Advisory Action
`Before the Filing of an Appeal Brief
`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
`121628,060
`
`Examiner
`
`Viet Vu
`
`ARUNACHALAM, LAKSHMI
`
`Art Unit
`
`2448
`
`--The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address -(cid:173)
`THE REPLY FILED 07 April2011 FAILS TO PLACE THIS APPLICATION IN CONDITION FOR ALLOWANCE.
`1. ~ The reply was filed after a final rejection, but prior to or on the same day as filing a Notice of Appeal. To avoid abandonment of this
`application, applicant must timely file one of the following replies: (1) an amendment, affidavit, or other evidence, which places the
`application in condition for allowance; (2) a Notice of Appeal (with appeal fee) in compliance with 37 CFR 41.31; or (3) a Request
`for Continued Examination (RCE) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.114. The reply must be filed within one of the following time
`periods:
`a) D The period for reply expires ___ months from the mailing date of the final rejection.
`b) [8J The period for reply expires on: (1) the mailing date of this Advisory Action, or (2) the date set forth in the final rejection, whichever is later. In
`no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of the final rejection.
`Examiner Note: If box 1 is checked, check either box (a) or (b). ONLY CHECK BOX (b) WHEN THE FIRST REPLY WAS FILED WITHIN TWO
`MONTHS OF THE FINAL REJECTION. See MPEP 706.07(f).
`Extensions of time may be obtained under 37 CFR 1.136(a). The date on which the petition under 37 CFR 1.136(a) and the appropriate extension fee
`have been filed is the date for purposes of determining the period of extension and the corresponding amount of the fee. The appropriate extension fee
`under 37 CFR 1.17(a) is calculated from: (1) the expiration date of the shortened statutory period for reply originally set in the final Office action; or (2) as
`set forth in (b) above, if checked. Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of the final rejection, even if timely filed,
`may reduce any earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`NOTICE OF APPEAL
`2. D The Notice of Appeal was filed on __ . A brief in compliance with 37 CFR 41.37 must be filed within two months of the date of
`filing the Notice of Appeal (37 CFR 41.37(a)), or any extension thereof (37 CFR 41.37(e)), to avoid dismissal of the appeal. Since a
`Notice of Appeal has been filed, any reply must be filed within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 41.37(a).
`AMENDMENTS
`3. D The proposed amendment(s) filed after a final rejection, but prior to the date of filing a brief, will not be entered because
`(a) D They raise new issues that would require further consideration and/or search (see NOTE below);
`(b)D They raise the issue of new matter (see NOTE below);
`(c) D They are not deemed to place the application in better form for appeal by materially reducing or simplifying the issues for
`appeal; and/or
`(d) D They present additional claims without canceling a corresponding number of finally rejected claims.
`NOTE: __ . (See 37 CFR 1.116 and 41.33(a)).
`4. D The amendments are not in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121. See attached Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment (PTOL-324).
`5. D Applicant's reply has overcome the following rejection(s): __ .
`6. D Newly proposed or amended claim(s) __ would be allowable if submitted in a separate, timely filed amendment canceling the
`non-allowable claim(s).
`7. D For purposes of appeal, the proposed amendment(s): a) D will not be entered, or b) D will be entered and an explanation of
`how the new or amended claims would be rejected is provided below or appended.
`The status of the claim(s) is (or will be) as follows:
`Claim(s) allowed: __ .
`Claim(s) objected to: __ .
`Claim(s) rejected: __ .
`Claim(s) withdrawn from consideration: __ .
`AFFIDAVIT OR OTHER EVIDENCE
`8. D The affidavit or other evidence filed after a final action, but before or on the date of filing a Notice of Appeal will not be entered
`because applicant failed to provide a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the affidavit or other evidence is necessary and
`was not earlier presented. See 37 CFR 1.116(e).
`9. D The affidavit or other evidence filed after the date of filing a Notice of Appeal, but prior to the date of filing a brief, will not be
`entered because the affidavit or other evidence failed to overcome §l! rejections under appeal and/or appellant fails to provide a
`showing a good and sufficient reasons why it is necessary and was not earlier presented. See 37 CFR 41.33(d)(1).
`10. D The affidavit or other evidence is entered. An explanation of the status of the claims after entry is below or attached.
`REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION/OTHER
`11 . ~ The request for reconsideration has been considered but does NOT place the application in condition for allowance because:
`applicant's erguments are not found persuasive.
`12. D Note the attached Information Disclosure Statement(s). (PTO/S8/08) Paper No(s). __
`13. D Other: __ .
`
`Niet Vu/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2448
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL·303 (Rev. 08·06)
`
`Advisory Action Before the Filing of an Appeal Brief
`
`Part of Paper No. 20110425
`
`

`
`·
`
`.~.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`WEBX-103US1
`
`Appln. No:
`Applicant:
`Filed:
`Title:
`TC/A.U.:
`Examiner:
`Confirmation No.:
`Docket No.:
`
`12/628,060
`Lakshmi Arunachalam
`November 30, 2009
`WEB SERVICE NETWORK PORTAL
`2448
`Viet Duy Vu
`5199
`WEBX-103US1
`
`LOSS OF ENTITLEMENT OF SMALL ENTITY STATUS
`
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Sir:
`
`Applicant is no longer entitled to small entity status in connection with the above(cid:173)
`
`identified patent application.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`~ / ~ K~igOn, Reg. No. 31,549
`
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`KNN/nm
`
`Dated: May 2, 2011
`
`1248686
`
`

`
`Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt
`
`EFSID:
`
`Application Number:
`
`9996309
`
`12628060
`
`International Application Number:
`
`Confirmation Number:
`
`5199
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`Web Service Network Portal
`
`First Named Inventor/Applicant Name:
`
`Lakshmi Arunachalam
`
`Customer Number:
`
`14198
`
`Filer:
`
`Kenneth Nicholas Nigon
`
`Filer Authorized By:
`
`Attorney Docket Number:
`
`PA5106US
`
`Receipt Date:
`
`Filing Date:
`
`TimeStamp:
`
`02-MAY-2011
`
`30-NOV-2009
`
`14:50:05
`
`Application Type:
`
`Utility under 35 USC 111 (a)
`
`Payment information:
`
`Submitted with Payment
`
`I no
`
`File Listing:
`
`Document
`Number
`
`Document Description
`
`File Name
`
`1
`
`Miscellaneous Incoming Letter
`
`LossofEntitlementoSmallEntity
`Status.pdf
`
`Warnings:
`
`Information:
`
`File Size(Bytes)/
`Message Digest
`
`Multi
`Part /.zip
`
`Pages
`(ifappl.)
`
`19223
`
`no
`
`1
`
`b949293225783a0601 c90068el f544d8772
`e7042
`
`

`
`Total Files Size (in bytes)
`
`19223
`
`This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO of the indicated documents,
`characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt similar to a
`Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.
`
`New Applications Under 35 U.S.c. 111
`If a new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date (see 37 CFR
`1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date shown on this
`Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date of the application.
`
`National Stage of an International Application under 35 U.S.c. 371
`If a timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions of 35
`U.S.c. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DO/EO/903 indicating acceptance of the application as a
`national stage submission under 35 U.S.c. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt, in due course.
`
`New International Application Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office
`If a new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary components for
`an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 1810), a Notification of the International Application Number
`and of the International Filing Date (Form PCT/RO/l 05) will be issued in due course, subject to prescriptions concerning
`national security, and the date shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the international filing date of
`the application.
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Ul\TfE]) STI\TES ])EPA RTME'IT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Adill",. COMMISSIO'JER FOR PATENTS
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virgmia 22313-1450
`\VVi\V.uspto.gOY
`
`APPLICATION NUMBER
`12/628,060
`
`PATENT NUMBER
`
`GROUP ART UNIT
`2448
`
`FILE WRAPPER LOCATION
`
`111111111111111111111111~~mllli~~I~~~~~~111111111111111111111111
`Correspondence Address/Fee Address Change
`
`The following fields have been set to Customer Number 14198 on 04/25/2011
`• Correspondence Address
`• Maintenance Fee Address
`
`The address of record for Customer Number 14198 is:
`
`14198
`Ratner Prestia
`P.O. Box 980
`Valley Forge, PA 19482
`
`PART 1 - ATTORNEY/APPLICANT COPY
`page 1 of 1
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`APPLICATION NUMBER
`12/628,060
`
`FILING OR 371 (C) DATE
`11130/2009
`
`23122
`RATNERPRESTIA
`P.O. BOX 980
`VALLEY FORGE, PA 19482
`
`Ul\TfE]) STI\TES ])EPA RTME'IT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Adill",. COMMISSIO'JER FOR PATENTS
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virgmia 22313-1450
`\VVi\V.uspto.gOY
`
`FIRST NAMED APPLICANT
`Lakshmi Arunachalam
`
`ATTY. DOCKET NO.lTITLE
`PA5106US
`CONFIRMATION NO. 5199
`POA ACCEPTANCE LETTER
`
`111111111111111111111111]~!I]~~I~~I~~11~~I~~~U1111111111111111111111111
`
`Date Mailed: 04/13/2011
`
`NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF POWER OF ATTORNEY
`
`This is in response to the Power of Attorney filed 04/06/2011.
`
`The Power of Attorney in this application is accepted. Correspondence in this application will be mailed to the
`above address as provided by 37 CFR 1.33.
`
`Ivvanl
`
`Office of Data Management, Application Assistance Unit (571) 272-4000, or (571) 272-4200, or 1-888-786-0101
`
`page 1 of 1
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`APPLICATION NUMBER
`12/628,060
`
`FILING OR 371 (C) DATE
`11130/2009
`
`22830
`CARR & FERRELL LLP
`120 CONSTITUTION DRIVE
`MENLO PARK, CA 94025
`
`Ul\TfE]) STI\TES ])EPA RTME'IT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Adill",. COMMISSIO'JER FOR PATENTS
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virgmia 22313-1450
`\VVi\V.uspto.gOY
`
`FIRST NAMED APPLICANT
`Lakshmi Arunachalam
`
`ATTY. DOCKET NO.lTITLE
`PA5106US
`CONFIRMATION NO. 5199
`POWER OF ATTORNEY NOTICE
`
`111111111111111111111111]~!I]~~I~~I~~11~~I~~~U1111111111111111111111111
`
`Date Mailed: 04/13/2011
`
`NOTICE REGARDING CHANGE OF POWER OF ATTORNEY
`
`This is in response to the Power of Attorney filed 04/06/2011 .
`
`• The Power of Attorney to you in this application has been revoked by the assignee who has intervened as
`provided by 37 CFR 3.71. Future correspondence will be mailed to the new address of record(37 CFR 1.33).
`
`Ivvanl
`
`Office of Data Management, Application Assistance Unit (571) 272-4000, or (571) 272-4200, or 1-888-786-0101
`
`page 1 of 1
`
`

`
`Appln. No.: 12/628,060
`Amendment Dated April 7, 2011
`Reply to Office Action of February 7,2011
`
`WEBX-1 03US 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Appln. No:
`Applicant:
`Filed:
`Title:
`T.C.lA.D.:
`Examiner:
`Confirmation No.:
`Docket No.:
`
`12/628,060
`Lakshmi Arunachalam
`November 30, 2009
`WEB SERVICE NETWORK PORTAL
`2448
`Viet DuyVu
`5199
`WEBX-103US1
`
`REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERA TION PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 1.116
`EXPEDITED PROCEDURE
`
`Mail Stop AF
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Sir:
`
`Responsive to the Final Office Action dated February 7, 2011, Applicant requests
`reconsideration in view of the following remarks:
`
`Remarksl Arguments begin on page 2 of this paper.
`
`Page 1 of9
`
`

`
`Appln. No.: 12/628,060
`Amendment Dated April 7, 2011
`Reply to Office Action of February 7,2011
`
`WEBX-103US1
`
`REMARKS/ARGUMENTS
`
`Applicant's Response to Examiner's Art Rejections mailed on February 7,2011:
`
`In the Final Office Action mailed on February 7,2011, the Examiner has rejected
`
`Claims 1-7 under 35 US.c. 103(a), as being unpatentable over Rogers et aI, US. Patent
`
`No. 5,793,964 ("Rogers"). Applicant respectfully disagrees, traverses these rejections
`
`and shows that Rogers does not render obvious the claims of the 12/628,060 application.
`
`Rogers is unrelated to Applicant's invention, as evidenced below. The present invention
`
`provides for real-time, two-way transactions using web applications, which Rogers
`
`manifestly neither teaches nor remotely renders obvious.
`
`Claim 1 recites
`
`A computer-implemented employee-accessible web service network portal
`operated by a business entity, comprising:
`
`a point of service application stored in memory and executable by a
`processor provided by a particular sub-entity related to the business entity on a
`Web page;
`
`a second application stored in memory and executable by a processor
`provided by a different sub-entity also related to the business entity; and
`
`a portal stored in memory and executable by a processor allowing an
`employee access to the point of service application on the Web page, the portal
`also allowing the employee to transfer information in real-time from the second
`application to the point of service application, and wherein the portal offers the
`point of service application as an on-line service on a Web page, and further
`wherein the portal is operated by the business entity over a service network atop
`the Web.
`
`Rogers does not disclose a Web application or a Point-of-Service application on a
`
`Web page. Applicant's "point of service application" is a Web application running atop
`
`the Web. See the parent US. Patent No. 5,778,178, as in '178:1:63-64 and '178:2:42.
`
`There is a significant difference between a physical network or "a facilities network" on
`
`the one hand, and the "service network" "atop a facilities network" (such as the physical
`
`Internet, Web, .. email networks" or "other IP-based facilities networks"), disclosed in the
`
`Page 2 of9
`
`

`
`Appln. No.: 12/628,060
`Amendment Dated April 7, 2011
`Reply to Office Action of February 7,2011
`
`WEBX-1 03US 1
`
`Application (see again, parent application, '178:5:51-53; '178:6:25-26. Rogers discloses
`
`only a physical network, not a "service network atop the Web".
`
`Rogers utilizes CGI, which strips field-by-field from a Web form and sends it as
`
`standard 1/0. CGI is not a service network atop the Web. In the relevant time frame, CGI
`
`lacked the material capabilities and novelties in the present Application.
`
`Furthermore,
`
`CGI is not a Web application or point-of-service application on a Web page.
`
`DIS in Rogers is not on a Web page, nor is DIS a point-of-service application on
`
`a Web page or a Web application. The DIS in Rogers is in a LAN, and particularly an
`
`IBM token ring LAN, and not "on a Web page":
`
`Web server 11, in our preferred embodiment is coupled again bi-directionally via
`a line or wireless coupling to a computer system, such as a PS/2 or RS/6000 or
`other server which supports and performs the server function ofODAS server 12,
`which is coupled to the distributed DIS network, here shown as LAN 13.
`
`(9:4-10). Rogers discloses only a LAN, the IBM token ring LAN or a WAN. ((9:30-
`
`33). In the alternative preferred embodiment discussed in Rogers with respect to Rogers'
`
`Fig.11 (9:39-41), Rogers says his system "may be employed in a distributed computing
`
`environment which has internal or intranet networks represented in our preferred
`
`embodiment by the DIS Network 13 and external networks including the Internet to
`
`connect clients to World Wide Web servers and other servers within the system ... ". A
`
`LAN or a WAN or a connection to the physical Internet to connect to World Wide Web
`
`servers is a physical network, not "a service network atop the Web", as in the present
`
`Application. Rogers' describes a DIS Network as LAN 13 and states that "Thus the
`
`components of the DIS LAN 13 comprise a DIS File Server 14 ... ".(9: 18-21) Rogers'
`
`does not disclose or teach "a Point-of-Service application" "on a Web page", nor "a
`
`service network atop the Web", as in Applicant's 12/628,060 application.
`
`Further, the DIS in Rogers is not "a point-of-service application" "executable by a
`
`processor" "provided by ... a business entity on a Web page", as in the present
`
`Application. Examiner cites Rogers' at 9:12-17 and 11:35-41. However, these lines do
`
`Page 3 of9
`
`

`
`Appln. No.: 12/628,060
`Amendment Dated April 7, 2011
`Reply to Office Action of February 7,2011
`
`WEBX-I03USI
`
`not disclose or teach "a point-of-service application" "provided ... on a Web page", as in
`
`the present Application. The present Application shows a Point-of-Service application on
`
`Figs. 5B, 5C and 5D, and states:
`
`An example of a POSvc application list is illustrated in Fig. 5C. User 100 can
`thus select from POSvc applications Bank 51 O( 1), Car Dealer 510(2) or Pizzeria
`510(3). Numerous other POSvc applications are can be included in this selection.
`Ifuser 100 desires to perform a number of banking transactions, and selects the
`Bank application, a Bank POSvc will be activated and presented to use 100, as
`illustrated in Fig. 5D.
`
`Rogers' disclosure at 16:54-67, which the Examiner cites, relates to "DB26000
`
`databases located inside the intranet 140 and on the Internet by Internetwork routing to
`
`database gateway 134'and its DB26000 databases by step 91(a)", and 91(a) to 91(n)
`
`relate merely to database queries. This is unrelated to what is claimed in Claim 1 of the
`
`present Application, which relates to "a point-of-service application ... provided ... on a
`
`Web page", accessed by an "employee to transfer information in real-time from the
`
`second application to the point of service application, and wherein the portal offers the
`
`point of service application as an on-line service on a Web page, and further wherein the
`
`portal is operated by the business entity over a service network atop the Web." Rogers'
`
`"intranet 140 and ... the Internet by Internetwork routing" refer to a physical network, a
`
`"facilities network", not "a service network atop the Web", as in the present Application.
`
`Rogers' does not disclose nor teach "transfer information in real-time from the second
`
`application to the point of service application ... over a service network atop the Web".
`
`Rogers, therefore, cannot meet this or any of the limitations in Claim 1 that relate to a
`
`"point-of-service application" "provided on a Web page", nor to "transfer information in
`
`real-time from the second application to the point of service application ... over a service
`
`network atop the Web", nor to "a service network atop the Web". Rogers is missing "the
`
`point of service application as an on-line service on a Web page", as claimed in Claim 1
`
`of the present Application. The present Application allows a user/employee to perform
`
`and complete Web transactions in real-time from a Web application offered as an online
`
`service on a Web page or point-of-service application on a Web page, and allows the
`
`user/employee to transfer information between a Web application or point-of-service
`
`application on a Web page and a second application or a transactional application
`
`Page 4 of9
`
`

`
`Appln. No.: 12/628,060
`Amendment Dated April 7, 2011
`Reply to Office Action of February 7,2011
`
`WEBX-103US1
`
`executing anywhere across a service network atop the Web, which Rogers does not teach
`
`and cannot do.
`
`In Section 2.c, the Examiner suggests that Rogers' statements at 12:6-16, 15:44-
`
`60, 16:43-67, 11:42-64 and 12:30-48 disclose or teach
`
`a portal (control program agent 73) stored in memory and executable by a
`processor (server 131) for allowing a user access to the point-of-service
`application on the Web page, the portal also allowing the user to submit a request
`(for particular data) that would cause a transfer of information in real time from a
`second application to the point-of-service application (DIS), and wherein the
`portal offers the point of service application as an online service on a Web page,
`and is operated by the business entity over a service network atop the Web.
`
`Applicant respectfully traverses this conclusion, because the portal in the present
`
`Application is distinctly different from the control program agent 73 in Rogers. As noted
`
`in the previous paragraphs, Rogers discloses "image objects," and does not disclose or
`
`suggest a Web application or Point-of-Service application provided on a Web page, nor a
`
`Point-of-Service application offered as an on-line service on a Web page. Rogers
`
`concerns displays on a Web browser that include pie charts, reports, not a Web
`
`application or Point-of-Service application provided on a Web page as an on-line service
`
`on a Web page, nor does Rogers allow a user "to transfer information in real-time from
`
`the second application to the point of service application, and wherein the portal offers
`
`the point of service application as an on-line service on a Web page, and further wherein
`
`the portal is operated by the business entity over a service network atop the Web." The
`
`Examiner is incorrect in stating that Rogers' "control program agent 73" is a portal. A
`
`portal is a Web site or Web server.
`
`Rogers utilizes CGI and stripping field-by-field from a Web form and each field
`being sent one at a time as standard 110 (12: 15-16). This is exactly the art that the
`
`Application explicitly disclaims and distinguishes in the present Application (' 178: 1:65-
`
`2:31).
`
`Page 5 of9
`
`

`
`Appln. No.: 12/628,060
`Amendment Dated April 7, 2011
`Reply to Office Action of February 7,2011
`
`WEBX-I03USI
`
`The Examiner cites Rogers at 15:44-60. This excerpt does not relate to the
`
`presently claimed invention. It is not correct that "the portal also allowing the user to
`
`submit a request (for particular data) that would cause a transfer of information in real(cid:173)
`
`time fyom second application to the point- of service application DIS". Rogers is about
`
`the form of presentation on a Web browser, namely, text, multimedia, voice response, as
`
`Rogers explicitly states in Rogers '964: 16:43-67 and in Rogers"964: 10:56-62: "While ...
`
`text as the form
`
`the report results, the fonn of the request can be another form of
`
`presentation, as an image, a voice response, or other multimedia presentation. Reports
`
`can be returned translated into any desired language based upon the request, as may be
`
`provided by DIS capsule calls to a translator. These features are included in the result 50
`
`report". This is unrelated to a 'point-of-service application ... provided on a Web page"
`
`or a point of-service application "offered as an on-line service on a Web page" or to a
`
`Web application. Both 'point-of-service application ... provided on a Web page' or 'on(cid:173)
`
`line service on a Web page' or "service network atop the Web" and 'Web application' are
`
`missing in Rogers. See Rogers 9:67 and Fig. 2.
`
`The Examiner suggests in Section 2. c) ofthe Office Action that Rogers at 11:42-
`
`64 and '964: 12:30-48 discloses that "the portal offers the point-of-service application as
`
`an online service on a Web page", as recited in Claim 1. This is incorrect. Claim 1
`
`requires that the point-of-service application is "on a Web page," and offered atop the
`
`Web. Rogers discloses CGI, "formatted report results" and a physical network such as a
`
`LAN, but does not disclose any Web application or "a point-of-service application on a
`
`Web page", much less a Web application or "point-of-service application offered as an
`
`on-line service on a Web page".
`
`Rogers describes database retrieval of information from databases using CGI and
`
`DIS server. See Rogers column 9, lines 45-58:
`
`The Web browser 10 can make a request to the Web Server 11 for a report. The
`Web server 11 with the facilities we provide causes the application processing
`agent which includes our DIS server 14 and its supporting communication server,
`the database gateway server 18, to act as an agent to gather data from one or more
`of the multiple databases, including the local database 16, DB2 database 19,
`
`Page60f9
`
`

`
`Appln. No.: 12/628,060
`Amendment Dated April 7, 2011
`Reply to Office Action of February 7, 2011
`
`WEBX-l 03US 1
`
`ORACLE database 20, Sybase database 21, Redbrick database 22. Further details
`with respect to the use of our invention for database retrieval of information from
`multiple databases are provided as to the actions of the application processing
`agent functions of the database server(s) 18 with reference to FIG. 7.
`
`Nothing in the above language suggests the presently claimed limitations such as
`
`a point of service application ... provided ... on a Web page;
`
`or the limitation:
`
`a portal ... allowing an employee access to the point of service application on the
`Web page, the portal also allowing the employee to transfer information in real(cid:173)
`time from the second application to the point of service application, and wherein
`the portal offers the point of service application as an on-line service on a Web
`~, and further wherein the portal is operated by the business entity over f!
`service network atop the Web
`
`Rogers in 10: 17-21 discloses: "When the user selected image 30 by clicking on the image
`
`30, FIG. 3 appears. FIG. 3 is the next screen which illustrates how a request is made according
`
`to a user's desires, making a request in accordance with our invention with an input screen
`
`shown." As Rogers himself states, the user clicks on an image display or image object 30", not a
`
`Web application or Point-of-Service application on a Web page or 'on-line service', as in the
`
`present Application.
`
`The Examiner suggests that Roger discloses "transfer of information in real-time from
`
`second application to the point of service application (DIS)." As discussed earlier, a DIS is not
`
`"a point of service application ... provided ... on a Web page" as claimed here. Thus, Rogers
`
`can neither disclose nor suggest "transfer of information in real-time from second application to
`
`the point of service application," which is non-existent in Rogers. As noted above, Rogers
`
`discloses utilizing CGI and sending field-by-field as standard 1/0 from a Web form, not
`
`"transfer of information in real-time from" "second application to the point of service
`
`application" "over a service network atop the Web," as in the present Application.
`
`Page 7 of9
`
`

`
`Appln. No.: 12/628,060
`Amendment Dated April 7, 2011
`Reply to Office Action of February 7,2011
`
`WEBX-1 03US 1
`
`Furthermore, Rogers does not disclose or suggest "allowing the employee to transfer
`
`information in real-time from the second application to the point of service application, and
`
`wherein the portal offers the point of service application as an on-line service on a Web page."
`
`Applicant accepts the Examiner's official notice that a database server will include
`
`database software for processing the information. This point is moot, however, because this
`
`official notice does not supply the critical limitations missing in Rogers, such as Rogers' lack of
`
`a Web application or "transfer of information in real-time from" a "second application to the
`
`point of service application." The Examiner himself admits that Rogers does not teach providing
`
`a second application stored in memory and executable by the second processor.
`
`The statement that "It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time of the invention to recognize the use of such second application in Rogers because it would
`
`have allowed processing query request by the point-of-service application (DIS)" is unsupported
`
`by Rogers' disclosure at 15:44-60, and is not correct. The Office Action fails to recognize that
`
`Rogers is plainly missing the claimed point-of-service application on a Web page. The DIS is
`
`not a point-of-service application on a Web page.
`
`Claims 2-7
`
`Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and are not subject to rejection under 35 US.c. § 103(a)
`
`in view of Rogers for at least the same reasons. Further, Rogers does not disclose the additional
`
`elements of the dependent claims. The Examiner's statements that the additional elements would
`
`have been obvious are unsupported.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`The Examiner's rejections have been overcome because the single cited reference
`
`does not disclose material features set forth in the proposed claims.
`
`The Examiner is respectfully requested to bring the prosecution to a close and
`
`Issue a Notice of Allowance that confirms the patentability of the Claims 1-7. The
`
`Page 8 of9
`
`

`
`Appln. No.: 12/628,060
`Amendment Dated April 7, 2011
`Reply to Office Action of February 7,2011
`
`WEBX-103US1
`
`Examiner is invited to contact the undersigned counsel with any questions concerning the
`
`present response.
`
`Applicant respectfully requests the Examiner to issue the patent, as the claims are
`
`currently in condition for allowance.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`IKenneth N. Nigon/
`KennethN. Nigon Reg. No. 31,549
`Attorney for Applicant( s)
`
`Dated: April 7, 2011
`
`~ P.O. Box 980
`Valley Forge, P A 19482
`(610) 407-0700
`
`I
`
`D P.O. Box 1596
`Wilmington, DE 19899
`(302) 778-2500
`
`The Director is hereby authorized to charge or credit
`Deposit Account No. 18-0350 for
`any additional fees, or any underpayment or credit for
`overpayment in connection herewith.
`
`I hereby certifY that this correspondence is being deposited with the
`United States Postal Service as first class mail, with sufficient postage, in
`an envelope addressed to: Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450,
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 on:
`
`Page 9 of9
`
`

`
`Electronic Acknowledgement Receipt
`
`EFSID:
`
`Application Number:
`
`9835790
`
`12628060
`
`International Application Number:
`
`Confirmation Number:
`
`5199
`
`Title of Invention:
`
`Web Service Network Portal
`
`First Named Inventor/Applicant Name:
`
`Lakshmi Arunachalam
`
`Customer Number:
`
`22830
`
`Filer:
`
`Kenneth Nicholas Nigon/Jeannette Rayfield
`
`Filer Authorized By:
`
`Kenneth Nicholas Nigon
`
`Attorney Docket Number:
`
`PA5106US
`
`Receipt Date:
`
`Filing Date:
`
`TimeStamp:
`
`07-APR-2011
`
`30-NOV-2009
`
`18:40:20
`
`Application Type:
`
`Utility under 35 USC 111 (a)
`
`Payment information:
`
`Submitted with Payment
`
`I no
`
`File Listing:
`
`Document
`Number
`
`1
`
`Document Description
`
`File Name
`
`File Size(Bytes)/
`Message Digest
`
`Multi
`Part /.zip
`
`Pages
`(ifappl.)
`
`Response_toJinal_Office_Acti
`on.pdf
`
`491573
`
`2187b9348f62aObSaff8f4d97fccb33ca67e 1
`b3,
`
`yes
`
`9
`
`

`
`Multipart Description/PDF files in .zip description
`
`Document Description
`
`Start
`
`End
`
`Amendment After Final
`
`Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment
`
`1
`
`2
`
`1
`
`9
`
`Warnings:
`
`Information:
`
`Total Files Size (in bytes)
`
`491573
`
`This Acknowledgement Receipt evidences receipt on the noted date by the USPTO of the indicated documents,
`characterized by the applicant, and including page counts, where applicable. It serves as evidence of receipt similar to a
`Post Card, as described in MPEP 503.
`
`New A~~lications Under 35 U.S.c. 111
`If a new application is being filed and the application includes the necessary components for a filing date (see 37 CFR
`1.53(b)-(d) and MPEP 506), a Filing Receipt (37 CFR 1.54) will be issued in due course and the date shown on this
`Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the filing date of the application.
`
`National Stage of an International A~~lication under 35 U.S.c. 371
`If a timely submission to enter the national stage of an international application is compliant with the conditions of 35
`U.S.c. 371 and other applicable requirements a Form PCT/DO/EO/903 indicating acceptance of the application as a
`national stage submission under 35 U.S.c. 371 will be issued in addition to the Filing Receipt, in due course.
`
`New International A~~lication Filed with the USPTO as a Receiving Office
`If a new international application is being filed and the international application includes the necessary components for
`an international filing date (see PCT Article 11 and MPEP 1810), a Notification of the International Application Number
`and of the International Filing Date (Form PCT/RO/l 05) will be issued in due course, subject to prescriptions concerning
`national security, and the date shown on this Acknowledgement Receipt will establish the international f