) see also dynamic parameters [0022] wherein the mandatory configuration setting(Parameter data 415 comprises pairs of data type character 425 and program variable 430. Each such pair is ordered within parameter data 415 so that each pair appears in the same relative order as its associated parameter marker appears within WHERE-clause 410. [0023]) such as “mandatory configuration setting” associated with the at least one input parameter (Fig. 3, (310) user enters run-time parameters through GUI [0022]) indicates whether it is mandatory to have a value (so that each pair appears in the same relative order as its associated parameter marker appears within WHERE-clause 410. [0023]) such as “mandatory” [0023]) for the at least one input parameter (Fig. 3, (310) user enters run-time parameters through GUI [0022]) and the dynamic configuration setting (dynamic parameters based on runtime conditions [0022]) such as “dynamic configuration settings” associated with the at least one input parameter (Fig. 3, (310) user enters run-time parameters through GUI [0022]) indicates whether the at least one input parameter (Fig. 3, (310) user enters run-time parameters through GUI [0022]) is restricted (by virtue of it being at runtime conditions [0022]) such as “restricted” to a corresponding value set in (one or more dynamic parameters as client program 120 operates (310). [0022]) the extract job template, (modified query template 320 (330) [0025]) such as "extract job template" verifying said client-specified values (string value of "BUTTON" [0027]) (string value of "BUTTON" [0027]) against the parameter requirement information (parameter data [0023]) such as “parameter requirement information” corresponding to each input parameter (Parameter data 415 comprises pairs of data type character 425 and program variable 430. [0023]) see also dynamic parameters [0022] of the subset (a user may enter one or more [0022]) of input parameters. (Fig. 3, (310) user enters run-time parameters through GUI [0022])
Gownder does not fully disclose and wherein the operations further comprise, in response to a request message received via the API endpoint,
Slaughter teaches and wherein the operations (operations ln Col 15 ln 58) further comprise, in response to a request message (request-response message Col 19 ln 32 - 35) received via the API endpoint, (Fig. 10b message endpoint Col 8 ln 43- 45, Col 15 ln 45 – 48)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gownder in view of Tuatini to incorporate the teachings of Slaughter wherein the operations further comprise, in response to a request message received via the API endpoint. By doing so a gate 130 is a message endpoint that may send and/or receive type-safe XML messages, and that may verify the type correctness of XML messages when sending and/or receiving the messages. Slaughter Col 17 ln 8 - 11
Regarding claim 8 Gownder in view of Slaughter and Tuatini teaches the system according to claim 1,
Gownder as modified further teaches validating (FIG. 7 also assumes that a first dynamic parameter having a string value of "FORM" represents the user-selected form, and a second dynamic parameter having
a string value of "BUTTON" represents the user-activated button. FIG. 7 further assumes that client program 120 has assigned the first dynamic parameter to the program variable named "rightReq.form_name" and the second dynamic parameter to the "rightReq.button_name" program variable. [0027]) such as “validating” at least one of said client-specified values(string value of "BUTTON" [0027]) (string value of"BUTTON" [0027]) for one or more input parameters (Parameter data 415 comprises pairs of data type character 425 and program variable 430. [0023])in the selected subset (a user may enter one or more [0022]) of input parameters (Parameter data 415 comprises pairs of data type character 425 and program variable 430. [0023]) based on the stored extract job template; (modified query template 320 (330) [0025]) such as "extract job template" and, before said running the query, (Query generator 150, then, would receive as the "Selstr"argument a string having the value 'SELECT * FROM RIGHTS_REQUIRED WHERE FORM_NAME=? AND BUTTON NAME=?+S FORM+s BUTTON;'. [0027]) using said validated (FIG. 7 also assumes that a first dynamic parameter having a string value of "FORM" represents the user-selected form, and a second dynamic parameter having a string value of "BUTTON" represents the user-activated button. FIG. 7 further assumes that client program 120 has assigned the first dynamic parameter to the program variable named "rightReq.form_name" and the second dynamic parameter to the "rightReq.button_name" program variable. [0027]) such as “validating” client-specified values (string value of "BUTTON" [0027]) (string value of"BUTTON" [0027]) for the injecting (Fig. 5 append [0026])
Gownder does not fully disclose wherein the operations further comprise, in response to a request message received via the published API endpoint: accessing the stored extract job template based on a first identifier for the API endpoint, wherein the first identifier is included in the request message; accessing the extract template based on a second identifier for the extract template, wherein the second identifier is included in the stored extract job template;
Slaughter teaches wherein the operations (operations Col 18 In 32 - 33) further comprise, in response to a request message (request-response message pairs Col. 22 In 14- 15) received via the published API endpoint: (Fig. 10b message endpoint Col 8 ln 43- 45, Col 15 ln 45 – 48) accessing (accessing Col 38 ln 13, 25) the stored extract job template (message template in a data representation language message schema Col 73 ln 60 - 61) such as “extract job template” based on a first identifier (Universal Unique Identifier (UUID) Col 25 In 52) for the API endpoint, (Fig. 10b message endpoint Col 8 ln 43- 45, Col 15 ln 45 – 48) wherein the first identifier (Universal Unique Identifier (UUID) Col 25 In 52) is included in the request message; (request-response message pairs Col. 22 In 14- 15) accessing the extract template(message template Col 74 ln 1) such as “extract template” based on a second identifier (message may include a Universal Resource Identifier (URI) Col. 81 In 52 - 53) for the extract template, (message template Col 74 ln 1) such as “extract template” wherein the second identifier is included (message may include a Universal Resource Identifier (URI) Col. 81 In 52 – 53) in the stored extract job template; (message template in a data representation language message schema Col 73 ln 60 - 61) such as “extract job template”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gownder in view of Tuatini to incorporate the teachings of Slaughter wherein the operations further comprise, in response to a request message received via the published API endpoint: accessing the stored extract job template based on a first identifier for the API endpoint, wherein the first identifier is included in the request message; accessing the extract template based on a second identifier for the extract template, wherein the second identifier is included in the stored extract job template. By doing so the representation of the object may include a name or identifier for the object and one or more instance variables 55 for the object. Slaughter Col 94 ln 53 - 54
Regarding claim 9 Gownder in view of Slaughter and Tuatini teaches the system according to claim 8,
Gownder does not fully disclose wherein the running said query is performed with a system-specified value for at least one input parameter in the selected subset of input parameters.
Slaughter teaches Slaughter teaches wherein the running (executing Col. 25 In 56) such as "running" said query (search request Col. 10 In 34) such as "query" is performed with a system-specified value (default space Col. 54 ln28) such as "system-specified value" for at least one input parameter (input parameter Col. 74 ln37) in the selected subset of input parameters (the URI (e.g. URL) of the object, along with other access parameters, such as security credential and XML schema Col. 53 In 37 - 39)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gownder in view of Tuatini to incorporate the teachings of Slaughter wherein the running said query is performed with a system-specified value for at least one input parameter in the subset of input parameters. By doing so the instantiation of an object may include the creation or spawning of a result space. Slaughter Col. 53 In 51 -53)
Regarding claim 11 Gownder in view of Slaughter and Tuatini teaches the system according to claim 8,
Gownder as modified further teaches wherein the using said validated (FIG. 7 also assumes that a first dynamic parameter having a string value of "FORM" represents the user-selected form, and a second dynamic parameter having a string value of "BUTTON" represents the user-activated button. FIG. 7 further assumes that client program 120 has assigned the first dynamic parameter to the program variable named "rightReq.form_name" and the second dynamic parameter to the "rightReq.button_name" program variable. [0027]) such as “validating” client-specified values (string value of "BUTTON" [0027]) (string value of"BUTTON" [0027]) for the injecting (Fig. 5 append [0026]) comprises accessing (access [0021]) the query (query [0025]) in the extract template (the query template [0025]) such as “extract template” and injecting(Fig. 5 append [0026]) said validated (FIG. 7 also assumes that a first dynamic parameter having a string value of "FORM" represents the user-selected form, and a second dynamic parameter having a string value of "BUTTON" represents the user-activated button. FIG. 7 further assumes that client program 120 has assigned the first dynamic parameter to the program variable named "rightReq.form_name" and the second dynamic parameter to the "rightReq.button_name" program variable. [0027]) such as “validating” client-specified values (string value of "BUTTON" [0027]) (string value of"BUTTON" [0027]) as input parameters (Parameter data 415 comprises pairs of data type character 425 and program variable 430. [0023]) of the query (query [0025])
Regarding claim 12 Gownder in view of Slaughter and Tuatini teaches the system according to claim 1,
Gownder as modified further teaches wherein the set of input parameters (Parameter data 415 comprises pairs of data type character 425 and program variable 430. [0023])and the set of output columns (Figs. 4 & 7, result of SELECT* statement [0023] [0027])have one or more parameters in common (the phrase "WHERE FORM- NAME =? AND BUTTON- NAME=?" . Within WHERE-clause in FIG. 4, each parameter marker is represented with the "?" character. [0024])
Regarding claim 15 Gownder in view of Slaughter and Tuatini teaches the system according to claim 1,
Gownder does not fully disclose wherein the stored extract job template includes an identifier of the extract template.
Slaughter teaches wherein the stored extract job template (message template for the message in the schema Col 74 ln 1 - 2) includes an identifier ( an identifier ( e.g. method name) Col 30 ln 28 - 29) of the extract template. (template for the method call Col 32 ln 29)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gownder in view of Tuatini to incorporate the teachings of Slaughter wherein the stored extract job template includes an identifier of the extract template. By doing so a message gate also may authenticate ( e.g. securely identify) the sender of a received message. Slaughter Col 17 ln 30 - 35
Regarding claim 16 Gownder in view of Slaughter and Tuatini teaches the system according to claim 1,
Gownder does not fully disclose, wherein the outputting results comprises, in response to one or more polling request messages from a client device, transmitting the results to a client device.
Slaughter teaches wherein the outputting (outputs Col 95 ln 50 – 55) results (results generated by services Sol 99 ln 48) comprises, in response to one or more polling request messages (calls to the API layer Col 93 ln 5 - 8) from a client device, (client device Col 099 ln 35 – 40) transmitting (sending Col 110 ln 3) the results (results generated by services Sol 99 ln 48) to a client device. (client device Col 099 ln 35 – 40)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gownder in view of Tuatini to incorporate the teachings of Slaughter wherein the outputting results comprises, in response to one or more polling request messages from a client device, transmitting the results to a client device. By doing so XML data stream 1514 may then be passed to gate 1504 by the client. Gate 1504 may then package the XML data stream 1514 in an XML message 1516 and send message 1516 to service 1502. Slaughter Col 95 ln 33 – 36.
Regarding claim 17 Gownder in view of Slaughter and Tuatini teaches the system according to claim 1,
Gownder as modified teaches wherein a first user interface (GUI 130 [0022]) for proving (displays [0022]) the first configuration information(configurations of client program 120 and the database [0019])
Gownder does not fully disclose, includes user-selectable inputs for said saving, said publishing, and unpublishing published API endpoints.
Slaughter teaches includes user-selectable inputs for said saving, (control inputs for initiating functionality of the device Col 109 ln 27 - 29)said publishing, (publishing Col 45 ln 40) and unpublishing published API endpoints (disallow the access Col 99 ln 20 - 21)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gownder in view of Tuatini to incorporate the teachings of Slaughter includes user-selectable inputs for said saving, said publishing, and unpublishing published API endpoints. By doing so service's XML schema may indicate a set of one or more events that may be published
by the service. Slaughter Col 33 ln 55 – 67.
Claims 3, 4, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srilekha Krishnan Gownder (United States Patent Publication Number 20060015483) hereinafter Gownder, referencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Select_(SQL)#:~:text=An%20asterisk%20(%22%20*%20%22),s)%20to%20retrieve%20data%20from.(Year:2004) hereinafter “Select * From” in view of Slaughter et al. (United States Patent Number 6789077 ), hereinafter referred to as Slaughter, in view of Tuatini et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20160020917) hereinafter Tuatini and in further view of Fink et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20090300475) hereinafter Fink
Regarding claim 3 Gownder in view of Slaughter and Tuatini teaches the system according to claim 2,
Gownder teaches providing the client-specified values, (string value of "BUTTON" [0027]) (string value of"BUTTON" [0027]) wherein modifying the stored extract job template (modified query template 320 (330) [0025]) such as "extract job template
Gownder does not fully disclose wherein the each API endpoint is configured to control access to the respective extract job template in accordance with a published/unpublished status of the respective extract job template and a first user access privilege level of a first user requires at least a second user access privilege level higher than the first user access privilege level.
Slaughter teaches wherein the each API endpoint (any one of the associated endpoints Col 62 ln 39) is configured to control access (verifying permission Col 27 ln 38) to the respective extract job template (message template Col 74 n 1) in accordance with a published/unpublished status (published Col 54 ln 66) of the respective extract job template (message template Col 74 n 1)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gownder in view of Tuatini to incorporate the teachings of Slaughter wherein the each API endpoint is configured to control access to the respective extract job template in accordance with a published/unpublished status of the respective extract job template. By doing so Gate creation checks may ensure that a client has permission to use some or all of the service capabilities designated by the XML message schema. Slaughter Col 67 ln 35 - 37
Fink teaches and a first user access privilege level (a first, lowest permission tie [0025]) of a first user (ABS., a user is accorded the appropriate permission) (In another
embodiment in which layers are employed, only those annotations created by the user viewing the video, or by members of a group to which the user belongs, are provided. [0049]) requires at least a second user (ABS., a user is accorded the appropriate permission) (In another embodiment in which layers are employed, only those annotations created by the user viewing the video, or by members of a group to which the user belongs, are provided. [0049])access privilege level (a second, higher permission tier [0025] higher than the first user access privilege level. (a first, lowest permission tie [0025])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gownder in view of Slaughter and Tuatini to incorporate the teachings of Fink a first user access privilege level of a first user requires at least a second user access privilege level higher than the first user access privilege level. By doing so the owner may grant annotation permissions to particular users. Fink [0044]
Regarding claim 4 Gownder in view of Slaughter, Tuatini and Fink teach the system according to claim 3,
Gownder as modified further teaches to an extract template (query template [0022]) such as "extract template" associated with the respective extract job template (query template [0022]) such as "extract template"
Gownder does not fully disclose wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control write access to require a third user access privilege level higher than the second user access privilege level
Fink teaches wherein the at least one processor (processor [0054]) is further configured to control write access (users who can add or modify [0025]) to require a third user access privilege level (a third, highest permission tier [0025]) higher than the second user access privilege level. (a second, higher permission tier [0025])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gownder in view of Slaughter and Tuatini to incorporate the teachings of Fink wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control write access to require a third user access privilege level higher than the second user access privilege level. By doing so the owner may grant annotation permissions to particular users. Fink [0044]
Regarding claim 13 Gownder in view of Slaughter and Tuatini teaches the system according to claim 1,
Gownder does not fully disclose wherein the at least one memory device includes stored permission information comprising a first level of permission, a second level of permission that is lower than the first level of permission, and a third level of permission that is lower than the second level of permission, wherein at least the first level of permission is required for a client device to modify the one or more extract templates, and at least the second level of permissions is required for the client device to display the first user interface.
Fink teaches wherein the at least one memory device (access control list [0025]) such as “memory device” includes stored permission information (a three-tiered permission system [0025]) such as “stored permission information” comprising a first level of permission, (a third, highest permission tier [0025]) a second level of permission (a second, higher permission tier [0025]) that is lower than the first level of permission, (a third, highest permission tier [0025]) and a third level of permission (a first, lowest permission tie [0025]) that is lower than the second level of permission, (a second, higher permission tier [0025]) wherein at least the first level of permission (a third, highest permission tier [0025])is required for a client device(client device 130 [0014]) to modify the one or more extract templates, (for those users who can also modify and delete any annotations in the video [0025]) and at least the second level of permissions(a second, higher permission tier [0025]) is required for the client device (client device 130 [0014]) to display (view and interact with annotations [0025]) the first user interface (user interface [0022])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gownder in view of Slaughter and Tuatini to incorporate the teachings of Fink wherein the at least one memory device includes stored permission information comprising a first level of permission, a second level of permission that is lower than the first level of permission, and a third level of permission that is lower than the second level of permission, wherein at least the first level of permission is required for a client device to modify the one or more extract templates, and at least the second level of permissions is required for the client device to display the first user interface. By doing so the owner may grant annotation permissions to particular users. Fink [0044]
Regarding claim 14 Gownder in view of Slaughter, Tuatini and Fink teaches the system according to claim 13,
Gownder does not fully disclose wherein the operations further comprise, in response to receiving a first request message from a first client device, checking user permission information stored in the at least one memory device to determine whether the first client device and/or a user of the first client device is assigned permissions sufficient to save the first configuration information.
Slaughter teaches wherein the operations (operations Col 16 ln 8) further comprise, in response to receiving a first request message (receiving the messages Col 17 ln 11) from a first client device, (client Col 16 ln 8)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gownder in view of Slaughter and Tuatini wherein the operations further comprise, in response to receiving a first request message from a first client device. By doing so the message gate may also provide for authentication and/or other security mechanisms to ensure that the message endpoint is secure. In one embodiment, message gates are always secure. Slaughter Col 17 ln 11 - 14
Fink teaches checking (ABS., checking a uniform resource locator (URL) against an
existing list, checking a user identifier against an access list, and the like.) (verify access by clients [0025]) user permission information (a three-tiered permission system [0025]) such as “stored permission information” stored in the at least one memory device (access control list [0025]) to determine whether the first client device (client device 130 [0014]) and/or a user of the first client device (client device 130 [0014]) is assigned permissions sufficient (has required authentication [025]) to save the first configuration information (community moderation permissions [0025]) such as “save the first configuration information”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gownder in view of Slaughter and Tuatini to incorporate the teachings of Fink checking user permission information stored in the at least one memory device to determine whether the first client device and/or a user of the first client device is assigned permissions sufficient to save the first configuration information. By doing so the owner may grant annotation permissions to particular users. Fink [0044]
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srilekha Krishnan Gownder (United States Patent Publication Number 20060015483) hereinafter Gownder, referencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Select_(SQL)#:~:text=An%20asterisk%20(%22%20*%20%22),s)%20to%20retrieve%20data%20from.(Year:2004) hereinafter “Select * From” in view of Slaughter et al. (United States Patent Number 6789077 ), hereinafter referred to as Slaughter, in view of Tuatini et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20160020917) hereinafter Tuatini and in further view of Polizzi et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20020023158) hereinafter Polizzi
Regarding claim 7 Gownder in view of “Select * FROM” AND Slaughter teaches the system according to claim 6,
Gownder does not fully disclose in response to the receiving said client-specified values, performing said running said query only when, for each input parameter in the subset of input parameters for which the corresponding mandatory configuration setting indicates that parameter as a mandatory parameter, a valid value is provided, and, for each input parameter in the subset of input parameters for which the corresponding dynamic configuration setting indicates that parameter as a non-dynamic parameter, using a value set for that parameter in the stored extract job template.
Polizzi teaches in response to the receiving said client-specified values, (parameter values that were input by user [0098]) performing said running said query (query to be provided by the channel to the search server. [0066]) only when, (period of time [0090]) for each input parameter (input parameter [0055]) in the subset of input parameters (text-field parameters, static-choice parameters or dynamic-choice
parameters. [0056]) for which the corresponding mandatory configuration setting (input settings [0034]) such as "mandatory configuration settings" indicates that parameter as a mandatory parameter, (dynamic parameter [0055]) such as "mandatory parameter" a valid value is provided, (drop down list of values [0055]) and, for each input parameter (input parameter [0055]) in the subset of input parameters (text-field parameters, static-choice parameters or dynamic-choice parameters. [0056]) for which the corresponding dynamic configuration setting(input settings [0034]) such as "mandatory configuration settings" indicates that parameter as a non-dynamic parameter, (static parameter [0055]) such as "non-dynamic parameter" using a value set (default value [0055]) for that parameter (input parameter [0055]) in the stored extract job template. (web client form [0055]) such as "extract job template"
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gownder in view of Slaughter and Tuatini to incorporate the teachings of Polizzi wherein in response to receiving said client- specified values, performing said running said query only when, for each input parameter in the subset of input parameters for which the corresponding mandatory configuration setting indicates that parameter as a mandatory parameter, a valid value is provided, and, for each input parameter in the subset of input parameters for which the corresponding dynamic configuration setting indicates that parameter as a nondynamic parameter, using a value set in the extract job template. By doing so these jobs can perform a variety of tasks such as retrieving data from a back-end database,
preparing a report based upon retrieved data, processing data already resident within
the portal system, or notifying a user when a particular condition occurs within the
portal system. Polizzi [0005]
Regarding claim 10 Gownder in view of Slaughter and Tuatini teaches the system according to claim 8,
Gownder as modified further teaches wherein the validating (FIG. 7 also assumes that a first dynamic parameter having a string value of "FORM" represents the user-selected form, and a second dynamic parameter having a string value of "BUTTON" represents the user-activated button. FIG. 7 further assumes that client program 120 has assigned the first dynamic parameter to the program variable named "rightReq.form_name" and the second dynamic parameter to the "rightReq.button_name" program variable. [0027]) such as “validating” comprises, for each input parameter (Parameter data 415 comprises pairs of data type character 425 and program variable 430. [0023]) in the selected subset (a user may enter one or more [0022]) of input parameters(Parameter data 415 comprises pairs of data type character 425 and program variable 430. [0023]) for which a corresponding mandatory configuration setting (Parameter data 415 comprises pairs of data type character 425 and program variable 430. Each such pair is ordered within parameter data 415 so that each pair appears in the same relative order as its associated parameter marker appears within WHERE-clause 410. [0023]) such as “mandatory configuration setting” in the stored extract job template(modified query template 320 (330) [0025]) such as "extract job template" indicates that parameter as a mandatory parameter, a valid value is provided, (Fig. 4, Also within parameter data 415, the names "rightReq.form_name" and "rightReq.button_name" each represent a different program variable
430 [0024]) and, for each input parameter (Parameter data 415 comprises pairs of data type character 425 and program variable 430. [0023])in the subset (a user may enter one or more [0022])of input parameters (Parameter data 415 comprises pairs of data type character 425 and program variable 430. [0023])for which a corresponding dynamic configuration setting (dynamic parameters based on runtime conditions [0022]) such as “dynamic configuration settings” in the extract job template (modified query template 320 (330) [0025]) such as "extract job template”
Gownder does not fully disclose indicates that parameter as a non- dynamic parameter, using a value set for that parameter in the stored extract job template.
Polizzi teaches indicates that parameter as a non- dynamic parameter, (static parameter [0055]) such as "non-dynamic parameter" using a value set (default value [0055])for that parameter (static parameter [0055]) such as "non-dynamic parameter" in the stored extract job template. (web client form [0055]) such as "extract job template"
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gownder in view of Slaughter and Tuatini to incorporate the teachings of Polizzi wherein indicates that parameter as a non- dynamic parameter, using a value set for that parameter in the stored extract job template. By doing so these jobs can perform a variety of tasks such as retrieving data from a back-end database, preparing a report based upon retrieved data, processing data already resident within the portal system, or notifying a user when a particular condition occurs within the portal system. Polizzi [0005]
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srilekha Krishnan Gownder (United States Patent Publication Number 20060015483) hereinafter Gownder, referencing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Select_(SQL)#:~:text=An%20asterisk%20(%22%20*%20%22),s)%20to%20retrieve%20data%20from.(Year:2004) hereinafter “Select * From” in view of Slaughter et al. (United States Patent Number 6789077 ), hereinafter referred to as Slaughter, in view of Tuatini et al., (United States Patent Publication Number 20160020917) hereinafter Tuatini and in further view of David A. Hinds (United States Patent Publication Number 2005/0086009) hereinafter Hinds
Regarding claim 18 Gownder in view of Slaughter , Tuatini and Fink teaches the system according to claim 1,
Gownder does not fully disclose wherein at least one of the input parameters in the set of input parameters is absent in the selected subset.
Hinds teaches wherein at least one of the input parameters (Fig. 3 (305) input values for parameters [0085]) in the set (the complete set defining the study [0091]) of input parameters (Fig. 3 (305) input values for parameters [0085]) is absent (the missing parameter value [0091]) in the selected subset ((a subset) of the parameter values defining the study [0091])such as “selected subset”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gownder in view of Slaughter and Tuatini to incorporate the teachings of Hinds wherein at least one of the input parameters in the set of input parameters is absent in the selected subset. By doing so the set of parameter values defining the study is determined using an iterative refinement process until the desired power is obtained. Hinds [0091]
Conclusion
9. 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 extension fee 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 date of this
final action.
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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Kweku Halm whose telephone number is (469)295-
9144. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00AM - 5:30PM Mon - Thur. If
attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272 - 4098. 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.
/KWEKU WILLIAM HALM/Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166