DETAILED ACTION
This Action is responsive to Applicant’s Amendments filed December 30, 2025.
Please note, claims 1-6 remain pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
On pages 5-6, Applicant’s remarks contain comments regarding the cited references not disclosing or suggesting the newly amended subject matter. Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Madden (US Pub. No. 2023/0421649) further in view of Procopio et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0282755)
Regarding claim 1, Madden teaches a service delivery system comprising:
‘a communication device that performs communications with an external device’ as a service gateway to perform communication with external clients (¶0027)
‘a storage device that stores forwarding information that indicates a relationship between contents of a connect request and an application execution system serving as a forwarding destination of the connect request and capable of executing a predetermined application’ as storing by a service peering exchange, service discovery information including services offered by applications for corresponding customers (¶0030-33)
‘a controller that includes a processor and functions, through the processor executing a service delivery program, as a connection controller that, upon receipt of the connect request through the communication device, identifies the forwarding destination of the received connect request according to the forwarding information and the contents of the connect request and forwards the connect request to the application execution system being the identified forwarding destination’ as a service gateway responsible for service request routing to the service instances, including using service discovery mechanism to identify service endpoints for a service offered by an application of the request and routing the request to the requested service, the service request having a destination network address (¶0027-29, 37-38)
Madden fails to explicitly teach: ‘wherein the storage device stores, as the forwarding information, predetermined identification information in association with a first forwarding destination and also stores default identification information in association with a second forward destination’
‘the connection controller forwards, when the identification information is present in the connect request input through the communication device, the connect request to the first forwarding destination associated with the identification information in the forwarding information and forwards, when the identification information is not present in the connect request, the connect request to the second forwarding destination associated with the default identification information in the forwarding information’
Procopio teaches: ‘wherein the storage device stores, as the forwarding information, predetermined identification information in association with a first forwarding destination and also stores default identification information in association with a second forward destination’ as a service to store user preferences in a user preference store or database including forwarding information for a user preference and a system preference in association with file or MIME type (¶0034, 39-41)
‘the connection controller forwards, when the identification information is present in the connect request input through the communication device, the connect request to the first forwarding destination associated with the identification information in the forwarding information and forwards, when the identification information is not present in the connect request, the connect request to the second forwarding destination associated with the default identification information in the forwarding information’ as when a user selects a file, associating the file from the open request with the default setting and opening with said set application and when there is no entry for a file type or MIME type, the system default application or viewer is used (¶0040-45)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the present invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the cited references because Procopio’s would have allowed Madden’s to improve management of various services (¶0020)
Regarding claim 5, Madden teaches ‘a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium with a service delivery program stored thereon, wherein when, in a computer comprising a communication device capable of performing communications with an external device, a storage device that stores forwarding information that indicates a relationship between contents of a connect request and an application execution system serving as a forwarding destination of the connect request and capable of executing a predetermined application, and a processor, the processor executes the service delivery program, the service delivery program allows the computer to implement a connection controller that, upon receipt of the connect request through the communication device, identifies the forwarding destination of the received connect request according to the forwarding information and the contents of the connect request and forwards the connect request to the application execution system being the identified forwarding destination’ as a service gateway to perform communication with external clients (¶0027) and storing by a service peering exchange, service discovery information including services offered by applications for corresponding customers (¶0030-33) and a service gateway responsible for service request routing to the service instances, including using service discovery mechanism to identify service endpoints for a service offered by an application of the request and routing the request to the requested service, the service request having a destination network address (¶0027-29, 37-38)
Madden fails to explicitly teach: ‘wherein the storage device stores, as the forwarding information, predetermined identification information in association with a first forwarding destination and also stores default identification information in association with a second forward destination’
‘the connection controller forwards, when the identification information is present in the connect request input through the communication device, the connect request to the first forwarding destination associated with the identification information in the forwarding information and forwards, when the identification information is not present in the connect request, the connect request to the second forwarding destination associated with the default identification information in the forwarding information’
Procopio teaches: ‘wherein the storage device stores, as the forwarding information, predetermined identification information in association with a first forwarding destination and also stores default identification information in association with a second forward destination’ as a service to store user preferences in a user preference store or database including forwarding information for a user preference and a system preference in association with file or MIME type (¶0034, 39-41)
‘the connection controller forwards, when the identification information is present in the connect request input through the communication device, the connect request to the first forwarding destination associated with the identification information in the forwarding information and forwards, when the identification information is not present in the connect request, the connect request to the second forwarding destination associated with the default identification information in the forwarding information’ as when a user selects a file, associating the file from the open request with the default setting and opening with said set application and when there is no entry for a file type or MIME type, the system default application or viewer is used (¶0040-45)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the present invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the cited references because Procopio’s would have allowed Madden’s to improve management of various services (¶0020)
Claims 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Madden (US Pub. No. 2023/0421649) Procopio et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0282755) further in view of Kruglick et al. (US Pub. No. 2009/0083738)
Regarding claim 2, Madden fails to explicitly teach ‘wherein the connection controller synchronizes a change in a database of a first application execution system as a source of migration unidirectionally with a database of a second application execution system as a destination for migration.’
Kurglick teaches ‘wherein the connection controller synchronizes a change in a database of a first application execution system as a source of migration unidirectionally with a database of a second application execution system as a destination for migration’ as unidirectional synchronization operations to support migration of data from a first application to a new application version (¶0045).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the present invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the cited references because Kurglick’s would have allowed Madden’s to manage large numbers and varieties of data (¶0002)
Regarding claim 3, Kurglick teaches ‘wherein a first application execution system as a source of migration and a second application execution system as a destination for migration are implemented by different computer systems’ as migration operations between separate applications (¶0045) over a plurality of computer systems (¶0027, 32)
Regarding claim 4, Kurglick teaches ‘wherein when receiving through the communication device an instruction to add an application execution system to the service delivery system, the connection controller copies an application and a database of a first application execution system as a source of migration to generate a second application execution system as a destination for migration’ as deployment of a new webserver and invoking deployment by synchronizing contents from a source system to a new destination system (¶0047)
Claims 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Madden (US Pub. No. 2023/0421649) Procopio et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0282755) further in view of Kreiner et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0353364)
Regarding claim 6, Madden fails to explicitly teach ‘wherein the connection controller changes, when a license model of the first application execution system is a first model and the communication device receives an instruction to change a license model of the second application execution system to a second model, the second application execution system in accordance with the instruction.’
Kreiner teaches ‘wherein the connection controller changes, when a license model of the first application execution system is a first model and the communication device receives an instruction to change a license model of the second application execution system to a second model, the second application execution system in accordance with the instruction’ as a change in license models and modifying the engine to encompass the changes within a communication system (¶0077).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time that the present invention was effectively filed to modify the teachings of the cited references because Kreiner’s would have allowed Madden’s to improve the management of licensing terms (¶0003)
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraphs and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.131(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN OBERLY whose telephone number is (571)272-7025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am-4pm MT.
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (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 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.
/VAN H OBERLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166