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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to amendment filed February 17, 2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant amended the claims in said amendment of 2/17/26. Claims 1,3-7,10-16,18-23 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 2/17/26, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous 103 rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made based on Abraham in view of Arora in view of Jammula in view of Swenka.
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 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 1,2,4,8,10,11,13,16,18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham (US Publication 20190324879) in view of Arora et al (US Publication 20170220289) in view of Jammula et al (US Patent 10613970) in view of Swenka et al (US Publication 20110276694).
In reference to claim 1, Abraham teaches a system for verifying software development compliance, the system comprising:
one or more processors; and one or more memories storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (see at least ¶s 72-73) comprising:
determining that a user has submitted a change to code stored in a source code repository; (see at least ¶ 27, which teaches determining configuration changes which are submitted by a user)
before merging the change with the code: performing a compliance analysis of the code repository by comparing parameters of the code against a set of compliance rules, (see at least ¶s 29-46, which teaches the rules that are compared for compliance prior to implementing the change, and ¶ 47 lines 1-5, which teaches a compliance analysis with the rules)
blocking the change from being merged with the code if it is determined that the code repository fails the at least one rule; and (see at least ¶ 47 lines 5-13, which teaches blocking changes that are non-compliant)
generating a report that includes details of the compliance analysis, wherein the report indicates at least whether the code repository passed or failed for each rule of the set of compliance rules (see at least ¶ 47 lines 15-30 and ¶ 48 lines 10-25, which teaches generating an alert report which indicates the result of the analysis).
Abraham fails to explicitly teach comparing parameters of a repository against a set of compliance rules. However, Arora teaches determining compliance of storage settings with profile rules (see Arora, at least Abstract, and ¶s 50,51,63). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the inventio to modify Abraham based on the teachings of Arora for the purpose of ensuring optimal compliance with profile rules and preferences.
Abraham fails to explicitly teach source code, source code repository, and the set of compliance rules comprise at least one rule where: an author of a modification to the source code cannot approve merging of the modification with the source code; the modification to the source code can only be merged with the source code if each step of a software development pipeline is passed; all discussions relating to the source code repository are completed or closed; or a visibility of the source code repository is set to private or internal. However, Jammula teaches source code testing and storage, and discloses compliance testing which includes testing that the source code meets or has passed predetermined criteria and parameters (see Jammula, at least Abstract, column 6 & 7). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the inventio to modify Abraham based on the teachings of Jammula for the purpose of improved performance in source code collaboration and updating techniques.
Abraham fails to explicitly teach a compliance rule that comprises where only a predefined set of users can approve of source code changes. However, Swenka teaches resource management where user roles are predefined, so that a group of users are defined for approving resource changes (see Swenka, at least Abstract, and ¶s 50,51,63). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the inventio to modify Abraham based on the teachings of Swenka for the purpose of utilizing efficient management techniques when managing a resource such as source code.
In reference to claim 2, this is taught by Abraham, see at least ¶ 47 lines 25-30, which teaches applying the changes when it is determined to be compliant.
In reference to claim 4, this is taught by Abraham, see at least ¶ 47 lines 12-24, which teaches generating and transmitting an alert that the change is non compliant.
In reference to claim 8, this is taught by Abraham, see at least ¶ 50, which teaches receiving configuration via user console.
Claims 10,11,13,16,18-20 are slight variations of the rejected claims 1,2,4,8 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 3,7,12,15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham (US Publication 20190324879) in view of Arora et al (US Publication 20170220289) in view of Jammula et al (US Patent 10613970) in view of Adhav et al (US Publication 20220150128).
In reference to claim 3, Abraham fails to explicitly teach the instructions further cause the system to present, to a user of a user device, a graphical user interface (GUI) that includes the report. However, Adhav teaches analyzing configuration changes and discloses presenting an impact report for a user to review (see Adhav, at least Abstract, ¶ 48 and ¶ 51 lines 1-5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Abraham based on the teachings of Adhav for the purpose of ensuring that configuration changes do not negatively impact a system.
In reference to claim 7, Adhav teaches outputting a text based report to the user (see Adhav, ¶ 47 and ¶ 48 lines 6-12). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Abraham based on the teachings of Adhav in accordance to the rationale given for claim 3.
Claims 12,15 are slight variations of the rejected claims 3,7 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 5,6,14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham (US Publication 20190324879) in view of Arora et al (US Publication 20170220289) in view of Jammula et al (US Patent 10613970) in view of Tsantilis (US Patent 7600219).
In reference to claim 5, Although Abraham teaches fraud detection (see Abraham, ¶ 9).
Abraham fails to explicitly teach the system is communicably coupled to the source code repository by an application programming interface (API), and wherein the parameters of the source code repository are retrieved via an API call to the source code repository. However, Tsantilis teaches monitoring the compatibility of software updates, and discloses software repository APIs for accessing the software configurations (see Tsantilis, at least Abstract and column 6 lines 19-35). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the inventio to modify Abraham based on the teachings of Tsantilis for the purpose of ensuring that software updates do not cause errors.
In reference to claim 6, Tsantilis teaches the software repository is accessed via the API (see Tsantilis, column 6 lines 5-25 and column 7 lines 38-52). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Abraham based on the teachings of Tsantilis in accordance to the rationale given for claim 5.
Claim 14 is a slight variation of the rejected claims 5,6 above, and is therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
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.
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Forms 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9AM-5PM.
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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
April 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights