DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
Applicant presents a communication dated 22 January 2026 in response to the 22 October 2025 non-final rejection (the “Previous Action”).
Claims 1, 11 and 12 are amended.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 11 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 3-10 and 14-21 would be allowable via dependence from claims 1 and 12.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 101
In view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the Previous Action’s § 112 rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 112
In view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the Previous Action’s § 112 rejections are withdrawn.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 1, the claim refers to:
…storing the extracted data field value in a data field of a node representing the first code object in the graph database…
…wherein each node of the plurality of nodes does not store the extracted data field value.
There is insufficient support in the originally filed specification for these features.
Paragraphs [0048-0049] come the closest but while those paragraphs do describe storing information on a single node rather than each of a plurality of workload nodes, they do not disclose this single node as representing “first code object” as claimed. Per those paragraphs, the single node is an “enrichment node” representing “access to a public network”, not a “first code object” from which, per the claim, the workloads are “deployed.” Claim 3 also refers to the node representing the first code object and an enrichment node as distinct elements. The node representing the first code object is thus not an enrichment node.
As to claims 3-10, the claims are dependent on claim 1 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Further as to claim 6, the claim refers to “applying a policy to determine if the first value or the second value should be stored in the node representing the instance” and per claim 5, the first values is “extracted from the first code object.”
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these features as well. Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1, which already recites that each “each node of the plurality of [instance] nodes does not store the extracted data field value.” There is no support in the originally filed specification for both storing and not storing the extracted values in an instance node as claimed.
Further as to claim 7, the claim refers to overwriting a data field of the “second value” (stored in the node representing the instance per claim 5) with the first value (extracted from the first code object per claim 5).
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these features for reasons similar to those set forth above with respect to claim 6. Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, which already recites that each “each node of the plurality of [instance] nodes does not store the extracted data field value.” There is no support in the originally filed specification for both storing and not storing the extracted values in an instance node as claimed.
As to claim 11, the claim includes the same new matter as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 12, the claim includes the same new matter as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
As to claims 14-21, the claims are dependent on claim 12 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Further as to claim 17, the claim includes the same new matter as claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Further as to claim 18, the claim includes the same new matter as claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6-7 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
As to claim 6, the claim refers to determining if the first value (extracted from the first code object per claim 1) should be stored in the node representing the instance. However, per claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, each node of the plurality of nodes does not store the extracted data field value. Because claim 6 requires that the node representing the instance stores an extracted value and claim 1 requires that it does not, claim 6 fails to include all the limitations of claim 1.
As to claim 7, the claim refers to overwriting a data field of the “second value” (stored in the node representing the instance per claim 5) with the first value (extracted from the first code object per claim 5). However, per claim 1, from which claim 6 depends, each node of the plurality of nodes does not store the extracted data field value. Because claim 7 requires that the node representing the instance stores an extracted value and claim 1 requires that it does not, claim 7 fails to include all the limitations of claim 1.
As to claim 17, the claim fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends for reasons substantially the same as those set forth above with respect to claim 6.
As to claim 18, the claim fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends for reasons substantially the same as those set forth above with respect to claim 7.
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 TODD AGUILERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11AM - 7:30PM 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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at (571)272-6799. 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.
/TODD AGUILERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights