DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claims filed February 25, 2026. Claims 1-2, 5, 10-11, 13-16, 18-20, and 22-27 are pending. Claims 1,10, and 15 are independent claims. Claims 1, 10, 13, 15, 18, 22-24, and 27 have been amended. Claims 3-4, 6-9, 12, 17, and 21 have been cancelled.
The objection to claim 24 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment of the claim.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments and amendments to the claims.
For clarity of the prosecution history record, the Applicant’s representative was contacted by the Examiner on September 23, 2026 regarding proposed claim amendments to put the claims in condition for allowance. However, the Applicant’s representative failed to respond in due time.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 5, 11, 13-14, 16, and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
- Claim 2 recites “A method as in claim 1, wherein”. This should likely read “The method of claim 1, wherein”.
- Claim 5 recites “A method as in claim 1, wherein…”. This should likely read “The method of claim 1, wherein”.
- Claim 11 recites “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium as in claim 10…”. This should likely read “The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 10…”.
- Claim 13 recites “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium as in claim 1…”. This should likely read “The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 10…”.
- Claim 14 recites “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium as in claim 10…”. This should likely read “The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 10…”.
- Claim 16 reads “A computer system as in claim 15…”. This should likely read “The computer system of claim 15”.
- Claim 18 reads “A computer system as in claim 1…”. This should likely read “The computer system of claim 15”.
- Claim 19 reads “A computer system as in claim 18…”. This should likely read “The computer system of claim 18”.
- Claim 20 reads “A computer system as in claim 15…”. This should likely read “The computer system of claim 15”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 13, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium as in claim 1”. It is unclear whether the claim should refer to the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 10 as indicated by the first portion of the limitation, or to the method of claim 1 as indicated by the second portion. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted to read “The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 10”.
Claim 18 recites “The computer system of claim 1”. It is unclear whether the claim should refer to the computer system of claim 15 as indicated by the first portion of the limitation, or to the method of claim 1 as indicated by the second portion. For the purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted to read “The computer system of claim 15”. Claim 19 is rejected in view of it’s dependence on claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 10, 15, and 22-27 are allowed.
Claims 2, 5, 11, 13-14, 16, and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
REASONS FOR ALLOWANCE
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The cited prior art taken alone or in combination fail to teach, in combination with the other claimed limitations, “sending, by the source system, the commit to a git repository separate from the cloud system” and “writing, in response to receiving the first request from the first user, by the source system, the registry hash, the developer identifier, and the commit identifier as a registry entry within a commit registry in a database of the cloud system accessible by the target system, wherein the code is imported to the target system by the cloud system based on a second request at the target system, the second request comprising the commit identifier, and wherein the database comprises an in-memory database engine of the cloud system configured to:” as recited in claims 1, 10, and 15.
The closest cited prior art, the combination of “Pro Git” by Scott Chacon and Ben Straub (hereinafter “Chacon”), “Git vs. GitHub: What is the difference between them?” by Cameron McKenzie (hereinafter “McKenzie”), “How to Checkout/Clone form a Specific Git Commit Id (SHA)” by devopscube (hereinafter “devopscube”), US 20220374439 A1 (hereinafter “Hu”), and “le-git-image: Towards Verifiable Web-based Git Repositories” by Afzali et. al (hereinafter “Afzali”), teaches a creating hashes for code that is to be deployed or committed to a repository and comparing that hash with previously stored hashes to ensure validity of the code. However, the combination of Chacon, McKenzie, devopscube, Hu, and Afzali does not disclose “sending, by the source system, the commit to a git repository separate from the cloud system” and “writing, in response to receiving the first request from the first user, by the source system, the registry hash, the developer identifier, and the commit identifier as a registry entry within a commit registry in a database of the cloud system accessible by the target system, wherein the code is imported to the target system by the cloud system based on a second request at the target system, the second request comprising the commit identifier, and wherein the database comprises an in-memory database engine of the cloud system configured to:”. While the combination of Chacon, McKenzie, devopscube, Hu, and Afzali disclose the use of hashes for commit verification, the combination of references does not disclose a commit registry in the cloud system for deployment, that is separate from the git repository outside the cloud system where the code is committed.
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.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVIAN WEIJIA DUAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5442. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM.
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, Wei Y Mui can be reached at (571) 272-3708. 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.
/V.W.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2191 /WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights