DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on April 29, 2026 in this application Lantzman et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 18/160,627 (Filed January 27, 2023). Claims 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 15, 17, and 18 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are amended. Claims 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 15, 17, and 18 are pending.
Applicants' arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered and found not persuasive. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
1. With respect to Applicant’s argument on pg. 7 of the Applicant’s Remarks (“Remarks”) stating that the claim amendments overcome the rejection under 112(b), examiner respectfully disagrees. See infra § Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112(b). Claim 1 states “each software product comprising a plurality of modules.” The claim then states “a list of the modules in the software product.” There subsequently follow various references to “the modules.” It is unclear if the “plurality of modules” and the “the modules” in the “a list” are the same or different modules. Thus, it is unclear to which modules the subsequent references to “the modules” refers. Therefore, the rejections made under 112(b) are maintained.
2. With respect to Applicant’s argument on pg. 8 of the Remarks stating that the term “electronic device” provides sufficient structure to overcome the interpretation made under 35 USC 112(f), examiner respectfully disagrees. See infra § Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103 § Claim 1. MPEP (A) lists the term “device” as ‘simply a substitute for the term “means.”’ Therefore, claim 15 remains interpreted as invoking 35 USC 112(f).
3. With respect to Applicant’s argument on pgs. 8 – 12 of the Remarks stating that prior art reference Nagaraja fails to teach the claimed specific handlers because Nagaraja allegedly merely discloses generic virtual machines rather than specific handlers, examiner respectfully disagrees. See infra § Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103 § Claim 1. It is not the virtual machines but rather the installation scripts disclosed in Nagaraja and cited by Applicant which teach the claimed specific handlers. See Nagaraja at least at ¶ 0064. Nagaraja give the example of one installation script for a load balancer application component and a different SQL script for installing and initialing a database. Therefore, Nagaraja teaches the claimed specific handlers.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 1 is rejected as being indefinite. Claim 1 recites “the module.” It is unclear which module of the previously disclosed “a plurality of modules” and “the modules” the recited “the module” refers.
Claims 3 – 7 are rejected as depending on claim 1. Claims 8 and 15 are rejected for substantially similar reasoning. Claims 10 – 14 are rejected as depending on claim 8. Claims 17 and 18 are rejected as depending on claim 15.
35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an electronic device configured to execute…”, in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §103
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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0025791 (Published January 26, 2023, filed July 22, 2021) (“Liu”) in view of Church et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0088935 (Published March 29, 2018, filed September 27, 2016) (“Church”), Ananthapur et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0141717 (Published May 13, 2021, filed November 7, 2019) (“Ananthapur”), Yajima, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0166285 (Published June 3, 2021, filed May 7, 2019) (“Yajima”), and Nagaraja et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0232463 (Published September 5, 2013, filed March 2, 2012) (“Nagaraja”).
Claims 1, 8, and 15
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, Liu teaches the invention as claimed including a method for automated end-to-end deployment of a software product comprising: receiving, by a software or software defined infrastructure product management computer program…for installation to a platform; retrieving, by the software or software defined infrastructure product management computer program, a software product abstraction for the software product;…abstraction {A CSV deployer for groups of component microservices uses a CSV file [abstraction] that specifies all the parameters to be used to configure each microservice in the group during an installation process. Liu at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0014, 0017 – 0022, 0027 – 0031; id. at fig. 2.}
However, Liu doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
[retrieving] from a software product abstraction database; wherein the software product [abstraction] comprises a list of the modules in the software product, a provisioning workflow to install the modules, and a mapping of [inputs and outputs] for the software product; executing, by the software or software defined infrastructure product management computer program, the provisioning workflow from the software product [abstraction], wherein the provisioning workflow installs the modules of the software product on the platform… configuring, by the software or software defined infrastructure product management computer program, the inputs of the software product using the mapping of the [inputs of the software product from the software product][abstraction]; and configuring, by the software or software defined infrastructure product management computer program, the outputs of the software product using the mapping of the [outputs of the software product from the software product] [abstraction]. {Church does teach this limitation. Church teaches that the group microservice installation using parameters specified in a CSV, as taught in Liu, may include where the group of microservices are a composite application composed of microservices which have been configured by a modeling tool to specify the input and output connection relationships between microservices [modules] selected from a library of registered software packages to form an application composed of the microservices where the configuration may be used to deploy the composite application using specified requirements and parameters. Church at ¶¶ 0041, 0059, 0073, 0087 – 0089; id. at ¶¶ 0033 & 0034 (requirements and configuration including “start-up parameters”); id. at ¶¶ 0035, 0044, 0048, 0055, 0074, 0083, & 0089 (independently deploying the composite application using orchestration platform that is used to automate deployment and execution of the composite application according to the determined configuration using particular unique builds, configurations, and deployment tools depending on target environments). The configuration may be stored in a “vendor-agnostic format” that includes requirements for deployment, dependencies, and inputs and outputs between the microservices [modules] of the composite application, such as specifying by a developer during the configuration process that the output of a WordPress container is mapped to the input of a particular SQL database container or such as by mapping “IP addresses, DNS names, port numbers” from one microservice to another microservice or a remote third party internet site. Id. at ¶¶ 0035, 0048, 0050 – 0053. Software repository database may be used to store the software packages used to form the composite application. Id. at ¶ 0025 & 0054.
Liu and Church are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of microservice deployment, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to specify the configuration of the deployed microservices.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine group microservice installation using parameters specified in a CSV, as taught in Liu, with installing a composite microservice application using a “vendor-agnostic format” configuration file, as taught in Church. Church teaches a vendor agnostic format facilitates use of the configuration in different environments. Id. at ¶ 0035. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine group microservice installation using parameters specified in a CSV, as taught in Liu, with installing a composite microservice application using a “vendor-agnostic format” configuration file, as taught in Church, for the purpose of using a known agnostic microservice configuration file format with a system that requires using an agnostic file format to configure microservices.}
However, Liu and Church do not explicitly teach the limitation:
inputs/outputs…inputs/outputs of the software product {Ananthapur does teach this limitation. Ananthapur teaches that a composite application configuration method, as taught in Liu and Church, may include where the parameters of the application components include input and output parameters. Ananthapur at Abstract, id. at ¶¶ 0001, 0024, 0031, 0032, 0050.
Liu, Church, and Ananthapur are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software deployment, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to identify the components of the software to deploy.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine a composite application parameter configuration method, as taught in Liu and Church, with where the parameters include application component input and output parameters, as taught in Ananthapur. Ananthapur teaches that component inputs and outputs are important to identify when reusing application components. Id. at ¶¶ 0047 & 0048. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine a composite application parameter configuration method, as taught in Liu and Church, with where the parameters include application component input and output parameters, as taught in Ananthapur, for the purpose of using a known method to ensure the security and proper identification of parameters with a composite application deployment system that configures parameters as part of the deployment.}
However, Liu, Church, and Ananthapur do not explicitly teach the limitation:
and from a software marketplace, a selection of a software product from a plurality of available software products on the software marketplace, each software product comprising a plurality of modules; {Yajima does teach this limitation. Yajima teaches that selecting components for configuring a composite application method, as taught in Liu, Church, and Ananthapur, may be performed using a software product marketplace such as a software application selling site 103 that provides for the selection and download by a buyer of a software application composed of a plurality of software modules which combine to form the purchased application. Yajima at Abstract and ¶¶ 0053 – 0061 & 0171; id. at ¶¶ 0002, 0009, 0047, 0054, 0079, 0084, 0153 (Marketplace may allow purchase of a software application/program composed of selected modules).
Liu, Church, Ananthapur, and Yajima are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software deployment, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to identify the components of the software to deploy.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine selecting components for configuring a composite application method, as taught in Liu, Church, and Ananthapur, with using a marketplace to select components, as taught in Yajima. Yajima teaches that a marketplace provides a mechanism to select particular software modules required for an application. Id. at ¶ 0053. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine selecting components for configuring a composite application method, as taught in Liu, Church, and Ananthapur, with using a marketplace to select components, as taught in Yajima, for the purpose of using a known component offering platform with an application development method that requires obtaining specific components.}
However, Liu, Church, Ananthapur, and Yajima do not explicitly teach the limitation:
by identifying a specific handler for each of the modules based on characteristics of the modules, and by delegating the installation of each of the modules to the identified specific handler; {Nagaraja does teach this limitation. Nagaraja teaches that deploying a composite application method, as taught in Liu, Church, Ananthapur, and Yajima, may include using separate installation handler scripts for separate components of the application such as for a database and application server. Nagaraja at Abstract and ¶¶ 0041, 0049 – 0051, 0064, 0070, 0071.
Liu, Church, Ananthapur, Yajima, and Nagaraja are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software deployment, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to deploy the components of the software.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine deploying a composite application, as taught in Liu, Church, Ananthapur, and Yajima, with using separate installation handler scripts for separate components, as taught in Nagaraja. Yajima teaches particular software modules required for an application may be selected from a catalog. Id. at ¶ 0053. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine deploying a composite application, as taught in Liu, Church, Ananthapur, and Yajima, with using separate installation handler scripts for separate components, as taught in Nagaraja, for the purpose of using a known multiple-component application deployment method with a method that requires deploying a multiple-component application.}
Claim 3
With respect to claim 3, Liu, Church, Ananthapur, Yajima, and Nagaraja teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the mappings of the inputs are for the inputs to the software product and modules in the software product, and the mappings of the outputs are for the outputs of the software product and modules in the software product. {The configuration may be stored in a “vendor-agnostic format” that includes requirements for deployment, dependencies, and inputs and outputs between the microservices [modules] of the composite application, such as specifying by a developer during the configuration process that the output of a WordPress container is mapped to the input of a particular SQL database container or such as by mapping “IP addresses, DNS names, port numbers” from one microservice to another microservice or a remote third party internet site. Church at ¶¶ 0035, 0048, 0050 – 0053; Ananthapur at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0001, 0024, 0031, 0032, 0050 (input/output parameter for code reuse).}
Claim 4
With respect to claim 4, Liu, Church, Ananthapur, Yajima, and Nagaraja teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the software product abstraction further comprises platform requirements for the software product. {The configuration may be stored in a “vendor-agnostic format” that includes requirements for deployment, dependencies, and inputs and outputs between the microservices [modules] of the composite application, such as specifying by a developer during the configuration process that the output of a WordPress container is mapped to the input of a particular SQL database container or such as by mapping “IP addresses, DNS names, port numbers” from one microservice to another microservice or a remote third party internet site. Church at ¶¶ 0035, 0048, 0050 – 0053.}
Claim 5
With respect to claim 5, Liu, Church, Ananthapur, Yajima, and Nagaraja teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the selection of the software product is received from a marketplace. {Software components may include “external services” that are obtained from a marketplace such as third parties that provide “payment processing” services or that provide SDKs. Church at ¶¶ 0023, 0056, 0057; Ananthapur at ¶ 0018.}
Claim 6
With respect to claim 6, Liu, Church, Ananthapur, Yajima, and Nagaraja teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein a plurality of software products are available in the marketplace. {Software components may include “external services” that are obtained from a marketplace such as third parties that provide “payment processing” services or that provide SDKs. Church at ¶¶ 0023, 0056, 0057; Ananthapur at ¶ 0018.}
Claim 7
With respect to claim 7, Liu, Church, Ananthapur, Yajima, and Nagaraja teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the selection of the software product is received from a tenant of the platform. {Microservice group installation may be performed by a tenant of a cloud based environment. Liu at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0039, 0041, 0054, 0059.}
Claim 10
With respect to claim 10, Liu Liu, Church, Ananthapur, Yajima, and Nagaraja teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the mappings of the inputs are for the inputs to the software product and modules in the software product, and the mappings of the outputs are for the outputs of the software product and modules in the software product. {The configuration may be stored in a “vendor-agnostic format” that includes requirements for deployment, dependencies, and inputs and outputs between the microservices [modules] of the composite application, such as specifying by a developer during the configuration process that the output of a WordPress container is mapped to the input of a particular SQL database container or such as by mapping “IP addresses, DNS names, port numbers” from one microservice to another microservice or a remote third party internet site. Church at ¶¶ 0035, 0048, 0050 – 0053; Ananthapur at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0001, 0024, 0031, 0032, 0050 (input/output parameter for code reuse).}
Claim 11
With respect to claim 11, Liu, Church, Ananthapur, Yajima, and Nagaraja teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the software product abstraction further comprises platform requirements for the software product. {The configuration may be stored in a “vendor-agnostic format” that includes requirements for deployment, dependencies, and inputs and outputs between the microservices [modules] of the composite application, such as specifying by a developer during the configuration process that the output of a WordPress container is mapped to the input of a particular SQL database container or such as by mapping “IP addresses, DNS names, port numbers” from one microservice to another microservice or a remote third party internet site. Church at ¶¶ 0035, 0048, 0050 – 0053.}
Claim 12
With respect to claim 12, Liu, Church, Ananthapur, Yajima, and Nagaraja teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the selection of the software product is received from a marketplace. {Software components may include “external services” that are obtained from a marketplace such as third parties that provide “payment processing” services or that provide SDKs. Church at ¶¶ 0023, 0056, 0057; Ananthapur at ¶ 0018.}
Claim 13
With respect to claim 13, Liu, Church, Ananthapur, Yajima, and Nagaraja teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein a plurality of software products are available in the marketplace. {Software components may include “external services” that are obtained from a marketplace such as third parties that provide “payment processing” services or that provide SDKs. Church at ¶¶ 0023, 0056, 0057; Ananthapur at ¶ 0018.}
Claim 14
With respect to claim 14, Liu, Church, Ananthapur, Yajima, and Nagaraja teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the selection of the software product is received from a tenant of the platform. {Microservice group installation may be performed by a tenant of a cloud based environment. Liu at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0039, 0041, 0054, 0059.}
Claim 17
With respect to claim 17, Liu, Church, Ananthapur, Yajima, and Nagaraja teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the software product abstraction further comprises platform requirements for the software product. {The configuration may be stored in a “vendor-agnostic format” that includes requirements for deployment, dependencies, and inputs and outputs between the microservices [modules] of the composite application, such as specifying by a developer during the configuration process that the output of a WordPress container is mapped to the input of a particular SQL database container or such as by mapping “IP addresses, DNS names, port numbers” from one microservice to another microservice or a remote third party internet site. Church at ¶¶ 0035, 0048, 0050 – 0053.}
Claim 18
With respect to claim 18, Liu, Church, Ananthapur, Yajima, and Nagaraja teach the invention as claimed including:
further comprising a marketplace comprising a plurality of software products available for installation, and wherein the selection of the software product is received from the marketplace. {Software components may include “external services” that are obtained from a marketplace such as third parties that provide “payment processing” services or that provide SDKs. Church at ¶¶ 0023, 0056, 0057; Ananthapur at ¶ 0018.}
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 THEODORE E HEBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1409. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m..
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 571-272-3759. 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.
/T.H./ July 11, 2026
Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights