CTNF 18/193,281 CTNF 73675 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This office action is in response to the claimed invention filed on March 30, 2023 in which claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed on March 30, 2023 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. It has been placed in the application file. The information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract without significantly more. At Step 1 : With respect to subject matter eligibility under 35 USC 101, it is determined that the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. At Step 2A, Prong One : The limitation “ analyzing the identified, extracted component to derive a set of data describing the identified, extracted component” in claims 1, 8 and 15, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. One can mentally or manually with the aid of pen and paper analyze the identified, extracted component to derive a set of data describing the identified, extracted component. The limitation “building a relationship between the data” in claims 1, 8 and 15, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. One can mentally or manually with the aid of pen and paper build a relationship between data. The limitation “using the relationship to develop an enterprise-wide methodology that is utilized to accelerate development of an additional, inflight deployment by comparing the additional, inflight deployment against the developed methodology” in claims 1, 8 and 15, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement, but for the recitation of generic computer components. One can mentally or manually with the aid of pen and paper compare the additional, inflight deployment against the developed methodology. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. At Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements: That the method is "implemented by a computing system” is a high-level recitation of a generic computer components and represents mere instructions to apply on a computer as in MPEP 2106.05(f), which does not provide integration into a practical application. The limitation “extracting a component which is identified in the production deployment” amounts to data-gathering steps which is considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity, (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitation “leveraging production deployments to accelerate inflight deployments in a computing environment by one or more processors” recites insignificant extra-solution activity such as mere outputting of the result. The mere outputting of data does not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. Viewing the additional limitations together and the claim as a whole, nothing provides integration into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)). The limitation “ one or more processors, one or more computers and memory of system in a computing environment ” are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to on more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Note, the mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. At Step 2B: The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more. With respect to the "extracting ….." identified as insignificant extra-solution activity above when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); … OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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 thus remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more. With respect to “one or more processors, one or more computers and memory of system in a computing environment ” amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrate by: Relevant court decision: the followings are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, see e.g., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) and MPEP 2106.05(f)(2): Computer readable storage media comprising instructions to implement a method, e.g., see Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim appears to be ineligible. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The remaining independent claims 8 and 15 fall short the 35 USC 101 requirement under the same rationale. The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 when analyzed and each taken as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Claim 2 recites “wherein analyzing the component to derive the set of the data further includes extracting cloud provider platform component metadata”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception. Claim 3 recites “wherein the cloud provider platform component metadata further includes infrastructure components, Platform as a Service (PaaS) components, serverless components, and relevant services configuration services configuration components, and analyzing the component to derive the set of the data further includes extracting information from Infrastructure as Code (IaC), helm charts, or a script deploying an application”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for extracting information from Infrastructure as Code (IaC), helm charts, or a script deploying an application, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Claim 4 recites “wherein analyzing the identified, extracted component to derive the set of the data describing the component further includes extracting an identified pattern as the set of the data by analyzing a pattern tag value extracted from a component participating in the identified pattern”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for extracting an identified pattern as the set of the data, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Claim 5 recites “extracting a reference implementation for the pattern from a repository that hosts a mapping of patterns to reference implementations and necessary metadata regarding compliance for a given enterprise requirement implemented within the reference implementation”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for extracting a reference implementation for the pattern from a repository, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Claim 6 recites “wherein building the relationship between the data further includes building a component taxonomy”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception. Claim 7 recites “wherein building the component taxonomy further includes examining at least one of a Cloud Service Provider (CSP) Application Programming Interface (API) or Command Line Interface (CLI) component to extract relevant metadata information”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception. Claim 9 recites “wherein the executable instructions when executed cause the system to, pursuant to analyzing the component to derive the set of the data, extract cloud provider platform component metadata”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception. Claim 10 recites “wherein the cloud provider platform component metadata further includes infrastructure components, Platform as a Service (PaaS) components, serverless components, and relevant services configuration services configuration components, and wherein the executable instructions when executed cause the system to, pursuant to analyzing the component to derive the set of the data, extract component information from Infrastructure as Code (IaC), helm charts, or a script deploying an application”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for extracting information from Infrastructure as Code (IaC), helm charts, or a script deploying an application, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Claim 11 recites “wherein the executable instructions when executed cause the system to, pursuant to analyzing the identified, extracted component to derive the set of the data describing the component, extract an identified pattern as the set of the data by analyzing a pattern tag value extracted from a component participating in the identified pattern”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for extracting an identified pattern as the set of the data, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Claim 12 recites “wherein the executable instructions when executed cause the system to extract a reference implementation for the pattern from a repository that hosts a mapping of patterns to reference implementations and necessary metadata regarding compliance for a given enterprise requirement implemented within the reference implementation”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for extracting a reference implementation for the pattern from a repository, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Claim 13 recites “wherein the executable instructions when executed cause the system to, pursuant to building the relationship between the data, build a component taxonomy”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception. Claim 14 recites “wherein the executable instructions when executed cause the system to, pursuant to building the component taxonomy, examine at least one of a Cloud Service Provider (CSP) Application Programming Interface (API) or Command Line Interface (CLI) component to extract relevant metadata information”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception. Claim 16 recites “including program instructions to, pursuant to analyzing the component to derive the set of the data, extract cloud provider platform component metadata”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception. Claim 17 recites “wherein the cloud provider platform component metadata further includes infrastructure components, Platform as a Service (PaaS) components, serverless components, and relevant services configuration services configuration components, and further including program instructions to, pursuant to analyzing the component to derive the set of the data, extract component information from Infrastructure as Code (IaC), helm charts, or a script deploying an application”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for extracting information from Infrastructure as Code (IaC), helm charts, or a script deploying an application, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Claim 18 recites “including program instructions to, pursuant to analyzing the identified, extracted component to derive the set of the data describing the identified, extracted component, extract an identified pattern as the data by analyzing a pattern tag value extracted from a component participating in the identified pattern”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for extracting an identified pattern as the set of the data, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Claim 19 recites “including program instructions to extract a reference implementation for the identified pattern from a repository that hosts a mapping of patterns to reference implementations and necessary metadata regarding compliance for a given enterprise requirement implemented within the reference implementation”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality and would function in its ordinary capacity for extracting a reference implementation for the pattern from a repository, this additional element does not integrate the integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Claim 20 recites “including program instructions to, pursuant to building the relationship between the data, build a component taxonomy”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. There is no additional elements recited which tie the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significant more than the identified judicial exception. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20200104350 (involved in extracting tables from a document (101), extracting headers for each of the tables by accessing the tables via a memory and returning the tables with the headers to the memory, and extracting cells from each of the tables by accessing the tables and the headers via the memory and returning the tables with the headers and the cells to the memory. A cell document for each of the cells is generated. Each of the cells is correlated to corresponding portions of the headers and each cell document records the correlation between the cells and the corresponding portions of the headers. Each cell document is annotated to generate annotated cell documents with a cell recognition model trained to perform natural language processing on the cell documents by classifying each term in each of the cell documents and extracting relationships between the terms of each of the cell documents. The annotated cell documents are stored in a searchable database). US 20170147635 A1 (involved in analyzing a domain corpus of content in a new target domain for adaptation with reference to resources that provide syntactic analysis of the domain content that links portions of the domain corpus to existing concepts and links in semantic graph. The triples are extracted from the analysis of domain corpus of any two concepts that share a linking syntactic relationship. The triples are evaluated as potential relationship assertions. The relationship assertion is selected for addition as a new link between existing concepts in the semantic graph). US 20230076276 (involved in extracting configuration information and deployment information from a database and configuration components from the configuration information, where the configuration components comprise functionality at a database layer. The processor stores the configuration information and the deployment information in a file including a predetermined computer-readable format and generates a configuration package (V1-VN) based on the configuration information and the deployment information, where the configuration package indicates changes to the configuration information. The processor deploys the configuration package). US 11573789 B1 (involved in automatically configuring deployments of sets of enterprise software applications used for corporate client, such as corporation. Uses include but are not limited to company, a business, an enterprise, a government entity, a partnership, and an organization). US 20230011766 A1 (involved in configuring deployments of sets of enterprise software applications to users.) US20220300340A1 (involved in receiving first data through an interface by a computer system, and determining a cloud environment template based on the first data. A second data is received by the interface. The cloud environment template is updated into an updated cloud environment template based on the second data. A command is received to provision a cloud-based computing environment (100) associated with the updated cloud environment template. A set of executable files associated with a cloud provisioning system (110) is generated based on updated cloud environment template. A containerized application is executed to deploy the computing environment by a cloud service provider, where the containerized application is configured to execute the set of the executable files.) US 11379223B1 (involved in storing information for a set of enterprise software applications, where the information having an executable code of the applications. An expert knowledge database has heuristics regarding improvements for deployments of the software applications. A configuration database has deployment-specific configuration settings and corresponding setting values that define a deployment that has been deployed on a deployment server. The hardware processors are provided by machine-readable instructions to monitor and quantify operations of the deployment on the server, and modify the deployment of the set of software applications by modifying individual ones of the configuration settings to the corresponding system-initiated setting values.) US 20220197621 A1 (involved in receiving a request to display a deployment history of a target environment from a client device (102). A list of previous deployments associated with a repository identified in the request is obtained in response to the request. The list of deployments is analyzed to identify a subset of deployments that is redeployable in the target environment. A roll back of a current code deployment is caused to the particular previous deployment in the environment, based on a user selection of a selectable affordance displayed on the device. An error message is communicated to the device for display.) US20210255847A1 (involved in storing computer-executable components, and a processor operably coupled to the memory and that executes the computer-executable components stored in the memory. A deployment generator component analyses current component versions of application services and determines differences with previous deployment versions of the services deployed to a target computing environment. A service deployment output component generates instructions to selectively update the services to the environment based on the determined differences between the previous versions and the current versions of the application services. A commit analyzer component processes a commit history file and generates a changed files dataset indicating file changes between a previous deployment of the code image versions in the file and a subsequent code image version that is created since the previous deployment.) US 10691436B1 (involved in receiving from a client device request for previewing promotion of a selected source code deployment to a target environment. The request identifier of the selected source code deployment and an identifier of the target environment define a type of the target environment for deployment testing, staging, and production. A source code revision identifier of the selected source code deployment is identified based on the identifier of the selected code deployment. A list of undeployed source code revisions between the selected source code deployments is retrieved and the latest source code deployment in the target environment is retrieved based on the source code revision identifier of the selected source code deployment. The retrieved list of undeployed source code revisions to the client device for rendering on a display of the client device is forwarded). US 20200174769 A1 (involved in creating a digital twin that represents a computing infrastructure, the digital twin representing all microcode versions present in components in the computing infrastructure, then creating a database of a upgrades including at least one microcode version update and a corresponding criticality of each of the updates, and emulating a first deployment of a first set of one or more of the updates with the digital twin.) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN M CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-4032. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30a-10p(Midflex). 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, Ann J Lo can be reached at (571)272-9767. 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. /JEAN M CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159 April 23, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/193,281 Page 2 Art Unit: 2159
Prosecution Insights