DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Office Action is in response to the application 19/229,686 filed on 06/05/2025.
Priority
3. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for domestic priority to CON of 18/478,836 09/29/2023 and now PAT 12,348,482 which is a CON of 17/898,405 and now PAT 11,811,723 which is a CON of 17/169,045 02/05/2021 and now PAT 11,463,402 which is a CON of 14/599,079 01/16/2015 and now PAT 10,944,835 which is a CON Application no. 12/044,751 filed on 03/07/2008 and now PAT 8,949,457 and which claims benefit of Provisional Application No.: 60/893,806 filed on 03/08/2007.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites “The method of claim 22”, however claim 22 is directed to a computer readable storage medium. The Examiner interprets this as a typographical error and should recite “The computer readable storage medium of claim 22”. Please notify the Examiner if this is incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim does not end with a period “.”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
6. Claims 19, 20, and 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the reply" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the reply" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the location of the extension element" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As for claims 31 and 32 which claim dependency from claim 30, these claims are rejected under 112 second paragraph per the rationale of claim 30.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claims 13-23 are drawn to a “computer readable storage medium”. The specification is silent regarding the meaning of this term. The specification does not limit the claimed “computer-readable information recording medium” to not include propagated, transmission, and/or carrier waves. Paragraph [0007, 0034-0035] of the pending application discloses the following “storing the message in a computer readable storage medium…the directory service 110 comprises a combination of a non-volatile storage device and a volatile storage device”
Thus, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and taking into account the meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP §2111), the claim as a whole cover both transitory and non-transitory media. A transitory medium does not fall into any of the four categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Examiner suggests for applicant to further amend Claims 13-23 in replacing the currently recited “computer readable storage medium” with “non-transitory computer readable storage medium " in order to provide evidence that Applicant intends the claimed computer readable storage medium” to not include carrier waves.
A claim drawn to such a computer readable storage medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 US.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se.
Claims 24-29 are drawn to a "system". The "system" claims are not to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The claimed elements "business process execution language service”, “resolver”, and “container” are non-structural limitations, and in light of the specification these are disclosed as being software (specification, paragraphs 44, 46, and 48). Therefore, the claims subject matter as a whole fail to fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, patentable eligible category subject matter.
Double Patenting
8. 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 actual 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.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
9. Claims 1-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,348,482. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are merely obvious variations of the claims 2-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,348,482, and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting which is outlined in the table below:
Application No. 19,229,686
Pat No. 12,348,482 (Application No. 18/478,836)
24. A system for providing location extensibility for a business process execution language, the system comprising:
a business process execution language service for processing messages;
a resolver for providing a mapping from an address for an extension element to a location; and
a container for using the resolver to process a message, the container coupled to interact with the resolver and the business process execution language service.
13. A system for providing location extensibility for a business process execution language, the system comprising: one or more processors; a non-transitory computer readable medium, coupled to the one or more processors, storing code executable by the one or more processors that configures the system into a machine that comprises:
a business process execution language service for processing messages, orchestrating web service requests, and utilizing an extension element whose address is identified in at least one of the messages, wherein the extension element implements computer executable logic that receives the input message that corresponds to a web service description language definition of the extension element;
a resolver for providing a mapping from the address for the extension element to a location of the extension element; and
a container for using the resolver to process the at least one of the messages for directing the processed message to the location of the extension element for processing by the extension element, wherein the container coupled to interact with the resolver and the business process execution language service.
13. A computer readable storage medium configured to store instructions, the instructions when executed by a processor causing the processor to:
receive an input message having an address identifying an extension element;
determine, from the address, a location of the extension element; and
responsive to determining the location of the extension element, direct a normalized message to the location.
14. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured to store instructions, the instructions when executed by one or more processors that configures a computer system that includes the one or more processors into a machine to:
receive an input message by a processor executable service of the code, and the processor executable service orchestrates web service requests and utilizes an extension element whose address is identified in the input message, wherein the extension element implements computer executable logic that receives the input message that corresponds to a web service description language definition of the extension element;
determine, based on the address identifying the extension element included in the received input message, a location of the extension element; and
responsive to determining the location of the extension element, direct a normalized message to the location of the extension element for processing by the logic of the extension element.
Instant Application Claims 2-12 recite method claims however recite substantially the same limitations as the patented system claims 2-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,348,482, therefore the application claims 2-12 are anticipated by the patented claims 2-12.
Instant Application Claims14-23 recite substantially the same limitations as the patented claims 15-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,348,482, therefore the application claims14-23 are anticipated by the patented claims 15-24.
10. Claims 1-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-3,5-8 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,811,723. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application is merely obvious variations of the claims 2-3,5-8 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,811, 723 and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting which is outlined in the table below:
Application No. 19/229,686
Pat No. 11,811,723 (Application No. 17/898,405)
1. A method for orchestrating web services comprising:
receiving an input message having an address identifying an extension element;
determining, from the address, a location of the extension element; and
responsive to determining the location of the extension element, directing a normalized message to the location.
1. A method for providing location extensibility for a business process execution language, the method comprising: utilizing a business process execution language service for processing messages and orchestrating web service requests; executing computer executable logic with utilizing an extension element whose address is identified in at least one of the messages, wherein the executing computer executable logic receives an input message that corresponds to a web service description language definition of the extension element; utilizing a resolver, providing a mapping from the address for the extension element to a location of the extension element; and utilizing a container for using the resolver to process the at least one of the messages for directing the processed message to the location of the extension element for processing by the extension element, wherein the container coupled to interact with the resolver and the business process execution language service.
2. The method of claim 1 further comprising: determining, based on the address identifying the extension element included in the received input message, a location of the extension element.
3. The method of claim 2 further comprising: responsive to determining the location of the extension element, directing a normalized message to the location of the extension element for processing by the logic of the extension element.
Instant Application Claim 5 recites substantially the same limitations as the patented claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,811,723, therefore the application Claim 5 is anticipated by the patented claim 5.
Instant Application Claims 7-9 recite substantially the same limitations as the patented claims 6-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,811,723, therefore the application claims 7-9 are anticipated by the patented claims 6-8.
Instant Application Claim 10 recites substantially the same limitations as the patented claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,811,723, therefore the application Claim 10 is anticipated by the patented claim 18.
11. Claims 1-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,463,402. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application is merely obvious variations of the claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,463,402 and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting which is outlined in the table below:
Application No. 19/229,686
Patent No. 11,463,402 (Application No. 17/169,045)
1. A method for orchestrating web services comprising:
receiving an input message having an address identifying an extension element;
determining, from the address, a location of the extension element; and
responsive to determining the location of the extension element, directing a normalized message to the location.
1. A method for orchestrating web services comprising: performing by a computer system programmed with code stored in a memory and executing by a processor of the computer system to configure the computer system into a machine for:
receiving an input message by a processor executable service of the code, and the processor executable service utilizes an extension element whose address is identified in the input message, wherein the extension element implements computer executable logic that receives the input message that corresponds to a web service description language definition of the extension element;
determining, based on the address identifying the extension element included in the received input message, a location of the extension element;
responsive to determining the location of the extension element, directing a normalized message to the location of the extension element for processing by the logic of the extension element; and executing the service to execute the extension element.
Instant Application Claims 2-12 recite substantially the same limitations as the patented claims 2-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,463,402, therefore the application claims 2-12 are anticipated by the patented claims 2-12.
12. Claims 1-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-32 of U.S. Patent No. 10,944,835 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application is merely obvious variations of the claims 1-32 of U.S. Patent No. 10,944,835 and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting which is outlined in the table below:
Application No. 19/229,686
Patent No. 10,944,835 (Application No. 14/599,079)
1. A method for orchestrating web services comprising:
receiving an input message having an address identifying an extension element;
determining, from the address, a location of the extension element; and
responsive to determining the location of the extension element, directing a normalized message to the location.
1. A method for orchestrating web services comprising: performing by a computer system programmed with code stored in a memory and executing by a processor of the computer system that configures the computer system into a machine for:
receiving an input message by a processor executable service of the code, and the processor executable service orchestrates web service requests and utilizes an extension element whose address is identified in the input message, wherein the extension element implements computer executable logic that receives the input message that corresponds to a web service description language definition of the extension element;
determining, based on the address identifying the extension element included in the received input message, a location of the extension element; and
responsive to determining the location of the extension element, directing a normalized message to the location of the extension element for processing by the logic of the extension element.
13. A computer readable storage medium configured to store instructions, the instructions when executed by a processor causing the processor to:
receive an input message having an address identifying an extension element;
determine, from the address, a location of the extension element; and
responsive to determining the location of the extension element, direct a normalized message to the location.
22. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured to store instructions, the instructions when executed by a processor that configures a computer system that includes the processor into a machine to:
receive an input message by a processor executable service of the code, and the processor executable service orchestrates web service requests and utilizes an extension element whose address is identified in the input message, wherein the extension element implements computer executable logic that receives the input message that corresponds to a web service description language definition of the extension element;
determine, based on the address identifying the extension element included in the received input message, a location of the extension element; and
responsive to determining the location of the extension element, direct a normalized message to the location of the extension element for processing by the logic of the extension element.
24. A system for providing location extensibility for a business process execution language, the system comprising:
a business process execution language service for processing messages;
a resolver for providing a mapping from an address for an extension element to a location; and
a container for using the resolver to process a message, the container coupled to interact with the resolver and the business process execution language service.
16. A system for providing location extensibility for a business process execution language, the system comprising: a processor; a non-transitory computer readable medium, coupled to the processor, storing code executable by the processor that configures the system into a machine that comprises:
a business process execution language service for processing messages, orchestrating web service requests, and utilizing an extension element whose address is identified in at least one of the messages, wherein the extension element implements computer executable logic that receives the input message that corresponds to a web service description language definition of the extension element;
a resolver for providing a mapping from the address for the extension element to a location of the extension element; and
a container for using the resolver to process the at least one of the messages for directing the processed message to the location of the extension element for processing by the extension element, wherein the container coupled to interact with the resolver and the business process execution language service.
30. A method for orchestrating web services comprising:
receiving an input message having a plurality of physical addresses identifying a plurality of copies of an extension element;
determining, from the plurality of physical addresses, a location of a copy of the extension element of the plurality of copies; and
responsive to determining the location of the extension element, directing a normalized message to the determined location.
13. A method for orchestrating web services comprising: performing by a computer system programmed with code stored in a memory and executing by a processor of the computer system that configures the computer system into a machine for:
receiving an input message by a processor executable service of the code that orchestrates web service requests and utilizes an extension element whose address is identified in the input message, wherein the extension element implements computer executable logic that receives the input message that corresponds to a web service description language definition of the extension element;
determining based on a plurality of a physical addresses included in the received input message, a location of a copy of the extension element of the plurality of copies; and
responsive to determining the location of the copy of the extension element, directing a normalized message to the determined location of the extension element for processing by the logic of the extension element.
Instant Application Claims 2-12 recite substantially the same limitations as the patented claims 2-12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,944,835, therefore the application claims 2-12 are anticipated by the patented claims 2-12.
Instant Application Claims 14-23 recite substantially the same limitations as the patented claims 23-32 of U.S. Patent No. 10,944,835, therefore the application claims 14-23 are anticipated by the patented claims 23-32.
Instant Application Claims 25-29 recite substantially the same limitations as the patented claims 17-21 of U.S. Patent No. 10,944,835, therefore the application claims 25-29 are anticipated by the patented claims 17-21.
Instant Application Claims 31-32 recite substantially the same limitations as the patented claims 14-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,944,835, therefore the application claims 31-32 are anticipated by the patented claims 14-15.
13. Claims 1-32 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-32 of U.S. Patent No. 8,949,457 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application is merely obvious variations of the claims 1-32 of U.S. Patent No. 8,949,457 and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting which is outlined in the table below:
Application No. 19/229,686
Patent No. 8,949,457 (Application No. 12/044,751)
1. A method for orchestrating web services comprising:
receiving an input message having an address identifying an extension element;
determining, from the address, a location of the extension element; and
responsive to determining the location of the extension element, directing a normalized message to the location.
1. A method for orchestrating web services comprising: performing by a computer system programmed with code stored in a memory and executing by a processor of the computer system to configure the computer system into a machine for:
receiving an input message by a processor executable service of the code, and the processor executable service utilizes an extension element whose address is identified in the input message, wherein the extension element implements computer executable logic; determining, based on the address identifying the extension element included in the received input message, a location of the extension element; and
responsive to determining the location of the extension element, directing a normalized message to the location of the extension element for processing by the logic of the extension element.
13. A computer readable storage medium configured to store instructions, the instructions when executed by a processor causing the processor to:
receive an input message having an address identifying an extension element;
determine, from the address, a location of the extension element; and
responsive to determining the location of the extension element, direct a normalized message to the location.
13. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured to store instructions, the instructions when executed by a processor to configure a computer system that includes the processor into a machine to:
receive an input message by a processor executable service of the code, and the processor executable service utilizes an extension element whose address is identified in the input message, wherein the extension element implements computer executable logic;
determine, based on the address identifying the extension element included in the received input message, a location of the extension element; and
responsive to determining the location of the extension element, direct a normalized message to the location of the extension element for processing by the logic of the extension element.
24. A system for providing location extensibility for a business process execution language, the system comprising:
a business process execution language service for processing messages;
a resolver for providing a mapping from an address for an extension element to a location; and
a container for using the resolver to process a message, the container coupled to interact with the resolver and the business process execution language service.
24. A system for providing location extensibility for a business process execution language, the system comprising: a processor; a non-transitory computer readable medium, coupled to the processor, storing code executable by the processor to configure the system into a machine that comprises:
a business process execution language service for processing messages and utilizing an extension element whose address is identified in at least one of the messages, wherein the extension element implements computer executable logic;
a resolver for providing a mapping from the address for the extension element to a location of the extension element; and
a container for using the resolver to process the at least one of the messages for directing the processed message to the location of the extension element for processing by the extension element, wherein the container coupled to interact with the resolver and the business process execution language service.
30. A method for orchestrating web services comprising:
receiving an input message having a plurality of physical addresses identifying a plurality of copies of an extension element;
determining, from the plurality of physical addresses, a location of a copy of the extension element of the plurality of copies; and
responsive to determining the location of the extension element, directing a normalized message to the determined location.
30. A method for orchestrating web services comprising: performing by a computer system programmed with code stored in a memory and executing by a processor of the computer system to configure the computer system into a machine for:
receiving an input message by a processor executable service of the code that utilizes an extension element whose address is identified in the input message, wherein the extension element implements computer executable logic; determining based on a plurality of a physical addresses included in the received input message, a location of a copy of the extension element of the plurality of copies; and
responsive to determining the location of the copy of the extension element, directing a normalized message to the determined location of the extension element for processing by the logic of the extension element.
Instant Application Claims 2-12 recite substantially the same limitations as the patented claims 2-12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,949,457, therefore the application claims
2-12 are anticipated by the patented claims 2-12.
Instant Application Claims 14-23 recite substantially the same limitations as the patented claims 14-23 of U.S. Patent No. 8,949,457, therefore the application claims
14-23 are anticipated by the patented claims 14-23.
Instant Application Claims 25-29 recite substantially the same limitations as the patented claims 25-29 of U.S. Patent No. 8,949,457, therefore the application claims
25-29 are anticipated by the patented claims 25-29.
Instant Application Claims 31-32 recite substantially the same limitations as the patented claims 31-32 of U.S. Patent No. 8,949,457, therefore the application claims
31-32 are anticipated by the patented claims 31-32.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
15. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
16. Claims 1, 5, 13, 16, 24, 28 and 30 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baikov et al. (US 2007/0073769 A1); and further in view of Knutson et al. (US 2005/0160153 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Baikov teaches a method for orchestrating web services ([paragraph 0040-0041, 0067-0069] describe adapting (orchestrating) web services performing by a server) comprising:
receiving an input message having an address identifying an extension element ([paragraph 0035, 0069] client system use to communicate with a particular web service to the server includes a WSDL file that specifies the WSDL structure, including message formats, Internet protocols, and addresses and server receiving message (input message) [paragraph 0030, 0040-0041, 0049-0051] describe server receiving message (input message) which identifying extension element that is related to WSDL (web service description language) definition refers to a class for representing the WSDL definitions extension element);
Baikov fails to teach determining, from the address, a location of the extension element; and responsive to determining the location of the extension element, directing a normalized message to the location.
However, Knutson teaches determining, from the address, a location of the extension element ([paragraph 0046, 0054-0058] describes determining location of container (extension element) based on the URL address included in the request which identifies a requested service (input message));
and responsive to determining the location of the extension element, directing a normalized message to the location ([paragraph 0038-0039, 0043, 0055] describes processes by which the virtual WSDL directory is set up and utilized to respond to an end user's request for access to a specific file in a web service based on the URL address included in the request which identifies a requested service (input message) and determining location of container (extension element)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Knutson for determining, from the address, a location of the extension element; and responsive to determining the location of the extension element, directing a normalized message to the location. The teachings of Knutson, when implemented in the Baikov system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to receive an input message having an address identifying an extension element. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Knutson in the Baikov system in order to establish a web container on the application server and client is then able to generate a call request to invoke one or more methods on the defined service endpoint based on the information contained in the received WSDL document ([paragraph 0006] in Knutson).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Baikov and Knutson teach the method, wherein determining the location comprises resolving the address to an itinerary comprising a plurality of addresses (Knutson: [paragraph 0018-0020, 0063] describes determining the location comprising plurality of URLs contain enough information to create the WSDL soap addresses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Knutson for determining the location comprises resolving the address to an itinerary comprising a plurality of addresses. The teachings of Knutson, when implemented in the Baikov system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to receive an input message having an address identifying an extension element. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Knutson in the Baikov system in order to establish a web container on the application server and client is then able to generate a call request to invoke one or more methods on the defined service endpoint based on the information contained in the received WSDL document ([paragraph 0006] in Knutson).
Regarding claim 13, this claim contains limitations found within that of claim 1 and the same rationale to rejection is used.
Regarding claim 16, this claim contains limitations found within that of claim 5 and the same rationale to rejection is used.
Regarding claim 24, this claim contains limitations found within that of claim 1 and the same rationale to rejection is used.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Baikov and Knutson teach the system wherein the container includes the extension element (Knutson: [paragraph 0052-0053, 0057-0058] describe the containers include various elements (extension elements)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize the teachings of Knutson for the system wherein the container includes the extension element. The teachings of Knutson, when implemented in the Baikov system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to receive an input message having an address identifying an extension element. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the teachings of Knutson in the Baikov system in order to establish a web container on the application server and client is then able to generate a call request to invoke one or more methods on the defined service endpoint based on the information contained in the received WSDL document ([paragraph 0006] in Knutson).
Regarding claim 30, this claim contains limitations found within that of claim 1 and the same rationale to rejection is used.
17. Claims 2-3, 7-11, 14, 18-22, 25, 27 and 31 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baikov et al. (US 2007/0073769 A1); in view of Knutson et al. (US 2005/0160153 A1); and further in view of Savur et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0154663 Al).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Baikov and Knutson fails to teach the method, comprising storing the normalized message in a computer readable storage medium.
However, Savur teaches the method, comprising storing the normalized message in a computer readable storage medium ([paragraph 0110-0111] describe the message is received and stored in a storage device).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the message in Savur with the system in Baikov and in view of Knutson because the BREL process ensures the message is in the proper format (Savor, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Baikov and Knutson fails to teach the method, wherein the address is a logical address and determining the location comprises mapping the logical address to a physical address.
However, Savur teaches the method, wherein the address is a logical address and determining the location comprises mapping the logical address to a physical address ([paragraph 0027] describe the deployment descriptor maps a service web address or logical address to its actual or physical location).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the message in Savur with the system in Baikov and in view of Knutson because the BPEL process ensures the message is in the proper format (Savur, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Baikov and Knutson fails to teach the method, comprising: determining whether the input message requires a response: and annotating the normalized message with an indication that a reply is required.
However, Savur teaches the method, comprising: determining whether the input message requires a response; and annotating the normalized message with an indication that a reply is required ([paragraph 0034-0035] describe the BREL engine determines the type of request including if a response is required by referring to the deployment descriptor and annotates to the service that a request is required).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the message in Savur with the system in Baikov and in view of Knutson because the BPEL process ensures the message is in the proper format (Savur, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Baikov and Knutson fails to teach the method, comprising: processing the normalized message with the extension element to generate a reply.
However, Savur teaches the method, comprising: processing the normalized message with the extension element to generate a reply ([paragraph 0035] describe the partner service or extension element processes the message to generate a reply).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the message in Savur with the system in Baikov and in view of Knutson because the BPEL process ensures the message is in the proper format (Savur, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Baikov, Knutson and Savur teach the method, comprising: generating an output message including the reply; and sending the output message (Knutson: [paragraph 0054-0058] describe a response message is generated and returned to the engine).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Baikov and Knutson fails to teach the method, wherein the extension element is an extension element for a business process execution language.
However, Savur teaches the method, wherein the extension element is an extension element for a business process execution language ([paragraph 0022] describe the service or process is running BPEL or business process execution language).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the message in Savur with the system in Baikov and in view of Knutson because the BPEL process ensures the message is in the proper format (Savur, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Baikov and Knutson fails to teach the method, comprising processing the normalized message with the extension element.
However, Savur teaches the method, comprising processing the normalized message with the extension element ([paragraph 0035] describe the partner service or extension element processes the request or normalized message).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the message in Savur with the system in Baikov and in view of Knutson because the BPEL process ensures the message is in the proper format (Savur, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 14, this claim contains limitations found within that of claim 3 and the same rationale to rejection is used.
Regarding claims 18-22, these claims contain limitations found within that of claims 7-11 and the same rationale to rejections are used.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Baikov and Knutson fails to teach the system wherein the address is a logical address and the resolver maps the logical address to a physical address for the location.
However, Savur teaches the system wherein the address is a logical address and the resolver maps the logical address to a physical address for the location ([paragraph 0027] describe the deployment descriptor maps a service web address or logical address to its actual or physical location).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the message in Savur with the system in Baikov and in view of Knutson because the BPEL process ensures the message is in the proper format (Savur, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Baikov and Knutson fails to teach the system wherein the business process execution language service comprises a business process execution language engine for processing a normalized message including invoking the extension element.
However, Savur teaches the system wherein the business process execution language service comprises a business process execution language engine for processing a normalized message including invoking the extension element ([paragraph 0035] describe the partner service or extension element is invoked or processes the request or normalized message).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the message in Savur with the system in Baikov and in view of Knutson because the BPEL process ensures the message is in the proper format (Savur, paragraph 3).
Regarding claim 31, this claim contains limitations found within that of claim 2 and the same rationale to rejection is used.
18. Claims 4, 6, 15, 17, 29 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baikov et al. (US 2007/0073769 A1); in view of Knutson et al. (US 2005/0160153 A1); and further in view of Cullen (US Patent No. 7,039,671 B2).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Baikov and Knutson fails to teach the method, wherein the location is a message oriented middleware destination.
However, Cullen teaches the method, wherein the location is a message oriented middleware destination ([column 4, line 50 - column 5, line 10] describe the location is accessed using a message oriented middleware (MOM) architecture).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the MOM architecture in Cullen with the system in Baikov and in view of Knutson because software applications are enabled to communicate despite the disparity in the programs and/or the heterogeneity in the platforms without requiring a detailed understanding by the administrators or users (Cullen, column 1, lines 56-62).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Baikov and Knutson teach the method wherein: the address is a logical address (Knutson: [paragraph 0063] describe the address is a URL or logical address).
Baikov and Knutson fails to teach the plurality of addresses is a plurality of physical addresses.
However, Cullen teaches the plurality of addresses is a plurality of physical addresses ([column 4, lines 20-38] describe the groups are of physical groups or processors).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the architecture in Cullen with the system in Baikov and in view of Knutson because software applications are enabled to communicate despite the disparity in the programs and/or the heterogeneity in the platforms without requiring a detailed understanding by the administrators or users (Cullen, column 1, lines 58-62).
Regarding claim 15, this claim contains limitations found within that of claim 4 and the same rationale to rejection is used.
Regarding claim 17, this claim contains limitations found within that of claim 6 and the same rationale to rejection is used.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Baikov and Knutson teach the system wherein the container is adapted to communicate with the extension element as recited above.
Baikov and Knutson fails to teach wherein the extension element is at a remote physical location from the container.
However, Cullen teaches wherein the extension element is at a remote physical location from the container ([column 6, lines 2-27] describe processing of the request is done remotely).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the remote processing feature in Cullen with the system in Baikov and in view of Knutson because software applications are enabled to communicate despite the disparity in the programs and/or the heterogeneity in the platforms without requiring a detailed understanding by the administrators or users (Cullen, column 1, lines 56-62).
Regarding claim 32, this claim contains limitations found within that of claim 4 and the same rationale to rejection is used.
19. Claims 12 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baikov et al. (US 2007/0073769 A1); in view of Knutson et al. (US 2005/0160153 A1); in view of Savur et al. (US PGPUB 2008/0154663 Al); and further in view of Cullen (US Patent No. 7,039,671 B2).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Baikov, Knutson and Savur fails to teach the method, wherein processing is performed at a location remote from receiving, determining and directing.
However, Cullen teaches the method wherein processing is performed at a location remote from receiving, determining and directing ([column 6, lines 2-27] describe teaches processing of the request is done remotely).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the remote processing feature in Cullen with the system in Baikov in view of Knutson and Savur because software applications are enabled to communicate despite the disparity in the programs and/or the heterogeneity in the platforms without requiring a detailed understanding by the administrators or users (Cullen, column 1, lines 56-82).
Regarding claim 23, this claim contains limitations found within that of claim 12 and the same rationale to rejection is used.
20. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baikov et al. (US 2007/0073769 A1); in view of Knutson et al. (US 2005/0160153 A1); and further in view of Dippel (US PGPUB US 2008/0120607 Al).
Regarding claim 26, Baikov and Knutson fails to teach the system wherein the business process execution language service comprises a script engine for processing a command definition to map a script variable to one or more web services description language parameters.
However, Dippel teaches the business process execution language service comprises a script engine for processing a command definition to map a script variable to one or more web services description language parameters ([paragraph 0024] describe parameters for a service are mapped to another service such as from WSDL to another data type).
At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the WSDL mapping in Dippel with the system in Baikov in view of Knutson because a web service description language transformation for mapping primitive and/or derived date types into web services parameters made up of simple or complex data types is provided (Dippel, paragraph 8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- Angelov et al., US 2008/0228851 A1, A method and system for implementing Web service built-in endpoints is described.
- Beringer et al. US 2004/0205765 A1, A method and system for a web-services interface for a web-service comprises a message binding extension element.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHULKUMAR J SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6:05 am-3:55 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TONIA DOLLINGER can be reached at 571-272-4170. 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.
/M.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2459
/TONIA L DOLLINGER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights