DETAILED ACTION
Amendment submitted January 27, 2026 has been considered by examiner. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant states that the cited art does not disclose “causing the software service to be deployed based at least in part on the change request and the change status in the runtime environment, wherein the causing the software service to be deployed includes an installation of at least a part of the software service in the runtime environment.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Kruempelmann [0039] discloses deploying software based on a change request such as an update, while Harrison [Fig. 20, 0334, 0372-0377] discloses setting a change status to update setting. The combination of Kruempelmann and Harrison disclose the deployment of software based on the change request and the change status. Pokorny [0073] discloses that a “recommended software-stack 114 to be included (e.g., installed) in a target computing environment.” The target computing environment is analogous to the runtime environment. Furthermore, the instant specification does not provide an explicit definition of a runtime environment other than a very broad concept in paragraph [0083].
As such, the cited art discloses the above argued feature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 11-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruempelmann et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0188282) in view of Pokorny et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0027810) and further in view of Harrison et al (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0096000).
Claims 1 and 11: Kruempelmann discloses a method and a system for context-aware change management, comprising:
receiving a change request for a software service, the change request comprising change metadata [0033]. [See at least receiving configuration metadata that updates a configuration setting.]
automatically obtaining context information for the change request [0033]. [Context information seems to be referring to a type of a request, based at least on the instant specification. Kruempelmann [0033] discloses a type of an update request.]
Kruempelmann alone does not explicitly disclose the context information including information indicative of runtime environment of the software service.
However, Kruempelmann [0033] discloses obtaining context information as discussed above and Pokorny [0060] further discloses where context includes changes to runtime environment.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kruempelmann with Pokorny. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide appropriate runtime environment to execute software.
Kruempelmann alone also does not explicitly disclose the change status including at least one selected from a group consisting of an approved status, a pending approval status, a rejected status, a cancelled status, and an error status.
However, Harrison [Fig. 20, 0334, 0372-0377] discloses setting a change status based changes to metadata. The statuses include, Approve, Being Approved, etc.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kruempelmann with Harrison. One would have been motivated to do so in order to determine whether changes to the metadata are appropriate.
Kruempelmann as modified in view of Pokorny further disclose:
making a decision on the change request based at least in part on the change metadata and the context information [Kruempelmann: 0026, 0033]. [A change request occurs based at least if a particular setting needs to be updated.]
setting a change status for the change request based on the decision [Kruempelmann:0039]. [See at least identifying “the current status and configuration information…”]
causing the software service to be deployed based at least in part on the change request and the change status in the runtime environment [Kruempelmann:[0039]. Also, see at least Pokorny [0035] for deploying software based at least on target environment (i.e. runtime environment)],
wherein the causing the software service to be deployed includes an installation of at least a part of the software service in the runtime environment. [Pokorny [0073] discloses that a “recommended software-stack 114 to be included (e.g., installed) in a target computing environment.” The target computing environment is analogous to the runtime environment.]
wherein the method is performed using one or more processors [0040].
Claims 2 and 12: Kruempelmann discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 11 above, and Kruempelmann further discloses wherein the context information includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a type of the change request, requester information, installation information of the software service, an entity associated with the software service, and approver information [0033]
Claims 3 and 13: Kruempelmann discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 11 above, and Kruempelmann further discloses wherein the making a decision on the change request comprising making the decision on the change request using a set of approval rules based at least in part on the change metadata and the context information [0026, 0033]. [A decision of the change request occurs based at least if a particular setting needs to be updated.]
Claims 7 and 16: Kruempelmann discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 11 above, and Kruempelmann further discloses if the decision is to approve the change request, initiating an implementation of a change to the software service according to the change request [0026, 0033].
Claims 4, 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruempelmann et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0188282) in view of Pokorny et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0027810) further in view of Harrison et al (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0096000) and further in view of Lachaume (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0128152).
Claim 4: Kruempelmann discloses the method of Claim 3 above, but Kruempelmann alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the set of approval rules include a rule data structure using a tree structure.
However, Lachaume [0036] discloses using a decision tree to come up with a particular decision (i.e. approval) based on set rules.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kruempelmann with Lachaume. One would have been motivated to do so in order to arrive at a decision that was set by a system.
Claim 6: Kruempelmann discloses the method of Claim 3 above, but Kruempelmann alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the set of approval rules include a rule related to one or more additional conditions.
However, Lachaume [0036] discloses using a decision tree to come up with a particular decision (i.e. approval) based on set rules/conditions. The rules are all related because they are part of a same decision tree.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kruempelmann with Lachaume. One would have been motivated to do so in order to arrive at a decision that was set by a system.
Claim 14: Kruempelmann discloses the system of Claim 13 above, but Kruempelmann alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the set of approval rules include a rule data structure using a tree structure or a rule related to one or more additional conditions.
However, Lachaume [0036] discloses using a decision tree to come up with a particular decision (i.e. approval) based on set rules/conditions. The rules are all related because they are part of a same decision tree.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kruempelmann with Lachaume. One would have been motivated to do so in order to arrive at a decision that was set by a system.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruempelmann et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0188282) in view of Pokorny et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0027810) further in view of Harrison et al (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0096000) further in view of Shiraishi et al (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0039558) and further in view of Lee et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0115112).
Claims 5 and 15: Kruempelmann discloses the method and the system of Claims 3 and 13 above, but Kruempelmann alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the set of approval rules include a rule for a change type, a rule for a requester type, a rule for one or more runtime environment parameters, a rule for a compliance requirement, a rule for an organization type, and a rule for approver type.
However, Kruempelmann [0033] discloses a type a change type (i.e. an update request); Shiraishi [0068] discloses various rules to make sure that a process runs appropriately. The rules include runtime rules, compliance rules; And Lee [0037, 0048] further discloses rules based at least on requester type, an organization type and an approver.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kruempelmann with Shiraishi and Lee. One would have been motivated to do so in order to make sure that a process runs appropriately.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruempelmann et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0188282) in view of Pokorny et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0027810) further in view of Harrison et al (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0096000) and further in view of Raman et al (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0117729).
Claims 8 and 17: Kruempelmann discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 11 above, and Kruempelmann further discloses storing information associated with the change request to one or more memories [0026, 0033].
But, Kruempelmann alone does not explicitly disclose receiving an inquiry associated with the software service; compiling a filter based at least in part on the inquiry; and retrieving a change history for the software service using the filter, the change history including information for one or more change requests.
However, Raman [0024, 0054] discloses storing changesets (i.e. change requests); A query is then executed to retrieve particular changes based on a particular criteria (i.e. filter).
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kruempelmann with Raman. One would have been motivated to do so in order to retrieve particular versions of data (see at least [0024]).
Claims 9, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruempelmann et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0188282) in view of Pokorny et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0027810) further in view of Harrison et al (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0096000) and further in view of Lee et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0115112).
Claims 9 and 18: Kruempelmann discloses the method and the system of Claims 3 and 13 above, but Kruempelmann alone does not explicitly disclose receiving one or more inputs corresponding to one or more change policy parameters; and compiling one or more change policy rules based at least in part on the one or more inputs; wherein the set of approval rules include the one or more change policy rules.
However, Lee [0037, 0048] discloses at least modifying approval rules, which means that a change in policy for approval would take place.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kruempelmann with Lee. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a user an ability to change approval rules for certain actions.
Claim 20: Kruempelmann discloses a method for context-aware change management, the method comprising:
receiving one or more inputs corresponding to one or more change policy parameters [0033]. [See at least receiving configuration metadata that updates a configuration setting.]
receiving a change request for a software service, the change request comprising change metadata [0033]. [See at least receiving configuration metadata that updates a configuration setting.]
automatically obtaining context information for the change request [0033]. [Context information seems to be referring to a type of a request, based at least on the instant specification. Kruempelmann [0033] discloses a type of an update request.]
Kruempelmann alone does not explicitly disclose the context information including information indicative of runtime environment of the software service.
However, Kruempelmann [0033] discloses obtaining context information as discussed above and Pokorny [0060] further discloses where context includes changes to runtime environment.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kruempelmann with Pokorny and Lee. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide appropriate runtime environment to execute software.
Kruempelmann alone also does not explicitly disclose the change status including at least one selected from a group consisting of an approved status, a pending approval status, a rejected status, a cancelled status, and an error status.
However, Harrison [Fig. 20, 0334, 0372-0377] discloses setting a change status based changes to metadata. The statuses include, Approve, Being Approved, etc.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kruempelmann with Harrison. One would have been motivated to do so in order to determine whether changes to the metadata are appropriate.
Kruempelmann as modified in view of Pokorny further disclose:
making a decision on the change request using the one or more change policy rules based at least in part on the change metadata or the context information [Kruempelmann: 0026, 0033]. [A change request occurs based at least if a particular setting needs to be updated.]
setting a change status for the change request [Kruempelmann: 0039]. [See at least identifying “the current status and configuration information…”]
causing the software service to be deployed based at least in part on the change request and the change status in the runtime environment [Kruempelmann: [0039]. Also, see at least Pokorny [0035] for deploying software based at least on target environment (i.e. runtime environment)],
wherein the causing the software service to be deployed includes an installation of at least a part of the software service in the runtime environment. [Pokorny [0073] discloses that a “recommended software-stack 114 to be included (e.g., installed) in a target computing environment.” The target computing environment is analogous to the runtime environment.]
wherein the method is performed using one or more processors [0040].
Kruempelmann alone does not explicitly disclose compiling one or more change policy rules based at least in part on the one or more inputs.
However, Lee [0037, 0048] discloses identifying and then modifying approval rules.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kruempelmann with Lee. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a user an ability to change approval rules for certain actions.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruempelmann et al (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0188282) in view of Pokorny et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0027810) further in view of Harrison et al (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0096000) and further in view of Baeuml et al (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0074406).
Claims 10 and 19: Kruempelmann discloses the method and the system of Claims 1 and 11 above, but Kruempelmann alone does not explicitly disclose generating, using a large language model based on one or more inputs, the change request.
However, Kruempelmann [0033] discloses receiving inputs for change request for data and Baeuml [0056] discloses generating a request based on inputs using an LLM.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kruempelmann with Baeuml. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a model that can provide an output based on user inputs.
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 ALEX GOFMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163