DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
3. Claims 1-20, filed on 4/23/2025, are currently pending in this office action.
Priority
4. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of prior-filed application 18/400573, now US Patent 12,298,976, filed 12/29/2023, and prior-filed application 17/525653, now US Patent 11,893,019, filed 11/12/2021, under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. An initialed and dated copy of Applicant's IDS form 1449, filed 8/15/2025 and 12/5/2025, are attached to the instant Office action.
Specification
6. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains legal terms (ie. “embodiment”). Please remove legal terms. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Double Patenting
7. 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
8. Claim 1, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,298,976. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown below, since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
US Patent 12,298,976
Instant Application
Claim 1,
A system for providing cross-microservice query processing, comprising:
a computer including one or more processors that provides a cloud computing environment, together with a plurality of microservices operating thereon;
an object service framework for use with the microservices and a database, wherein, for each microservice of the plurality of microservices, a microservice object provides;
an internal implementation definition that provides a mapping between the microservice and a database table view;
and a public contract definition that includes properties and actions of the microservice object that will be accessible by external systems;
wherein views associated with the plurality of microservices and their objects are used to populate a cross-service view into the database;
wherein a catalog of the microservice objects are managed via metadata including, for each microservice object, the public contract that defines how the object can be accessed and the object's internal implementation including database tables used by the object;
and wherein in response to a query based on the cross-service view, the query is transformed into one or more database queries directed to database tables that are associated with the microservices including, in response to a query to be joined across two or more of the microservices, receiving an object-level query based on the cross-service view, and transforming the query into one or more database queries that span data independently owned by the two or more microservices.
Claim 1,
A system for providing cross-microservice query processing, comprising:
a computer including one or more processors that provides a cloud computing environment, together with a plurality of microservices operating thereon;
wherein each microservice is associated with a metadata that provides:
an internal implementation definition that provides a mapping between one or more microservice objects and a database table view;
and a public contract definition that defines how the microservice can be accessed;
wherein views associated with the microservices and their objects are used to populate a cross-service view associated with the database;
wherein the system manages a catalog of microservice objects including, for each object, a public contract that defines how the object can be accessed and the object's internal implementation including database tables used by the object;
and wherein in response to a query based on the cross-service view, the system transforms the query into one or more database queries directed to database tables associated with the microservices.
Claim 10,
A method for providing cross-microservice query processing, comprising:
providing, at a computer including one or more processors, a cloud computing environment and a plurality of microservices operating thereon;
providing an object service framework for use with the microservices and a database, wherein, for each microservice of the plurality of microservices, a microservice object provides:
an internal implementation definition that provides a mapping between the microservice and a database table view;
and a public contract definition that includes properties and actions of the microservice object that will be accessible by external systems;
wherein views associated with the plurality of microservices and their objects are used to populate a cross-service view into the database;
managing via metadata a catalog of objects including, for each microservice object, the public contract that defines how the object can be accessed and the object's internal implementation including database tables used by the object;
and in response to a query based on the cross-service view, transforming the query into one or more database queries directed to database tables that are associated with the microservices including, in response to a query to be joined across two or more of the microservices, receiving an object-level query based on the cross-service view, and transforming the query into one or more database queries that span data independently owned by the two or more microservices.
Claim 8,
A method for providing cross-microservice query processing, comprising:
providing, at a computer including one or more processors, a cloud computing environment and a plurality of microservices operating thereon;
wherein each microservice is associated with a metadata that provides:
an internal implementation definition that provides a mapping between one or more microservice objects and a database table view;
and a public contract definition that defines how the microservice can be accessed;
wherein views associated with the microservices and their objects are used to populate a cross-service view associated with the database;
wherein the system manages a catalog of microservice objects including, for each object, a public contract that defines how the object can be accessed and the object's internal implementation including database tables used by the object;
and wherein in response to a query based on the cross-service view, the system transforms the query into one or more database queries directed to database tables associated with the microservices.
Claim 17,
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions thereon, which when read and executed by a computer including one or more processors cause the computer to perform a method comprising:
providing, at a computer including one or more processors, a cloud computing environment and a plurality of microservices operating thereon;
providing an object service framework for use with the microservices and a database, wherein, for each microservice of the plurality of microservices, a microservice object provides:
an internal implementation definition that provides a mapping between the microservice and a database table view;
and a public contract definition that includes properties and actions of the microservice object that will be accessible by external systems; wherein views associated with the plurality of microservices and their objects are used to populate a cross-service view into the database;
managing via metadata a catalog of objects including, for each microservice object, the public contract that defines how the object can be accessed and the object's internal implementation including database tables used by the object;
and in response to a query based on the cross-service view, transforming the query into one or more database queries directed to database tables that are associated with the microservices including, in response to a query to be joined across two or more of the microservices, receiving an object-level query based on the cross-service view, and transforming the query into one or more database queries that span data independently owned by the two or more microservices.
Claim 15,
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions thereon, which when read and executed by a computer including one or more processors cause the computer to perform a method comprising:
providing, at a computer including one or more processors, a cloud computing environment and a plurality of microservices operating thereon;
wherein each microservice is associated with a metadata that provides:
an internal implementation definition that provides a mapping between one or more microservice objects and a database table view;
and a public contract definition that defines how the microservice can be accessed; wherein views associated with the microservices and their objects are used to populate a cross-service view associated with the database;
wherein the system manages a catalog of microservice objects including, for each object, a public contract that defines how the object can be accessed and the object's internal implementation including database tables used by the object;
and wherein in response to a query based on the cross-service view, the system transforms the query into one or more database queries directed to database tables associated with the microservices.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
10. Claims 8 and 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the system" in line 10 of the claim, as claim 8 is directed towards a method claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the system" in line 12 of the claim, as claim 15 is directed towards a non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
11. 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.
12. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US Publication 2021/0303577, cited in IDS form filed 8/15/2025) in view of Marsh et al. (US Publication 2022/0021711 A1)
As per claim 1, Liu teaches A system for providing cross-microservice query processing, comprising: (see Abstract)
a computer including one or more processors that provides a cloud computing environment, together with a plurality of microservices operating thereon; (paragraph 0010, 0012, 0037, a cloud computing environment implementing microservices associated with designated functions and features is disclosed)
wherein each microservice is associated with an internal implementation definition that provides a mapping between one or more microservice objects and a database table view;… wherein views associated with the microservices and their objects are used to populate a cross-service view associated with the database; (paragraph 0012, 0097, each microservice is associated with functions and associated features, paragraph 0085,0093, 0096, 0100, a binding is created by microservices to perform related feature or functions that includes loading database tables and table joins, binding interpreted as mapping, paragraph 007, 0096, 0097, analyzing queries to perform operations and functions on database tables, including selection and joins)
and wherein in response to a query based on the cross-service view, the system transforms the query into one or more database queries directed to database tables associated with the microservices. (paragraph 0011, 0067, 0069, an incoming query is received and processed, paragraph 0078, 0079, 0089, query transformation is performed to process received queries)
Liu does not explicitly indicate a metadata that provides: a public contract definition that defines how the microservice can be accessed… wherein the system manages a catalog of microservice objects including, for each object, a public contract that defines how the object can be accessed and the object's internal implementation including database tables used by the object.
Marsh teaches a metadata that provides: a public contract definition that defines how the microservice can be accessed… wherein the system manages a catalog of microservice objects including, for each object, a public contract that defines how the object can be accessed and the object's internal implementation including database tables used by the object. (paragraph 0049, 0054, 0055, 0089, 0102, microservices-based data access policies and metadata for the policies are stored in data storage within a data catalog that includes smart contract information for data access)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Liu’s system to process queries based on dynamic microservice architecture for cloud computing environments with Marsh’s ability to store microservice-based data access policies and associated metadata in a data catalog. This gives the user the ability to utilize a data catalog containing microservice-based data access policies when processing queries. The motivation for doing so would be to prevent unauthorized access to data (paragraph 0002).
As per claim 2, Liu teaches an object service framework operates with a cross-microservice layer to automatically transform queries that join objects in different microservices into a single database query that is optimized for use with the database. (paragraph 0075, join operation, paragraph 0085, 0096, combining requests)
As per claim 3, Liu teaches the object service framework is accessible as a cloud service that supports the use of loosely-coupled but related microservices. (paragraph 0010, 0012, 0037, a cloud computing environment implementing plurality of microservices)
As per claim 4, Liu teaches an object-level query based on the cross-service view transforms a query into one or more database SQL queries that span the data otherwise independently owned by the various microservices. (paragraphs 0084, 0087, SQL query)
As per claim 5, Liu teaches the plurality of microservices are loosely-coupled but related in that they interoperate together or require access to each other's data in order to process object-level requests or queries. (paragraph 0036, service level agreement)
As per claim 6, Liu teaches in response to a query a first microservice's schema role cannot access another second microservice's tables or views, a global read only schema role is used to execute the query, wherein the object service framework automatically switches to the global read only schema role when a join among the microservices is required. (paragraph 0036, system administrator, paragraph 0070, 0096, join operations)
As per claim 7, Liu and Marsh are taught as per claim 1 above. Marsh additionally teaches a public contract definition includes properties and actions of the microservice object that will be accessible by external systems via public APIs and protocols, wherein the object definitions operate as a repository for discovery purposes, and wherein for each microservice the implementation definition provides a mapping between the microservice object with its properties, and its database table view. (paragraph 0054, 0068, 0077, smart contract for accessing and authorization node policies)
As per claim 8, Liu teaches A method for providing cross-microservice query processing, comprising: (see Abstract)
providing, at a computer including one or more processors, a cloud computing environment and a plurality of microservices operating thereon; (paragraph 0010, 0012, 0037, a cloud computing environment implementing microservices associated with designated functions and features is disclosed)
wherein each microservice is associated with an internal implementation definition that provides a mapping between one or more microservice objects and a database table view;… wherein views associated with the microservices and their objects are used to populate a cross-service view associated with the database; (paragraph 0012, 0097, each microservice is associated with functions and associated features, paragraph 0085,0093, 0096, 0100, a binding is created by microservices to perform related feature or functions that includes loading database tables and table joins, binding interpreted as mapping, paragraph 007, 0096, 0097, analyzing queries to perform operations and functions on database tables, including selection and joins)
and wherein in response to a query based on the cross-service view, the system transforms the query into one or more database queries directed to database tables associated with the microservices. (paragraph 0011, 0067, 0069, an incoming query is received and processed, paragraph 0078, 0079, 0089, query transformation is performed to process received queries)
Liu does not explicitly indicate a metadata that provides: a public contract definition that defines how the microservice can be accessed… wherein the system manages a catalog of microservice objects including, for each object, a public contract that defines how the object can be accessed and the object's internal implementation including database tables used by the object.
Marsh teaches a metadata that provides: a public contract definition that defines how the microservice can be accessed… wherein the system manages a catalog of microservice objects including, for each object, a public contract that defines how the object can be accessed and the object's internal implementation including database tables used by the object. (paragraph 0049, 0054, 0055, 0089, 0102, microservices-based data access policies and metadata for the policies are stored in data storage within a data catalog that includes smart contract information for data access)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Liu’s system to process queries based on dynamic microservice architecture for cloud computing environments with Marsh’s ability to store microservice-based data access policies and associated metadata in a data catalog. This gives the user the ability to utilize a data catalog containing microservice-based data access policies when processing queries. The motivation for doing so would be to prevent unauthorized access to data (paragraph 0002).
As per claim 9, Liu teaches an object service framework operates to automatically transform queries that join objects in different microservices into a single database query that is optimized for use with the database. (paragraph 0075, join operation, paragraph 0085, 0096, combining requests)
As per claim 10, Liu teaches the object service framework is accessible as a cloud service that supports the use of loosely-coupled but related microservices. (paragraph 0010, 0012, 0037, a cloud computing environment implementing plurality of microservices)
As per claim 11, Liu teaches an object-level query based on the cross-service view transforms a query into one or more database SQL queries that span the data otherwise independently owned by the various microservices. (paragraphs 0084, 0087, SQL query)
As per claim 12, Liu teaches the plurality of microservices are loosely-coupled but related in that they interoperate together or require access to each other's data in order to process object-level requests or queries. (paragraph 0036, service level agreement)
As per claim 13, Liu teaches in response to a query a first microservice's schema role cannot access another second microservice's tables or views, a global read only schema role is used to execute the query, wherein the object service framework automatically switches to the global read only schema role when a join among the microservices is required. (paragraph 0036, system administrator, paragraph 0070, 0096, join operations)
As per claim 14, Liu and Marsh are taught as per claim 8 above. Marsh additionally teaches a public contract definition includes properties and actions of the microservice object that will be accessible by external systems via public APIs and protocols, wherein the object definitions operate as a repository for discovery purposes, and wherein for each microservice the implementation definition provides a mapping between the microservice object with its properties, and its database table view. (paragraph 0054, 0068, 0077, smart contract for accessing and authorization node policies)
As per claim 15, Liu teaches A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions thereon, which when read and executed by a computer including one or more processors cause the computer to perform a method comprising: (see Abstract)
providing, at a computer including one or more processors, a cloud computing environment and a plurality of microservices operating thereon; (paragraph 0010, 0012, 0037, a cloud computing environment implementing microservices associated with designated functions and features is disclosed)
wherein each microservice is associated with an internal implementation definition that provides a mapping between one or more microservice objects and a database table view;… wherein views associated with the microservices and their objects are used to populate a cross-service view associated with the database; (paragraph 0012, 0097, each microservice is associated with functions and associated features, paragraph 0085,0093, 0096, 0100, a binding is created by microservices to perform related feature or functions that includes loading database tables and table joins, binding interpreted as mapping, paragraph 007, 0096, 0097, analyzing queries to perform operations and functions on database tables, including selection and joins)
and wherein in response to a query based on the cross-service view, the system transforms the query into one or more database queries directed to database tables associated with the microservices. (paragraph 0011, 0067, 0069, an incoming query is received and processed, paragraph 0078, 0079, 0089, query transformation is performed to process received queries)
Liu does not explicitly indicate a metadata that provides: a public contract definition that defines how the microservice can be accessed… wherein the system manages a catalog of microservice objects including, for each object, a public contract that defines how the object can be accessed and the object's internal implementation including database tables used by the object.
Marsh teaches a metadata that provides: a public contract definition that defines how the microservice can be accessed… wherein the system manages a catalog of microservice objects including, for each object, a public contract that defines how the object can be accessed and the object's internal implementation including database tables used by the object. (paragraph 0049, 0054, 0055, 0089, 0102, microservices-based data access policies and metadata for the policies are stored in data storage within a data catalog that includes smart contract information for data access)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Liu’s system to process queries based on dynamic microservice architecture for cloud computing environments with Marsh’s ability to store microservice-based data access policies and associated metadata in a data catalog. This gives the user the ability to utilize a data catalog containing microservice-based data access policies when processing queries. The motivation for doing so would be to prevent unauthorized access to data (paragraph 0002).
As per claim 16, Liu teaches an object service framework operates to automatically transform queries that join objects in different microservices into a single database query that is optimized for use with the database. (paragraph 0075, join operation, paragraph 0085, 0096, combining requests)
As per claim 17, Liu teaches an object- level query based on the cross-service view transforms a query into one or more database SQL queries that span the data otherwise independently owned by the various microservices. (paragraphs 0084, 0087, SQL query)
As per claim 18, Liu teaches the plurality of microservices are loosely-coupled but related in that they interoperate together or require access to each other's data in order to process object-level requests or queries. (paragraph 0036, service level agreement)
As per claim 19, Liu teaches in response to a query a first microservice's schema role cannot access another second microservice's tables or views, a global read only schema role is used to execute the query, wherein the object service framework automatically switches to the global read only schema role when a join among the microservices is required. (paragraph 0036, system administrator, paragraph 0070, 0096, join operations)
As per claim 20, Liu and Marsh are taught as per claim 15 above. Marsh additionally teaches a public contract definition includes properties and actions of the microservice object that will be accessible by external systems via public APIs and protocols, wherein the object definitions operate as a repository for discovery purposes, and wherein for each microservice the implementation definition provides a mapping between the microservice object with its properties, and its database table view. (paragraph 0054, 0068, 0077, smart contract for accessing and authorization node policies)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Krishnaswamy (US Publication 2020/0351077 A1)
Buchmann (US Publication 2022/0407924 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANGELINO N GORTAYO whose telephone number is (571)272-7204. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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, Charles Rones can be reached at 571-272-4085. 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.
/DANGELINO N GORTAYO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168