DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 8/19/25, with respect to the 101 rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art relied upon does not disclose (Argument 1; Remarks pg. 27 lines 14-17) that there is no technical rational as to why the building blocks in Graham are viewed as including the set of platform specific artifacts and product specific artifacts according to the selected linkages, (Argument 2, Remarks pg. 27 lines 27-28) Graham does not show a user to select or define linkages between platform specific and product specific artifacts and (Argument 3; Remarks pg. 27 line 34- pg. 28 line 1) that the software image building process includes automatically linking platform specific building blocks, components or artifacts with product specific building blocks according to user selected linkages.
With respect to applicant’s arguments examiner respectfully disagrees. As to argument 1, the teachings of Graham [0013] lines 8-22 [0014] lines 4-11, [0024] lines 1-13, [0034] lines 11-17 and [0036] lines 1-11 shows that the building blocks of the software image where these building blocks are software or data components and can be a file, program, application, object, dynamic link library, data structure definition, data structure, a file system definition, file system, applet, servlet, subroutine, database record, database, device drive, os service pack, quick fix engineering component and the like, where the software defined by these building blocks can include software such as source code and can be implemented in a variety of executable and/or loadable forms including but not limited to stand alone program, function calls both local and remote, part of an operating system or other types of executable instructions viewed as showing software building blocks implement with/part of the operating system, viewed as integrated with the source code of the operating system and having other software elements/components/building blocks that are stand alone, external to source code of the operating system, thus viewed as showing software artifact/building components can be associated/integrated with os/platform specific artifacts and have software artifacts that can be stand alone program/product specific artifact outside os, where these software component building blocks are stored in data store along with build information concerning/related to the building block including attributes that can describe information such as os associated with building block, os version associated with building block, spoken language associated with building block, computer language associated with building block, region in which build block functions, a device identifier for a device with which build block functions, and the like showing that building blocks can be defined with os/platform type artifacts where not all these aspects are needed but shows building blocks being distinguished based on os associated with it if an OS is associated with it thus the superset of building blocks can including building blocks viewed as platform specific type building blocks and product specific type building blocks.
As to argument 2, first it is seen in the teachings of Yoshida [0103] lines 1-19 the basics of the selection of linkage information between OS and application/product with is showing in response to the selection of the operating system configuration/linkage, viewed as linkage between OS and application/product options performing read out options associated with that information thus receiving that information, where Graham [0013] lines 8-22 and [0014] lines 4-11 states that the rules concerning how to process (e.g. compiling, linking, translating, linking and copying) the building blocks to be formed into the platform specific software image, where rules are also included in the superset and the specific software image can be built by selecting a subset of the building blocks and/or rules, and as rules are viewed as showing how building blocks should be processed/linked viewed as a type of selection of the linkages between the selected building blocks.
As to argument 3, as seen argued above the teachings of Graham[0013] lines 8-22 [0014] lines 4-11, [0024] lines 1-13, [0034] lines 11-17, [0036] lines 1-11 [0063] lines 1-17, [0064] lines 1-8 and [0066] lines 1-12 shows that the software building blocks can include specifically defined platform specific building blocks, building blocks integrated with the source code of the os, and stand alone product specific building blocks external/separate/outside code for the os and the specific selection of the rules/defined linkages between the selected building blocks and thus based on the selected/picked building blocks/artifacts, that can include platform and product specific artifacts are automatically built/assembled into the platform specific software image.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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 1 recites the limitation “the product” in lines 8, 9 and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is the product its own element or a term used interchangeable with the platform-specific product throughout the claim appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1 above and do not overcome this issue thus rejected under the same reasoning.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the product” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is the product its own element or a term used interchangeable with the platform-specific product throughout the claim appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5 and 6 depend from claim 4 above and do not overcome this issue thus rejected under the same reasoning.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the product” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is the product its own element or a term used interchangeable with the platform-specific product throughout the claim appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the set of artifacts" in line 1 it is unclear what is being referenced to by this limitation is this a reference to the set of platform specific artifacts, the set of product specific artifacts or the combinations of the sets of artifacts. It is being interpreted that this is a reference to the combination of the sets of artifacts appropriate clarification is requested.
Claims 8 and 9 depend from claim 7 above and do not overcome this issue thus rejected under the same reasoning.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " the set of platform- specific artifacts or the set of product-specific artifacts corresponding to the one or more operating system input options are hashed operating system components" in lines 1-3 it is unclear what is being referenced to by this limitation as from claim 1 the product-specific artifact corresponds to the selected one or more product input options while the platform specific artifact correspond to the selected one or more operating system input options so was the product-specific artifact supposed to be included here as it was not defined initially as corresponding to the one or more selected input options for the operating system or are there antecedent basis issues with the one or more operating system input options and they are different from the selected one or more operating system input options, it is being interpreted that this should be platform-specific artifacts only for claim analysis but appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the product” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is the product its own element or a term used interchangeable with the platform-specific product throughout the claim appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the product” in lines 11, 12 and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is the product its own element or a term used interchangeable with the platform-specific product throughout the claim appropriate correction is required.
Claims 16-20 depend from claim 15 above and do not overcome this issue thus rejected under the same reasoning.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the product” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is the product its own element or a term used interchangeable with the platform-specific product throughout the claim appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-6, 10, 13- 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong et al. (Pub. No. US 2007/0177611 A1), in view of Yoshida (Pub. No. US 2013/0204929 A1), and further in view of Graham et al. (Pub. No. US 2005/0198628 A1).
As to claim 1, Armstrong discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising receiving, by one or more processors of a computing system, a request to generate a deliverable image for a platform-specific product (Armstrong [0051] lines 1-7 and [0053] lines 1-6; which show receiving a request to generate/create an image product, viewed as a type of sub process that can be associated with a specific operating system instance, viewed as platform specific product);
selecting in response to the request, by the one or more processors, a set of feature options corresponding to the platform-specific product and to an operating system (Armstrong [0053] lines 1-6; which shows responsive to the request selecting/creating an operation system instance corresponding the product/sub-process and corresponding choices of application and features to the selection image sub-process/product);
generating according to the set of selected feature options, by the one or more processors, a graphical interface configured to present to a user, the graphical interface including a set of input options about the product and a set of input options about the operating system together (Armstrong [0053] lines 1-8 and [0054] lines 1-7; which shows presenting choices/options to user for features and applications associated with the operating system associated with the project/sub-process and the ability to selection from a list a particular instance of an operating system thus viewed as type of input options of the product and input options for the operating system);
receiving selection of one or more product input options and one or more operating system input options (Armstrong [0053] lines 1-6 and [0054] lines 1-7; which shows being able to respond to user selection/choice thus viewed that the choice for product option features and choice for associated operation system is received).
Armstrong does not specifically disclose the input option are together with linkages between the set of input options about the product and the set of input options about the operating system, wherein the graphical interface restricts user selection of linkages between the product input options and the operating system input options; receiving selection of linkages between the selected one or more product options and selected one or more operating system options.
However, Yoshida discloses the input option are together with linkages between the set of input options about the product and the set of input options about the operating system, wherein the graphical interface restricts user selection of linkages between the product input options and the operating system input options (Yoshida [0008] lines 1-14, [0012] lines 1-6, [0013] lines 1-15, [0103] lines 4-19 and [0104] lines 5-13; which shows being able to select desired operating system configuration viewed as type of linkage/combination between operating system an element of the application/product where the configuration/linkage is selected correspond to the selection operation of a user thus viewed as being limited/restricted inputs based user selected operation) ;
receiving selection of linkages between the selected one or more product options and selected one or more operating system options (Yoshida [0103] lines 1-19; which shows response to the selection of the operating system configuration/linkage, viewed as linkage between OS and application/product options performing read out options associated with that information thus receiving that information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Yoshida showing the specifics of using configuration information/linkages in the generating of products, into the product generation of Armstrong, for the purpose of increasing generation customization by being able to provide additional configuration information for the OS along with the desired application as taught by [0008] lines 1-15 and [0103] lines 4-19.
Armstrong as modified by Yoshida do not specifically disclose obtaining from one or more artifact stores, by the one or more processors, a set of platform-specific artifacts corresponding to the selected one or more operating system input options and a set of product-specific artifacts corresponding to the selected one or more product input options, wherein the set of platform-specific artifacts are integrated with source code of the operating system and the set of product-specific artifacts are external to the source code of the operating system; and assembling, by the one or more processors, the obtained set of platform-specific artifacts and the set of product-specific artifacts into the deliverable image for the platform-specific product, the assembling including automatically linking components of the set of platform-specific artifacts with components of the product-specific artifacts according to the selected linkages.
However, Graham discloses obtaining from one or more artifact stores, by the one or more processors, a set of platform-specific artifacts corresponding to the selected one or more operating system input options and a set of product-specific artifacts corresponding to the selected one or more product input options, wherein the set of platform-specific artifacts are integrated with source code of the operating system and the set of product-specific artifacts are external to the source code of the operating system (Graham [0013] lines 8-22 [0014] lines 4-11, [0024] lines 1-13, [0051] lines 1-9 [0054] lines 1-12 and [0060] lines 1-9; which shows accessing and obtaining building block information/artifacts for data stores that store software building blocks/artifacts for building a platform specific software image where the artifacts that are determined/obtained are based on the user selected features, input options for the operating system and input options for the application/product, where the building blocks are software or data components and where the software, viewed as the software components of the building blocks that can include source code and can be implemented in a variety of executable and/or loadable forms including but not limited to stand alone program, function calls both local and remote, part of an operating system or other types of executable instructions viewed as showing software building blocks implement with/part of the operating system, viewed as integrated with the source code of the operating system and having other software elements/components/building blocks that are stand alone, external to source code of the operating system thus in light of the teachings of Armstrong above showing the clarity of the user input options for platform/operating system and product input options can together show obtaining from one or more artifact stores, by the one or more processors, a set of platform-specific artifacts corresponding to the selected one or more operating system input options and a set of product-specific artifacts corresponding to the selected one or more product input options, wherein the set of platform-specific artifacts are integrated with source code of the operating system and the set of product-specific artifacts are external to the source code of the operating system); and
assembling, by the one or more processors, the obtained set of platform-specific artifacts and the set of product-specific artifacts into the deliverable image for the platform-specific product, the assembling including automatically linking components of the set of platform-specific artifacts with components of the product-specific artifacts according to the selected linkages (Graham [0013] lines 8-22 [0014] lines 4-11, [0024] lines 1-13, [0063] lines 1-17, [0064] lines 1-8 and [0066] lines 1-12; which shows the automated building/assembly of the software image/deliverable image for the platform specific product that can assemble/connect/link the selected building blocks, viewed as including the set of platform specific artifacts and product specific artifacts according to the selected rules/attributes/linkages which in light of the teachings of Yoshida above showing the specifics of user selected configuration/linkages for configuration of the operating system can together be viewed as disclosing the specifics of assembling, by the one or more processors, the obtained set of platform-specific artifacts and the set of product-specific artifacts into the deliverable image for the platform-specific product, the assembling including automatically linking components of the set of platform-specific artifacts with components of the product-specific artifacts according to the selected linkages)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Graham showing the assembling the selection software building blocks/artifacts together into an image product, into the product generation of Armstrong as modified by Yoshida for the purpose of helping to maintain and ensure quality of the installed software, as taught by Graham [0003] lines 2-13 and [0013] lines 8-29.
As to claim 4, Armstrong as modified by Yoshida do not specifically disclose, however, Graham discloses wherein obtaining the set of product-specific artifacts includes retrieving product-related artifacts from given ones of the one or more artifact stores that are associated with the product (Graham [0041] lines 1-4; which shows having a specific software data store, viewed as artifact store, where software building blocks, viewed as product related artifacts, for building the software image are retrieved/obtained from).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Graham showing the assembling the selection software building blocks/artifacts together into an image product, into the product generation of Armstrong as modified by Yoshida for the purpose of helping to maintain and ensure quality of the installed software, as taught by Graham [0003] lines 2-13 and [0013] lines 8-29.
As to claim 5, Armstrong as modified by Yoshida do not specifically disclose, however, Graham discloses wherein obtaining the set of platform-specific artifacts further includes retrieving operating system-related artifacts directly from an operating system artifact store (Graham [0013] lines 8-22 [0014] lines 4-11, [0024] lines 1-13, [0029] lines 3-10 and [0041] lines 1-4; which shows a plurality of software data stores for storing the software building blocks, where the software can include software part of the operating system, viewed as operating system related artifacts/building blocks where it is seen that a plurality of data stores can be implemented to store the building blocks so can be installed on various target platforms/os thus viewed as having specific operating system software data store).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Graham showing the assembling the selection software building blocks/artifacts together into an image product, into the product generation of Armstrong as modified by Yoshida for the purpose of helping to maintain and ensure quality of the installed software, as taught by Graham [0003] lines 2-13 and [0013] lines 8-29.
As to claim 6, Armstrong as modified by Yoshida do not specifically disclose, however, Graham discloses wherein the one or more artifact stores associated with the product includes at least one of a product artifact store, an external artifact store, or a driver artifact store (Graham [0004] lines 7-13 and [0041] lines 1-4; which shows that the obtained software component building block for building the software image is obtained from a software data store/artifact store viewed as a type of product artifact data store as it is a datastore for the software/product being produced and where it is stated that components that are seen as internal components of another element can be implemented as an external component thus also viewed that the data store can be an external data store/external artifact store and as the claim language recites that the artifact stores includes at least one of a product artifact store, an external artifact store or a driver artifact store the ability to show a product artifact store and/or an external artifact data store can be viewed as teaching this claim limitation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Graham showing the assembling the selection software building blocks/artifacts together into an image product, into the product generation of Armstrong as modified by Yoshida for the purpose of helping to maintain and ensure quality of the installed software, as taught by Graham [0003] lines 2-13 and [0013] lines 8-29.
As to claim 10, Armstrong does not specifically disclose, however, Yoshida discloses wherein any artifacts from the set of platform-specific artifacts of the set of product-specific artifact corresponding to the one or more operating system input options are hashed operating system components (Yoshida [0052] lines 1-8 and [0053] lines 1-6; which shows that the configuration components corresponding to the operating system that can include the calculated hashed values from the operating system configuration component, where specifics of the operating system input options are seen in the teachings of Armstrong specifically above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Yoshida showing the specifics of using configuration information/linkages in the generating of products, into the product generation of Armstrong, for the purpose of increasing generation customization by being able to provide additional configuration information for the OS along with the desired application as taught by [0008] lines 1-15 and [0103] lines 4-19.
As to claim 13, Armstrong discloses storing the deliverable image in a product release archive (Armstrong [0053] lines 1-17; which shows being able to save/store in memory, viewed as a type of product release archive, the OS image instance with the selected information when determined enough resources for it, where the specifics of the deliverable/assembled image are seen in the teachings of Graham above).
As to claim 14, Armstrong as modified by Yoshida do not specifically disclose, however, Waterman discloses sending the deliverable image to one or more product devices for installation thereon (Graham [0013] lines 29-33; which shows that the assembled platform specific software image/deliverable image is installed on and thus sent to the associated target platform/product devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Graham showing the assembling the selection software building blocks/artifacts together into an image product, into the product generation of Armstrong as modified by Yoshida for the purpose of helping to maintain and ensure quality of the installed software, as taught by Graham [0003] lines 2-13 and [0013] lines 8-29.
As to claim 15, Armstrong as modified by Yoshida do not specifically disclose, however, Graham discloses a system, comprising: a set of artifact stores each configured to store a specific type of software component (Graham [0013] lines 8-22 [0014] lines 4-11, [0024] lines 1-13, [0029] lines 3-10 and [0041] lines 1-4; which shows a plurality of software data stores for the building blocks/artifacts used to assemble the software image where it is seen that the plurality of data stores can be implemented to store the building blocks so they can be installed on various target platforms/os thus viewed as having specific operating system software data store that store specific software components for that specific operating system/platform); and
one of more processors operatively coupled to the set of artifact stores, the one or more processors being configured to (Graham [0068] lines 3-9, [0070] lines 1-7, [0071] lines 1-4 and [0073] lines 1-9):
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Graham showing the assembling the selection software building blocks/artifacts together into an image product, into the product generation of Armstrong as modified by Yoshida for the purpose of helping to maintain and ensure quality of the installed software, as taught by Graham [0003] lines 2-13 and [0013] lines 8-29.
The remaining limitation of this claim are comparable to claim 1 above and rejected under the same reasoning
As to claim 17 it is comparable to claim 4 above and rejected under the same reasoning
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong, Yoshida and Graham as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0124053 A1).
As to claims 2 and 16, Armstrong as modified by Yoshida, and Graham do not specifically disclose wherein assembling the set of platform-specific artifacts and the set of product-specific artifacts into the deliverable image for the platform-specific product includes validating an assembly configuration to ensure that a set of correct platform-specific or product-specific artifacts are present to produce the deliverable image.
However, Zhang discloses, wherein assembling the set of platform-specific artifacts and the set of product-specific artifacts into the deliverable image for the platform-specific product includes validating an assembly configuration to ensure that a set of correct platform-specific or product-specific artifacts are present to produce the deliverable image (Zhang [0057] lines 1-9; which shows the ability to perform a check/validation to determine if all artifacts exist/are present and if not a failure signal is generated thus in light of Graham teachings above of the assembling the platform specific software image together would show wherein assembling the set of artifacts into the deliverable image for the platform-specific product includes validating an assembly configuration to ensure that a set of correct artifacts are present to produce the deliverable image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Zhang showing the performing checking on artifact information, into the assembly of artifacts into an image of Armstrong as modified by Yoshida, and Graham for the purpose of helping to ensure consistency by checking/validated that none of the artifacts associated with the product/application are missing, as taught by Zhang [0057] lines 1-9.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong, Yoshida and Graham as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Moser et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0266502 A1).
As to claim 3, Armstrong as modified by Yoshida and Graham do not specifically disclose wherein the graphical interface generated to include the set of input options about the operating system does not include any platform-internal components of the operating system.
However, Moser discloses wherein the graphical interface generated to include the set of input options about the operating system does not include any platform-internal components of the operating system (Moser [0043] lines 17-19; which shows for the generated information of the operating system being displayed in a configured view viewed as the type of generated graphical interface that can provide a restricted view of the network component inside the container thus viewed as being able to preventing/restricting display of any platform/internal components of the operating system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Moser showing the ability to generated a restricted view of information into the display of input options of Armstrong as modified by Yoshida and Graham for the purpose of helping to maintain the security of the platform by limiting information displayed to outside sources, at taught by Moser [0200] lines 1-12.
Claims 7, 9, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong, Yoshida and Graham as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Anderson et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0012234 A1).
As to claims 7 and 18, Armstrong as modified by Yoshida, Graham do not specifically disclose wherein assembling the set of platform-specific artifacts and the set of product-specific artifacts into the deliverable image for the platform-specific product includes constraining one or more configuration values in the deliverable image.
However, Anderson discloses wherein assembling the set of platform-specific artifacts and the set of product-specific artifacts into the deliverable image for the platform-specific product includes constraining one or more configuration values in the deliverable image (Anderson [0061] lines 1-2 and [0062] lines 1-7; which shows for the operating system being able to obtain a policy for the configuration setting/values of ant OS and determine whether the configuration settings/value of the OS meets the constrains/satisfy that policy thus viewed as contains of the configurate values of the OS where in view of the teachings of Graham of the assembly of the artifacts/components into image that can include software information associated with the OS can together be viewed as assembling the set of artifacts into the deliverable image for the platform-specific product includes constraining one or more configuration values in the deliverable image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Anderson showing the ability to set policy constrains for operating system configuration setting information into the generation of image associated with an OS of Armstrong as modified by Yoshida and Graham for the purpose of helping to protecting the configuration values of the operating system as taught by Anderson [0012] lines 1-12.
As to claims 9 and 19, Armstrong as modified by Yoshida Graham do not specifically disclose, however, Anderson discloses wherein constraining the one or more configuration values includes restricting access for a given resource to specific operating system components (Anderson [0026] lines 10-14; which shows the ability for the configuration setting/values to include a specification/restricting that only a specific/particular OS can be loaded/executed thus would be able to restricting access for a resource associated with the configuration values/setting to a specific operating system, thus the operating system components).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Anderson showing the ability to set policy constrains for operating system configuration setting information into the generation of image associated with an OS of Armstrong as modified by Yoshida, Graham for the purpose of helping to protecting the configuration values of the operating system as taught by Anderson [0012] lines 1-12.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong, Yoshida, Graham and Anderson as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Sattler et al. (Pub. No. US 2008/0127086 A1).
As to claim 8, Armstrong as modified by Yoshida, Graham and Anderson do not specifically disclose wherein the one or more configuration values include at least a pair of configuration values: and constraining the one or more configuration values includes preventing the pair of configuration values from being used with one another.
However, Sattler discloses wherein: the one or more configuration values include at least a pair of configuration values: and constraining the one or more configuration values includes preventing the pair of configuration values from being used with one another (Sattler [0106]-[0113]; which shows that the configuration settings/values can include restrictions associated with one configuration setting/value in a group/pair of configuration settings/values thus viewed as constricting/restricting the configuration to include only one of the pair/group on configuration setting/values to be used and not the other).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Sattler showing the ability to apply different rules to configuration information, into the configuration values of Armstrong as modified by Yoshida, Graham and Anderson for the purpose of improving the ease of deployment of additional content information to a device, as taught by Sattler [0002] lines 4-13.
Claims 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong, Yoshida and Graham as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Okamoto (Pub. No. US 2018/0018157 A1) and Okcu et al. (Patent No. US 8,132,186 B1).
As to claims 11 and 20, Armstrong as modified by Yoshida, Graham do not specifically disclose receiving a request to modify the deliverable image; compiling a modified version of the deliverable image without recompiling any artifacts associated with the operating system.
However, Okamoto discloses receiving a request to modify the deliverable image (Okamoto [0013] lines 9-16 and [0027] lines 1-5; which shows performing the update to the operating system thus viewed that a request for the update has been received, where the specifics of a platform specific software image/deliverable image including OS information is seen specifically disclosed in the teachings of Graham above);
compiling a modified version of the deliverable image without recompiling any artifacts associated with the operating system (Okamoto [0027] lines 1-5; which shows the ability to compile and updated portion of the information while also not need to recompile other portions of the operating system thus viewed as including OS artifact portions where the specifics of the platform specific software image/deliverable image including the OS software information is seen specifically disclosed in the teachings of Graham above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Okamoto showing the ability to recompile only specific parts associated with an update of information associated with a product, into the generation of the product of Armstrong as modified by Yoshida, Graham for the purpose of improving resource usage efficiency by only recompiling updated/changed portions, as taught by Okamoto [0027] lines 1-5.
Armstrong as modified by Yoshida, Graham and Okamoto do not specifically disclose in response to receiving the request to modify the deliverable image, updating a configuration file for the deliverable image.
However, Okcu discloses in response to receiving the request to modify the deliverable image, updating a configuration file for the deliverable image (Okcu Col. 3 lines 19-23; which show in response to a change/copy viewed as a type of update/request to the image including operating system information being able to update the configuration file associated with the operating system image information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Okcu updating the configuration file into the updating of product information of Armstrong as modified by Yoshida, Graham and Okamoto for the purpose of increasing consistency of the information by updating configuration file to reflect the change/update to information, as taught by Okcu Col. 3 lines 19-23.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong, Yoshida, Graham as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmidt et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0173574 A1).
As to claim 12, Armstrong as modified by Yoshida, Graham do not specifically disclose wherein the set of input options about the product corresponds to compiled components for one or more product features.
However, Schmidt discloses wherein the set of input options about the product corresponds to compiled components for one or more product features (Schmidt [0024] lines 1-15; which shows the ability for the selection/choice of software/application component configuration/product features to include pre-compiled components as well that viewed as already compiled components where the specifics of the set on input option for the product is seen in the specific teachings of Armstrong above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Schmidt showing the ability to select specifics already compiled/pre-compiled components for use, into the building of a product of Armstrong as modified by Yoshida, Graham for the purpose of helping to increase component recognition and thus being able to associate more easily dependent component together in a complex building environment, as taught by Schmidt [0024] lines 29-43.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD F WHEATON whose telephone number is (571)270-1779. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/BRADFORD F WHEATON/Examiner, Art Unit 2193