DETAILED ACTION
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/2/2026 has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
3. Claims 1 – 20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a system, comprising: a plurality of computing devices, each computing device corresponding to a different user; and an information management system comprising: at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the information management system to: partition a logical testing environment into a plurality of logical test containers; identify a user identifier associated with a message received via the communication interface; retrieve, based on the user identifier, a level identifier associated with an application, wherein the level identifier corresponds with a logical test container corresponding to particular build of the application under test in the logical test container of the plurality of logical test containers, each logical test container is associated with one of the plurality of logical test containers and by one or more users associated with the user identifier, wherein a first logical test container comprises a first test container for a first build of the application under test by a first user group and a second logical test container comprises a second test container for a second build of the application under test by a second user group and wherein the first test container supports different available data than the second test container; generate a modified message with a message modification based on the level identifier and the user identifier by appending a message modifier comprising the level identifier to the message, wherein the user identifier is associated with a user of the first user group and the second user group; and communicate the modified message to a pipeline of one of the first logical test container or the second logical test container corresponding to a particular build of the application under test, based on the message modification, wherein the pipeline corresponds to the level identifier.
The limitations, as drafted, describe a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The abstract idea limitations are “identify a user identifier associated with a message received via the communication interface” and “generate a modified message with a message modification based on the level identifier and the user identifier by appending a message modifier comprising the level identifier to the message, wherein the user identifier is associated with a user of the first user group and the second user group” in Prong I step 2A. Other limitations including “a plurality of computing devices, each computing device corresponding to a different user; and an information management system comprising: at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the information management system to:,” “partition a logical test environment into a plurality of logical test containers,” “retrieve, based on the user identifier, a level identifier associated with an application, wherein the level identifier corresponds with a logical test container corresponding to particular build of the application under test in the logical test container of the plurality of logical test containers, each logical test container is associated with one of the plurality of logical test containers and by one or more users associated with the user identifier, wherein a first logical test container comprises a first test container for a first build of the application under test by a first user group and a second logical test container comprises a second test container for a second build of the application under test by a second user group and wherein the first test container supports different available data than the second test container” and “communicate the modified message to a pipeline of one of the first logical test container or the second logical test container corresponding to a particular build of the application under test, based on the message modification, wherein the pipeline corresponds to the level identifier” are considered pre/post-activity solutions for receiving a state of performance information and performing an action which is merely an application of the abstract idea which insignificantly amounts to a judicial exception. Thus, these claims are directing to abstract idea under 35 USC 101.
That is, other than reciting “a plurality of computing devices, each computing device corresponding to a different user; and an information management system comprising: at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the information management system to:,” “partition a logical testing environment …,” “retrieve, based on the user identifier …” and “communicate the modified message …” nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind such that the “identify a user identifier associated with a message received via the communication interface” and “generate a modified message with a message modification based on the level identifier and the user identifier by appending a message modifier comprising the level identifier to the message, wherein the user identifier is associated with a user of the first user group and the second user group” limitations are mental processes under Prong I of step 2A. Parsing messages and generating messages as described in the specification can be performed as a manual process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the components in the determining step are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving information, executing a function and making a decision) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the steps of “a plurality of computing devices, each computing device corresponding to a different user; and an information management system comprising: at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the information management system to:,“retrieve, based on the user identifier …” and “communicate the modified message …” are pre/post-activity solutions as gathering/manipulating data that are insignificant under Prong II step 2A and 2B. 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) as noted in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). The step of “partition a logical testing environment …” is a pre-activity solution of storing and retrieving information in memory that is insignificant under Prong II step 2A and 2B. See Verseta Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (computer receives and stores information in memory) as noted in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv). Accordingly, this additional element which merely applies the judicial exception or abstract idea, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claims 8 and 15 are rejected on the same basis as independent claim 1. Additionally, dependent claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14 and 16 - 20 are similarly rejected as being directed to an abstract idea since these claims are either further detailing the abstract idea by analyzing/processing the data or the elements are insignificant. More specifically, the dependent claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per claims 2, 9 and 16, wherein the message comprises an information management system transaction which recites generic computer components for applying the abstract idea.
As per claims 3, 10 and 17, receive a configuration message; and update, in a configuration data store, a configuration entry with configuration information extracted from the configuration message are additional elements of data gathering which is insignificant extra solution activity as explained above.
As per claim 4, 11 and 18, wherein the configuration information comprises the level identifier which is an additional element of data gathering which is insignificant extra solution activity as explained above.
As per claims 5 and 12, wherein the information management system comprises an information management system router which recites generic computer components for applying the abstract idea.
As per claims 6, 13 and 19 wherein the message modification comprises appending the level identifier to an application name which recites an additional mental process.
As per claims 7, 14 and 20 wherein the message modification comprises replacing a character in a character string with the level identifier which recites an additional mental process.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1 - 20 would be allowable if amended to overcome the 35 USC § 101 rejections recited above.
5. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art is Glazer et al. (U.S. Publication 2019/0163504) (Identified by Applicant in IDS), Sreenivasa et al. (U.S. Publication 2019/0163459) (Identified by Applicant in IDS), Fojtik et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0249128) and Bangalore et al. (U.S. Patent 11,106,632). Glazer teaches computer readable media storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, cause a management information system to: partition a test container of the information management system into a plurality of logical test containers, each of the logical test containers corresponding to logical test environment associated with a different build of an application under test; receive, via the communication interface, a message from a computing device of the plurality of computing devices; identify a user identifier associated with the message received from the computing device of the plurality of computing devices and via the communication interface; retrieve, based on the user identifier, a level identifier associated with an application, wherein the level identifier corresponds with a test container of the plurality of logical test containers associated with a particular build of the application under test in the logical test container of the information management system and by one or more users associated with the user identifier; generat(ing) a message modification to the message based on the level identifier and the user identifier; and communicat(ing) the modified message to the test container of the plurality of logical test containers based on the message modification, wherein the logical test environment corresponds to the level identifier. Sreenivasa discloses wherein each logical test container is associated with a different user group. Fojtik discloses Implementations of the disclosure provide for utilization of build secrets by a source-to-image (STI) framework for a Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) system. The PaaS system may be a container-based architecture (also referred to as a container-based system) having multiple nodes. The STI framework can be implemented (i.e., as an STI component) on all nodes of the PaaS system or, alternatively, on a subset of the nodes of the PaaS system. An application of the PaaS system may be built and executed. The application includes a build container that is used to create an application image. An application image (or an image) refers to data (e.g., binaries) representing executables and files of an application used to deploy functionality for a runtime instance of the application. Bangalore discloses a computing device specially configured for hosting software containers for testing and storage operations, which may at times run concurrently or overlappingly with each other by using software containers. In contrast to production servers, a proxy server is not part of the live production environment. Instead, one or more proxy servers are part of a secondary storage subsystem, and they are involved in performing storage and testing operations outside the live production sphere.
However, the art of record does not teach, nor render obvious a system, comprising: a plurality of computing devices, each computing device corresponding to a different user; and an information management system comprising: at least one processor; a communication interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the information management system to: partition a logical testing environment into a plurality of logical test containers; identify a user identifier associated with a message received via the communication interface; retrieve, based on the user identifier, a level identifier associated with an application, wherein the level identifier corresponds with a logical test container corresponding to particular build of the application under test in the logical test environment of the plurality of logical test containers, each logical test container is associated with one of the plurality of logical test containers and by one or more users associated with the user identifier, wherein a first logical test container comprises a first test container for a first build of the application under test by a first user group and a second logical test container comprises a second test container for a second build of the application under test by a second user group and wherein the first test container supports different available data than the second test container; generate a modified message with a message modification based on the level identifier and the user identifier by appending a message modifier comprising the level identifier to the message, wherein the user identifier is associated with a user of the first user group and the second user group; and communicate the modified message to a pipeline of one of the first logical test container or the second logical test container corresponding to a particular build of the application under test, based on the message modification, wherein the pipeline corresponds to the level identifier.
Claims 8 and 15 are variants of claim 1 and are allowed for at least the reasons of claim 1, as are claims 2 - 7 which depend from claim 1, 9 - 14 which depend from claim 8 and claims 16 - 20 which depend from claim 15.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
7. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
8. Applicant argues on page 12, citing MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), that the claims do not recite a mental process “when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claims limitations.” However, as recited above, the abstract idea limitations (and thus able to be performed in the human mind) are “identify a user identifier associated with a message received via the communication interface” and “generate a modified message with a message modification based on the level identifier and the user identifier by appending a message modifier comprising the level identifier to the message, wherein the user identifier is associated with a user of the first user group and the second user group.” The remaining limitations are identified as extra-solution activity and are not alleged to be performed by the human mind.
9. Applicant next argues on page 14, citing MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1), that the claim limitations improve the functioning of a computer or improves technology or technical field. However, as recited above, the claims implement the noted limitations using generic computing technology.
10. Finally, applicant’s identification of Enfish and SRI Int’l are not persuasive as the inventions are not analogous.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-5285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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 C 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.
/WILLIAM C WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights