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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/21/2026 has been entered.
The claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17 and 20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments and arguments are considered; however, the 101 rejection remains.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments are considered; however, the 102 and 103 rejections remain and are updated below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea (See Remarks at pgs. 13-15). Specifically, Applicant argues that the amended claim language, “determining that the plurality of templates does not include the template corresponding to the project; creating a new template for the project, and storing the new template in the database as the template corresponding to the project to be retrieved” cannot practically be performed in the human mind and therefore does not recite a certain method of organizing human activity (See Remarks at pg. 15). This amended claim language identifies a mental process of evaluating the templates to determine if the template of the project is stored in a database and can be retrieved. While the steps of “storing the new template in the database as the template corresponding to the project to be retrieved,” recites an additional element, this additional element merely uses a computer to perform the abstract idea with a generic computing function of “storing.” The amended claim language fails to practically apply the judicial exception, as argued in Remarks at pgs. 16-17. The amended claimed language also fails to amount to significantly more, as argued in the Remarks at pgs. 18-19. Specifically, the argued amended claim language recites the well-understood, routine and conventional functions of “storing and retrieving information from memory” through the use of storing and retrieving templates for project information. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. See also the updated 101 rejection below.
With respect to the 102 rejection, Applicant argues that the cited reference Mohanty fails to disclose the amended claim language, “determining that the plurality of templates does not include the template corresponding to the project; creating a new template for the project, and storing the new template in the database as the template corresponding to the project to be retrieved” (See Remarks at pgs. 19-21). Specifically, Applicant argues that Mohanty “does not describe creating a new template when there is no template corresponding to the desired project” (See Remarks at pg. 21). However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that Mohanty’s disclosure recites a user action designer that enables user to create, publish and save pipeline templates created with customized pipelines included, which is more than sufficient to teach “determining that the plurality of templates does not include the template corresponding to the project; creating a new template for the project, and storing the new template in the database as the template corresponding to the project to be retrieved” (See Fig. 19A-19H and ¶0384 and ¶0419-0420). Therefore, Examiner notes that Mohanty’s disclosure recites the amended claim language. Please see the updated 102 rejection below for further clarification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with Step 1, it is first noted that the claimed system in claims 1-9; the claimed computer-implemented method in claims 10-18; and the claimed computer-readable storage medium in claims 19-20 are directed to a potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., processes, machine etc.). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied with respect to claims 1-20.
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1-20, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, the independent claim(s) recite(s) (abstract idea recited in italics and additional elements
recited in bold):
Claim 1:
A system comprising:
a processor, a network interface, and a memory storing instructions executed by the processor to perform actions including:
managing a plurality of templates indicative of workflows of a plurality of projects stored in a database;
receiving a request to deploy a project in a network, the project including a plurality of tasks that are sequentially executed by a plurality of teams operating on a plurality of platforms, respectively;
retrieving, from the database, a template corresponding to the project based on:
determining that the plurality of templates does not include the template corresponding to the project, creating a new template for the project, and storing the new template in the database as the template corresponding to the project to be retrieved;
rendering a graphical user interface based at least in part on the template; and
transmitting, though the network, data associated with the graphical user interface to the plurality of teams, causing the graphical user interface to be automatically displayed simultaneously on the plurality of platforms in real-time, wherein the graphical user interface guides the plurality of teams to execute the corresponding tasks according to the workflow indicated by the template.
Claim 10:
A computer-implemented method comprising:
managing a plurality of templates indicative of workflows of a plurality of projects stored in a database;
receiving a request to deploy a project in a network, the project including a plurality of tasks that are sequentially executed by a plurality of teams operating on a plurality of platforms, respectively;
retrieving, from the database, a template corresponding to the project based on:
determining that the plurality of templates does not include the template corresponding to the project, creating a new template for the project, and storing the new template in the database as the template corresponding to the project to be retrieved;
rendering a graphical user interface based at least in part on the template; and
transmitting, though the network, data associated with the graphical user interface to the plurality of teams, causing the graphical user interface to be automatically displayed simultaneously on the plurality of platforms in real-time, wherein the graphical user interface guides the plurality of teams to execute the corresponding tasks according to the workflow indicated by the template.
Claim 19:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions, that when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform actions comprising:
managing a plurality of templates indicative of workflows of a plurality of projects stored in a database;
receiving a request to deploy a project in a network, the project including a plurality of tasks that are sequentially executed by a plurality of teams operating on a plurality of platforms, respectively;
retrieving, from the database, a template corresponding to the project based on:
determining that the plurality of templates does not include the template corresponding to the project, creating a new template for the project, and storing the new template in the database as the template corresponding to the project to be retrieved;
rendering a graphical user interface based at least in part on the template; and
transmitting, though the network, data associated with the graphical user interface to the plurality of teams, causing the graphical user interface to be automatically displayed simultaneously on the plurality of platforms in real-time, wherein the graphical user interface guides the plurality of teams to execute the corresponding tasks according to the workflow indicated by the template.
The above-recited italicized limitations viewed as an abstract idea are certain methods of organizing
human activity (i.e., fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance,
mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal
obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) and mental processes (i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The claimed invention is directed to managing a project and its associated workflow tasks that is collaborated with multiple teams. The documentation required to be completed for the tasks of a project is observed and evaluated for display in a plurality of templates. Additionally, evaluation steps are performed to determine if a template corresponds to a project. Accordingly, the claims recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity.
According to Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the use of bolded additional elements for receiving/transmitting data (e.g., receiving a request to deploy a project in a network, the project including a plurality of tasks that are sequentially executed by a plurality of teams operating on a plurality of platforms, respectively; retrieving, from the database, a template corresponding to the project; transmitting, though the network, data associated with the graphical user interface to the plurality of teams, etc.); processing data in the form of evaluating/observing (e.g. “determining that the plurality of templates does not include the template corresponding to the project, creating a new template for the project,” etc.); storing data (e.g., managing a plurality of templates indicative of workflows of a plurality of projects stored in a database; storing the new template in the database as the template corresponding to the project to be retrieved; etc.); and displaying data (e.g. rendering a graphical user interface based at least in part on the template; causing the graphical user interface to be automatically displayed simultaneously on the plurality of platforms in real-time, wherein the graphical user interface guides the plurality of teams to execute the corresponding tasks according to the workflow indicated by the template; etc.) and repeating steps is merely implementing the abstract idea steps of valuing an idea in the manner of “apply it”. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to practically apply the judicial exception because they, whether taken separately or as a whole, merely use conventional computer components or technology to receive, process, store and display data and thus do not provide an inventive concept in the claims.
In accordance with Step 2B, the claims only recite the above bolded additional elements. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer for managing projects in templates) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, as evidence of generic computer implementation and an indication that the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more, it is first noted in the Applicant’s Specification, in ¶0081-0083, “a computing device1100 may comprise processor(s)1102, a memory1104 storing a template managing module1106, a documentation managing module1108, a business unit managing module1110, a graphical user interface generating module1112, a project workflow enforcing module1114, a report generating module1116, and an issue tracking module1118, a display1120, communication interface(s)1122, input/output device(s)1124, and/or a machine readable medium1126. In various examples, the processor(s)1102 can be a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), or both CPU and GPU, or any other type of processing unit. Each of the one or more processor(s)1102 may have numerous arithmetic logic units (ALUs) that perform arithmetic and logical operations, as well as one or more control units (CUs) that extract instructions and stored content from processor cache memory, and then executes these instructions by calling on the ALUs, as necessary, during program execution. The processor(s)1102 may also be responsible for executing all computer applications stored in memory1104, which can be associated with common types of volatile (RAM) and/or nonvolatile (ROM) memory. In various examples, the memory1104 can include system memory, which may be volatile (such as RAM), non-volatile (such as ROM, flash memory, etc.) or some combination of the two. The memory 1104 can further include non-transitory computer-readable media, such as volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information, such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data. System memory, removable storage, and non-removable storage are all examples of non-transitory computer-readable media. Examples of non-transitory computer-readable media include, but are not limited to, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile discs (DVD) or other optical storage, magnetic cassettes, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other non-transitory medium which can be used to store desired information and which can be accessed by the computing device1100. Any such non- transitory computer-readable media may be part of the computing device 1100. As additional evidence of conventional computer implementation, it is noted in the MPEP, the courts have recognized that “receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” (See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) and “storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93” (e.g. retrieving templates from memory, storing templates and transmitting to an interface for execution of a workflow) to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). From the interpretation of the MPEP and the Specification, one would reasonably deduce that the additional elements are merely embodies generic computers and generic computing functions.
The dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’. The dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies. Specifically, the dependent claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 further describes retrieving and evaluating documentations related to the workflow; receiving interactions associated with completing the project; and presenting the workflows and documentations on a graphical interface, which is a mental process of observing and evaluating project workflows. Therefore, the claims recite mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activity. The use of a graphical user interface for presenting documentations and workflows, as claimed in dependent claims 2, 4-5, 9, 11, 13-14, 18 and 20, merely implements the abstract idea on the graphical user interface in the manner of ‘apply it.’
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mohanty (US Patent Application Publication, 2023/0065530).
As per Claim 1, Mohanty discloses a system comprising: a processor, a network interface, and a memory storing instructions executed by the processor to perform actions (Mohanty: Fig. 1) including:
managing a plurality of templates indicative of workflows of a plurality of projects stored in a database (Mohanty: ¶0088-0089 and 0382: Pre-defined templates with documents of defined workflow for the project plan for the development of a product are selectable by the user for implementation. See template database store in Fig. 27.);
receiving a request to deploy a project in a network, the project including a plurality of tasks that are sequentially executed by a plurality of teams operating on a plurality of platforms, respectively (Mohanty: See Fig. 6A and ¶0156-0157 where the teams associated with deploying sequential tasks are indicated on a UI screen. See also Fig. 7 where the stages of the project are sequentially executed by one or more plurality of teams.);
retrieving, from the database, a template corresponding to the project (Mohanty: ¶0088-0089 and 0382: Pre-defined templates with documents of defined workflow for the project plan for the development of a product are selectable by the user for implementation.) based on:
determining that the plurality of templates does not include the template corresponding to the project, creating a new template for the project, and storing the new template in the database as the template corresponding to the project to be retrieved (Mohanty: Figs. 19A-19H and ¶0384: The user interface screens enable the administrator to design and create pipeline templates that are to be made available to enforce automated deployment of the plurality of microservices selected for the development of a software product. Fig. 19G and ¶0419-0420: A user action designer enables a user to define, design or create one or more pipeline templates to include various pipelines not included. See Fig. 19G where the created template is published and stored.);
rendering a graphical user interface based at least in part on the template (Mohanty: ¶0088-0089 and 0116: The stored data in the script templates include user action scripts that define ideas, features and documentation required for the define stage of product development, which is rendered on the user device.); and
transmitting, though the network, data associated with the graphical user interface to the plurality of teams, causing the graphical user interface to be automatically displayed simultaneously on the plurality of platforms in real-time, wherein the graphical user interface guides the plurality of teams to execute the corresponding tasks according to the workflow indicated by the template (Mohanty: See ¶0155 where a user interface is rendered for a plurality of user devices corresponding to the data transmitted from the release management and/or release orchestration function (See ¶0151-0152 explaining the type of data transmitted). See ¶0155-0161 and Fig. 6A-6C where the rendered user interface screens that guide the product development team on the completion of tasks through milestones, timelines, progress, calendars, etc. See ¶0088-0089 whereas the workflow or workstream is defined by a pre-defined template. See ¶0095 where the software product is deployed simultaneously across a plurality of platforms. See network in Fig. 1.).
Claims 10 and 19 recite limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 1; therefore, the same rejection applies. Also, with respect to Claim 19, Mohanty discloses a computer-readable medium (See ¶0045).
As per Claim 2, Mohanty discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the actions further comprise: retrieving, from the database, documentations associated with the project; associating the documentations with the plurality of tasks of the project; presenting a first view of the graphical user interface on the plurality of platforms, the first view including at least information of a first documentation associated with a first task; and receiving, from a first computer platform, an interaction of a first team on the first view, the interaction causing a completion of the first task (Mohanty: ¶0088-0089 and 0116: The stored data in the script templates include user action scripts that define ideas, features and documentation required for the define stage of product development. The generation of the associated documents include a workflow associated with a working of the product, a design of the product, a project plan for the development of the product, and/or a set of access permissions associated with the SDLC and/or DALC of the product. See ¶0107 where the workflow including various operations or sub-operations are rendered on a user’s device to be executed for completion. See also ¶0138 where visual indicators on a user’s interface display the level of completion with respect to a first and second set of user action responses (e.g. first and second team).).
Claim 11 recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 2; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 3, Mohanty discloses the system of claim 2, wherein: the information of the first documentation includes one or more documents required to complete the first task, and the interaction includes at least selecting the one or more documents (Mohanty: Fig. 8A and ¶0172-0173 and 0177: The documents can define one or more requirements for a product, which are further selectable by a user. The first set of operations to be performed by the plurality of users corresponds to the metadata of these selected documents defining business requirements.).
Claim 12 recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 3; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 4, Mohanty discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the actions further comprise: sequentially presenting subsequent views of the graphical user interface according to the workflow, each of the subsequent views including at least a completion status of one or more previous tasks and information of a current documentation associated with a current task; and upon determining that the current task is completed, updating the graphical user interface to guide a subsequent team to execute a subsequent task, wherein the information of the current documentation includes one or more documents required to complete the current task (Mohanty: ¶0138: The user interface may be rendered to display the completion status of a set of operations and the associated documentation. See ¶0107 where the user interface rendered on the device displays a workflow such that various operations are executed based off of the completion of a previous operation. See Fig. 6A for the assigned team.).
Claim 13 recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 4; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 5, Mohanty discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the actions further comprises: tracking, from the plurality of platforms, a plurality of interactions associated with completing the project; and updating the data associated with the graphical user interface based at least in part on the plurality of interactions, causing an update of the graphical user interface presented on the plurality of platforms (Mohanty: Fig. 4 and ¶0139 and 0143: An activity tracker includes an activity watcher that monitors the actions performed by a plurality of users using the service application with respect to the plurality of stages of product development. The activity watcher may continuously update the interface corresponding to a user’s actions. The data generated (e.g., by way observation or monitoring) by the activity watcher may be further communicated to an activity mapper. The activity mapper may be configured to map each activity performed by the plurality of users) on the service application.).
Claim 14 recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 5; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 8, Mohanty discloses the system of claim 1, wherein deploying the project includes releasing a new version of a software in the network, and the template corresponding to the project indicates the workflow that sequentially executes the plurality of tasks including at least: a first task to determine the plurality of teams associated with releasing the new version of the software, a second task to determine documentations associated with releasing the new version of the software according to a criteria of release, a third task to validate the release in a lab environment, a fourth task to test the new version of the software in the network after releasing the new version of the software, a fifth task to generate a rollout schedule based on the criteria, and a sixth task to generate performance metrics of the new version of the software (Mohanty: See ¶0088-0089 and 0116: The stored data in the script templates include user action scripts that define ideas, features and documentation required for the define stage of product development. The generation of the associated documents include a workflow associated with a working of the product, a design of the product, a project plan for the development of the product, and/or a set of access permissions associated with the SDLC and/or DALC of the product. See ¶0107 where the workflow including various operations or sub-operations are rendered on a user’s device to be executed for completion. See ¶0442 for the validation task of user task actions according to a template. See ¶0382 and 0423 where each template involves a unit testing stage of the new version of software. See ¶0156 and 0159 where a roll out date of completion of software product according to milestone criteria. See ¶0101 here performance metrics and insights are developed for the new version of software.).
Claim 17 recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 8; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 9, Mohanty discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the first task further provides a list of released versions of the software, and the actions further comprise: presenting the graphical user interface to include the list of released versions of the software, and receiving a selection of one or more released versions, causing bundling the one or more released versions with the new version of the software (Mohanty: Fig. 4 and ¶0149: In a release dependency view, a release dependency map of the plurality of releases associated with a product is displayed. See also ¶0158 where a new version of a product may be bundled with a previous release to create a release train.)
Claim 18 recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 9; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 20, Mohanty discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 19, wherein the actions further include: retrieving, from the database, documentations associated with the project; associating the documentations with the plurality of tasks of the project; presenting a first view of the graphical user interface on the plurality of platforms, the first view including at least information of a first documentation associated with a first task; receiving, from a first computer platform, an interaction of a first team on the first view, the interaction causing a completion of the first task (Mohanty: ¶0088-0089 and 0116: The stored data in the script templates include user action scripts that define ideas, features and documentation required for the define stage of product development. The generation of the associated documents include a workflow associated with a working of the product, a design of the product, a project plan for the development of the product, and/or a set of access permissions associated with the SDLC and/or DALC of the product. See ¶0107 where the workflow including various operations or sub-operations are rendered on a user’s device to be executed for completion. See also ¶0138 where visual indicators on a user’s interface display the level of completion with respect to a first and second set of user action responses (e.g. first and second team).); sequentially presenting subsequent views of the graphical user interface according to the workflow, each of the subsequent views including at least a completion status of one or more previous tasks and information of a current documentation associated with a current task; and upon determining that the current task is completed, updating the graphical user interface to guide a subsequent team to execute a subsequent task, wherein the information of the current documentation includes one or more documents required to complete the current task (Mohanty: ¶0138: The user interface may be rendered to display the completion status of a set of operations and the associated documentation. See ¶0107 where the user interface rendered on the device displays a workflow such that various operations are executed based off of the completion of a previous operation. See Fig. 6A for the assigned team.).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohanty (US Patent Application Publication, 2023/0065530) in view of DeJardine et al. (US Patent, 9,824,320, hereinafter referred to as DeJardine).
As per Claim 6, Mohanty discloses the system of claim 1, wherein deploying the project includes deploying a new hardware in the network, and the template corresponding to the project indicates the workflow that sequentially executes the plurality of tasks including at least: a first task to determine documentations associated with deploying the new… [product] according to a requirement of deployment, a second task to validate the deployment in a lab environment, a third task to test the new hardware in the network after onboarding the new hardware, and a fourth task to close out the project after successfully onboarding the new … [product] and generate performance metrics of the new… [product] (Mohanty: See ¶0088-0089 and 0116: The stored data in the script templates include user action scripts that define ideas, features and documentation required for the define stage of product development. The generation of the associated documents include a workflow associated with a working of the product, a design of the product, a project plan for the development of the product, and/or a set of access permissions associated with the SDLC and/or DALC of the product. See ¶0107 where the workflow including various operations or sub-operations are rendered on a user’s device to be executed for completion. See ¶0442 for the validation task of user task actions according to a template. See ¶0382 and 0423 where each template involves a unit testing stage of the new version of software. See ¶0156 and 0159 where a roll out date of completion of software product according to milestone criteria. See ¶0101 here performance metrics and insights are developed for the new version of software.).
Mohanty does not explicitly disclose; however, DeJardine discloses “deploying the new hardware according to a requirement of deployment” and “new hardware” (DeJardine: Col. 14 lines 36-44: A template comprising its plurality of tasks is associated with the deployment of a new hardware resource.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mohanty with DeJardine’s templates used for deploying a new resource because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed towards utilizing task templates to facilitate development and deployment of new resources, and because incorporating DeJardine’s templates used for deploying a new resource in Mohanty would have served Mohanty’s pursuit of executing a script associated with technology to deploy a new resources (See Mohanty, Abstract); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 15 recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 6; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 7, Mohanty in view of DeJardine discloses the system of claim 6.
Mohanty does not explicitly disclose, however DeJardine discloses wherein the new hardware includes at least one of a switch, a computer server, a router, or a cloud data center equipment (DeJardine: Col. 14 lines 36-44: A template comprising its plurality of tasks is associated with the deployment of a new hardware resource.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mohanty with DeJardine’s templates used for deploying a new resource because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed towards utilizing task templates to facilitate development and deployment of new resources, and because incorporating DeJardine’s templates used for deploying a new resource in Mohanty would have served Mohanty’s pursuit of executing a script associated with technology to deploy a new resources (See Mohanty, Abstract); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 16 recites limitations already addressed by the rejection of claim 7; therefore, the same rejection applies.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Botterill et al. (US 2017/0286910): A configuration management system more efficiently and effectively manages template configuration information across a plurality of large-scale capital projects that execute multiple applications at a plurality of project sites.
Chaudhry et al. (US 2017/0315782): A workflow development system is described herein that embeds a workflow designer user interface of a workflow development application into a user interface of another software application, so that the workflow designer user interface can be used to generate workflows that reference and/or interact with the other software application. In some aspects, the workflow development application obtains information indicative of a context of a user within the other software application and recommends workflow templates or workflow steps for selection by a user based on the obtained information. The workflow development application may also pre-populate certain parameters of certain workflow steps based on the obtained information.
Frank et al. (US 2017/0180487): Techniques are presented for managing a deployment pipeline using an inheritable and extensible source code template—generally referred to as a live pipeline template (LPT). As described, live pipeline templates may be used to manage deployment pipelines which, in turn, are used to launch, maintain, and update the services and systems used to host and provide computing services.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLISON MICHELLE NEAL whose telephone number is (571)272-9334. The examiner can normally be reached 9-2pm ET, M-F.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 5712705389. 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.
/ALLISON M NEAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights