DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office action in response to applicant's amendment and response received 01/08/2026, responding to the 10/22/2025 non-final office action provided in rejection of claims 1-20.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 have been amended. Claims 4, 15 and 17 have been cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16 and 18-20 are pending and are addressed in this office action. New grounds of rejection are presented in view of the newly presented limitation(s).
Examiner notes
(A). Limitations have been provided with the Bold fonts in order to distinguish from the cited part of the reference (Italic).
(B). Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, references, or figures in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses to fully consider the reference in entirety, as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §§ 2141.02 and 2123.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Response to Amendments and Arguments
With respect to rejection un 101 abstract idea of independent claims, applicant contends that [0032]-[0035] of the specification as originally filed.) “Based on one or both determinations, the new package version can or cannot be added to the repository, which can be used for future references when a new software package is to be installed. (See ¶¶ [0015] and [0016] of the specification.).” (Remarks, page 9)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Prong 1, the limitations (i.e. determining … ) are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process. Applicant arguments have been considered but not persuasive.
With respect to rejection un 101 abstract idea of independent claims, applicant further argues that it is noted that recursively assembling every possible permutation of dependencies and recursively generating and updating the list of software package versions cannot be done in human mind with a pen and paper. Thus, it is believed that the recursive features of independent claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea. (Remarks, page 9)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements in (i.e. recursively assembling … recursively generating and updating) merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as assembling, generating and updating list which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Under Step 2B, , the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Applicant arguments have been considered but not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of independent claim under 35 USC 103(a), Applicant further argues that Francis, Francis, Dai, and Pape, as applied by the Office Action, fail to cure the deficiencies of R. Indeed, nowhere do Francis, Francis, Dai, and Pape disclose "recursively assembling every possible set of dependencies from the one or more other package versions in the repository; and recursively generating and updating a list of software package versions that are compatible with the new package version," as recited in independent claim 1. (Remarks, page 11)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant cancelled the claim limitations of claim 4 and incorporated to claim 1. The non-final office action provided the reference that combination of Farrell and Pape discloses the those cited limitation. Further newly added limitation of “recursively generating and updating a list of software package versions that are compatible with the new package version” discloses by Pape at least in par. 0093 and 0101, as cited in the office action. Applicant arguments have been considered but not persuasive.
Applicant offers no other arguments beyond arguing allowability for the reasons cited for the independent claim(s) or dependence upon the claims. These arguments are considered met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 1-3, 5-14, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: Claims 1-3, 5-8 are directed to computer implemented methods, claims 9-14 are directed to storage device, and claims 16 and 18-20 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of processes. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes. With Step 1 being directed to a statutory category, the 2019 Interim Eligibility Guidance flowchart is directed to Step 2.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim recites multiple limitations that recite an abstract idea. The limitations “obtaining a new package version for a software package,” recites a mental process since “obtaining … package” is a concept that can be reasonably performed in the human mind (with the aid of pen and paper), which include observation, evaluation, judgement and/or opinion. The limitation “wherein the new package version includes a new dependency and a new installation instruction for the software package,”, “each of which includes one or more other dependencies, for the software package,” , “verifying the new dependency by determining whether the new dependency is compatible with the one or more other dependencies for the software package;” , “in response to determining that the new dependency is compatible with the one or more other dependencies and permitting the new package version, which includes the new dependency an resulting in the software package being associated with the new package version;” , “in response to determining that the new dependency is not compatible with the one or more other dependencies;” and “wherein determining whether the new dependency is compatible with the one or more other dependencies for the software package includes Further Pape discloses the new package version is prohibited from being added to the repository.” The BRI of these limitations requires performing verification, determination are concept that can be reasonably performed in the human mind (with the aid of pen and paper), which include observation, evaluation, judgement and/or opinion.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements “wherein a repository
maintains package versions for the software package,”, “wherein the repository lists one or more other package versions,” , “verifying the new installation instruction by executing the new installation instruction to determine whether the execution results in a successful installation of the new package version;” , “in response to determining that the execution results in the successful installation,” , “recursively assembling every possible set of dependencies from the one or more other package versions in the repository” and “recursively generating and updating a list of software package versions that are compatible with the new package version” merely recites generic computer system or device to carry out or apply the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As stated above, the claimed invention merely recites generic computer system for carrying out or applying the abstract idea. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that mere data gathering, such as those defined in the claim, are well-understood, routine, and convention computer functions which cannot serve as an inventive concept according to MPEP 21.06.05(d).
For the above reasons, the claims of this application are not patentable under 35 USC 101.
Independent Device claim 9 is not patent eligible for the same reasons given for claim 1, wherein the “obtain a new package version for a software package, wherein a repository maintains package versions for the software package, wherein the new package version includes a new dependency and a new installation instruction for the software package, and wherein the repository lists one or more other package versions, each of which includes one or more other dependencies, for the software package; … which includes the new dependency and the new installation instruction, to be added to the repository, resulting in the software package being associated with the new package version.” are merely a generic computer component for applying the abstract idea, thus fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor an inventive concept.
Independent system claim 16 is not patent eligible for the same reasons given for claim 1, wherein the “one or more processors; and one or more hardware storage devices that store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computer system to: … which includes the new dependency and the new installation instruction, to be added to the repository, resulting in the software package being associated with the new package version.” The limitations as cited are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process. As stated above, the claimed invention merely recites generic computer system for carrying out or applying the abstract idea. The additional elements merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as storing, executing, installing, and determining data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent Claims 2, 5-6, 8, 10 and 18-19 are not patent eligible for the same reasons given for claim 1, wherein the “… determining whether every … includes a name for the
new package version. … new package version includes version
information … the new package version depends on. … .” are merely a generic computer component for applying the abstract idea, thus fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor an inventive concept.
Dependent Claims 3-, 7, 11-14 and 20 are not patent eligible for the same reasons given for claim 1. Under Prong 1, those limitations are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process. Further, the additional elements merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as storing, executing, installing, and determining data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, 10-11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chandrasekhar R et al. (US 20220334820 A1, hereinafter R) in view of Francis et al. (US 20240281243 A1), Dai et al. (US 20230305827 A1, hereinafter Dai) , Pape et al. (US 20200004528 A1, hereinafter Pape), Farrell et al. (US 8627289 B2, hereinafter Farrell), and Levin at al. (US 20220222351 A1, hereinafter Levin).
As to claim 1, R discloses a method comprising:
maintains package versions for the software package, wherein the new package version
includes a new dependency and a new installation instruction for the software package (abstract, … when the client IHS requests to be upgraded with the second software package [i.e. new package], the instructions access the data structure to determine whether or not the first software package version meets the identified software package dependency, and either allow or inhibit upgrading of the second software package depending upon whether or not the first software package version meets the identified software package dependency. … . Further, par. 0007, a memory storage device [i.e. repository] having program instructions stored thereon for identifying a version of a first software package that a second software package … . Further, par. 0052-0053, … the installation of new software packages 106 on the client IHS 102. For example, when a request is received [i.e. obtaining] to update an existing software package 106 or install a new software package 106 … new version of software package, also provide an installation script [i.e. installation instruction] that accesses the API of the software package deployment module 312 … ), and (par. 0020, … Server IHS 104 is provided with a package catalog 112 for each version of software package 106 that includes information about its dependencies 114 on the configuration characteristics of other software packages 106b configured in the client IHS 102 … );
verifying the new installation instruction by executing the new installation
instruction to determine whether the execution results in a successful installation of the
new package version (Fig.5, par. 0068, At step 514, the software package deployment method 500 determines whether the installation of the intermediate software package 106 was successful … ); and
in response to determining that the new dependency is compatible with the one
or more other dependencies (par. 0023, … the software update verification system 100 will be able to verify any known dependencies 114 prior to allowing its software package 106 to be installed on the client IHS 102. Further, par. 0052, A software package deployment module 312 manages the installation of new software packages 106 on the client IHS 102. For example, when a request is received to update an existing software package 106 or install a new software package 106 … ) and in response to determining that the execution results in the successful installation (see par. Fig.5, Fig.5, par. 0068, At step 514, the software package deployment method 500 determines whether the installation of the intermediate software package 106 was successful …),
permitting the new package version, which includes the new dependency (abstract, … upgraded with the second software package [i.e. new package], the instructions access the data structure to determine whether or not the first software package version meets the identified software package dependency, and either allow and the new installation instruction par. 0052-0053, … the installation of new software packages 106 on the client IHS 102. For example, when a request is received to update an existing software package 106 or install a new software package 106 … new version of software package, also provide an installation script [i.e. installation instruction] that accesses the API of the software package deployment module 312 … ), to be added to the repository, resulting in the software package being associated with the new package version (par. 0007, … a memory storage device [i.e. repository] having program instructions stored thereon for identifying a version of a first software package that a second software package depends upon to operate on the client IHS, and updating a data structure to indicate the identified software package dependency to the first software package version. Later on, when the client IHS requests to be upgraded with the second software package [i.e. new package], the instructions access the data structure to determine whether or not the first software package version meets the identified software package dependency, and either allow or inhibit upgrading of the second software package depending upon whether or not the first software package version meets the identified software package dependency. Further, par. 0067, … a particular script or location in memory where the software package deployment method 500 resides in order to continue the software package upgrade process. … Note: that the repository is update with "the second software package" is as "the software package” The second software package considered as a new package version).
R does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Francis discloses wherein the repository lists one or more other package versions (par. 0061, … the software update repository of the first database comprises a versioned list of software updates, wherein the different [i.e. other package version] versions of software updates … );
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by R to include wherein the repository lists one or more other package versions, as disclosed by Francis for the purpose of software updates, wherein the different versions of software updates with the same functionality. (see paragraph 0061).
Dai discloses verifying the new dependency by determining whether the new dependency is compatible with the one or more other dependencies for the software package (par. 0027, … the compatibility component 140 determines [i.e. verifying] whether the new packages [i.e. new dependency] are compatible with dependees and dependers on dependency graphs associated with the changed software packages of the subsequent set of software packages. … );
wherein determining whether the new dependency is compatible with the one or more other dependencies for the software package (par. 0027, … the compatibility component 140 determines [i.e. verifying] whether the new packages [i.e. new dependency] are compatible with dependees and dependers on dependency graphs associated with the changed software packages of the subsequent set of software packages. … );
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by R to include verifying the new dependency by determining whether the new dependency is compatible with the one or more other dependencies for the software package and wherein determining whether the new dependency is compatible with the one or more other dependencies for the software package , as disclosed by Dai for the purpose of determining whether the new packages are compatible with dependees and dependers on dependency graphs. (see paragraph 0020).
Pape discloses obtaining a new package version for a software package (par. 0029, … the registry service 202 receives an updated version of the package file from the developer application 108 to replace a former version of the package file with the updated version of the package file. … ),
preventing the new package version from being added to the repository (par. 0093, … updating files that reference the package manifest in the new branch; validating the new branch based on the updated files; and publishing a new version of an updated package in the repository in response to the validating being successful. … . Further, par. 0096, Example 4 includes example 3 and further comprises: in response to the validating being unsuccessful, preventing the new branch from being merged into a master branch on the repository; and holding back the version of the dependencies of the packages [i.e. new package]);
recursively generating and updating a list of software package versions that are compatible with the new package version (par. 0093, … determining dependencies of packages in a plurality of repositories, each repository including one or more packages; identifying a set of compatible versions for the dependencies of packages; creating a new branch in a repository of the plurality of repositories; updating a package manifest of the new branch based on the set of compatible versions; updating files that reference the package manifest in the new branch; validating the new branch based on the updated files; and publishing a new version of an updated package … Further, par. 0101, recursively determining the dependencies of the packages in the plurality of repositories after publishing the new version of the updated package);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by R to include the method obtaining a new package version for a software package, the new package version is prohibited from being added to the repository; the new package version is prohibited from being added to the repository: recursively generating and updating a list of software package versions that are compatible with the new package version, as disclosed by Pape for the purpose of obtaining a new package version for a software package for validation check (see abstract).
Farrell discloses in response to determining that the new dependency is not compatible with the one or more other dependencies (col. 3, ll. 30-39, … The utility 135 can detect [i.e. determining] any number of possible configuration errors occurring when attempting to install/update a feature 110 or feature patch 125. These errors can include, but are not limited to manifest errors 148, versioning errors 150, incompatible platform filters 152, unavailable required dependencies 154, unavailable optional dependencies 156 [i.e. other dependency], absence of parent features 158, non-standard application of feature patches 160, unavailable branding plug-ins 162, and the like),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by R to include the method wherein, in response to determining that the new dependency is not compatible with the one or more other dependencies as disclosed by Farrell for the purpose of detecting any number of possible configuration errors / incompatibility (see col. 3, ll. 31-32).
Levin discloses recursively assembling every possible set of dependencies from the one or more other package versions in the repository (par. 0038, … using an application programming interface (API) to recursively crawl repositories for package dependency manifests and determining which packages are most often depended upon by other packages. … );
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by R to include recursively assembling every possible set of dependencies from the one or more other package versions in the repository, as disclosed by Levin for the purpose of package dependency manifests and determining which packages are most often depended upon by other packages (see paragraph 0038).
As to claim 2, Dai discloses the method wherein determining whether the new dependency is compatible with the one or more other dependencies includes determining whether every combination of the new dependency and the one or more other dependencies is operational with each other (Abstract, … A package dependency graph is generated representing independent software packages and dependent software packages of the initial set of software packages. One or more software packages are updated with one or more updated software packages to generate a subsequent set of software packages. A compatibility check is performed on the subsequent set of software packages … .Further, par. 0027, … the compatibility component 140 determines whether the new packages [i.e. new dependency] are compatible with dependees and dependers on dependency graphs [i.e. combination]associated with the changed software packages of the subsequent set of software packages. … ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by R to include the method wherein determining whether the new dependency is compatible with the one or more other dependencies includes determining whether every combination of the new dependency and the one or more other dependencies is operational with each other, as disclosed by Dai for the purpose of determining whether the new packages are compatible with dependees and dependers on dependency graphs. (see paragraph 0020).
As to claim 8, R as modified by Fransis, and Dai does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Pape discloses the method wherein the new package version includes information specifying which packages the new package version depends on (Fig. 6, par. 0070, In a dependency tree 604, a new version of package D2 is published as D3. The software engineers working on project A have successfully integrated package D3 [i.e. new package version] and therefore published a new version of project A referred to as A3. However, the software engineers working on project B are unable to integrate D3 for some reason and, therefore, B2 remains dependent on the older version D2 [i.e. dependable version]. The dependency tree 604 illustrates side-by-side versions where the software engineers working on project C updated to package A3 without considering the dependency graph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by R to include the method wherein the new package version includes information specifying which packages the new package version depends on as disclosed by Pape for the purpose to calculate a set of compatible versions for the dependencies of the packages (see abstract).
As to claim 9, R et al., Francis et al, Dai et al, Farrell and Levin discloses one or more hardware storage devices a network storage device (R discloses at par. 0014, server (e.g., blade server or rack server), that store instructions that are executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to (R at Fig. 2, par. 0027, to provide specialized processing operations. Processor 201 may include any processor capable of executing program instructions, such as an Intel Pentium™ series processor or any general-purpose or embedded processors implementing any of a variety of Instruction Set Architectures (ISAs):
For remaining limitations see remarks regarding claim 1.
As to claim 10, Dai discloses the one or more hardware storage devices wherein determining whether the new dependency is compatible with the one or more other dependencies (par. 0027, … the compatibility component 140 determines whether the new packages [i.e. new dependency] are compatible with dependees and dependers on dependency graphs [i.e. combination]associated with the changed software packages of the subsequent set of software packages. … ),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by R to include the one or more hardware storage devices wherein determining whether the new dependency is compatible with the one or more other dependencies, as disclosed by Dai for the purpose of determining whether the new packages are compatible with dependees and dependers on dependency graphs. (see paragraph 0020).
R as modified by Dai, Francis and Pape does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Levin discloses includes recursively assembling each possible set of dependencies from the one or more other package versions (par. 0038, … using an application programming interface (API) to recursively crawl repositories for package dependency manifests and determining which packages are most often depended upon by other packages. … ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by R to include recursively assembling each possible set of dependencies from the one or more other package versions, as disclosed by Levin for the purpose of package dependency manifests and determining which packages are most often depended upon by other packages (see paragraph 0038).
As to claim 11, R discloses the one or more hardware storage devices wherein verifying the new installation instruction includes verifying that the new installation instruction works using the new dependency (par. 0066, … the software package deployment method 500 may identify any software packages associated with the dependencies by, for example, accessing the package catalog 112 that was used earlier to determine those dependencies that exist. In one embodiment, the software package deployment method 500 may generate a script (e.g., artifact) for applying the intermediate update, and executing those scripts to have the dependent software package installed. … .Further, par.0068, method 500 determines whether the installation of the intermediate software package 106 was successful [i.e. works] … ).
As to claim 16, R et al., Francis et al., Dai et al, Pape et al. Farrell and Levin discloses a computer system comprising:
one or more processors (R at Fig. 2, element 201); and
one or more hardware storage devices that store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computer system to (R at Fig. 2, par. 0027):
For remaining limitations see remarks regarding claim 1
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over R et al, Francis et al, Dai et al, Pape et al, Farrell et al. and Levin et al. as applied to claims 1 and 9 above and further in view of Moondhra et al. (US 20230244477 A1, hereinafter Moondhra).
As to claim 3, R as modified by Fransis, Dai, Pape, Farrell and Levin does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Moondhra discloses the method wherein the repository is implemented as a directed acyclic graph (par. 0017, … A set of versions of components as the set of nodes of the directed acyclic graph and the set of dependency references drawn between the set of nodes as directed edges of the directed acyclic graph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by R to include the method wherein the repository is implemented as a directed acyclic graph as disclosed by Moondhra for the purpose of setting of dependency references drawn between the set of nodes (see paragraph 0017).
As to claim 14, it is the device claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over R et al, Francis et al, Dai et al, Pape et al, Farrell et al. and Levin as applied to claims 1 and 16 above and further in view of Zhu et al. (CN 115098867 A, hereinafter Zhu).
As to claim 5, R as modified by Fransis, Dai and Pape does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Zhu discloses the method wherein the new package version includes a name for the new package version (page 2 , generating firmware [i.e. package] encrypted packet according to the upgrading requirement, the firmware encrypted packet comprises firmware name to be upgraded [i.e. new package], matching of firmware to be upgraded and dependency relation description file, target version file of firmware to be upgraded).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by R to include the method wherein the new package version includes a name for the new package version as disclosed by Zhu for the purpose of name to be upgraded, matching of firmware / package to be upgraded / new (see abstract).
As to claim 18, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 5. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 6-7 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over R et al, Francis et al, Dai et al, Pape et al, Farrell et al. and Levin as applied to claims 1 and 16 above and further in view of Kumar et al. (US 20170060560 A1, hereinafter Kumar).
As to claim 6, R as modified by Fransis, Dai, Farrell and Levin does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Kumar discloses the method wherein the new package version includes version
information for the new package version (par. 0042, … The other entity system 140 may be a source of supply for new or upgraded [i.e. new package version] software or information related to software to be tested, or a third-party service offering tips, advices, tools, and the like, related to regression and compatibility testing. … ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by R to include the method wherein the new package version includes version information for the new package version as disclosed by Kumar for the purpose of providing information of new or upgraded software (see par. 0070).
As to claim 7, Kumar discloses the method wherein executing the new installation instruction includes running a test command as a user on a testing machine (par. 0048, … The compatibility testing system 110, after it receives an indication from the user 160 that one or more of the validation functions have been selected, automatically determines if entries corresponding to the selected validation functions are created, updated or successful with the proposed software [i.e. new installation] being installed. … ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by R to include the method wherein executing the new installation instruction includes running a test command as a user on a testing machine as disclosed by Kumar for the purpose of compatibility testing system 110 then presents to the user 160, via the user computer system 120, an indication of success of the validation of the entries (see par. 0016).
As to claim 19, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 6. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6.
As to claim 20, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 7. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over R et al, Francis et al, Dai et al, Pape et al, Farrell et al. and Levin as applied to claim 9 above and further in view of Orleth et al. (US 7457831 B2, hereinafter Orleth).
As to claim 12, R as modified by Fransis, Dai and Pape does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Orleth discloses the one or more hardware storage devices wherein executing the new installation instruction is performed within a container computing environment (col. 5, ll. 18-23, when a newer version of a driver is installed on a client machine from the centralized driver store, the client creates a uniquely identified container [i.e. computing environment] within its driver file storage facilities for at least the new components associated with the newer driver version. Further Fig. 4, col. 20, ll. 1-4, FIG. 4. As explained above, when a package is installed, rather than install only select portions of the package, the entire package is installed on a particular package container).).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by R to include the one or more hardware storage devices wherein executing the new installation instruction is performed within a container computing environment, as disclosed by Orleth for the purpose of identifying version component versions of containers (see abstract).
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Chandrasekhar R et al., Francis et al., Dai et al., Pape et al., Farrell et al., and Levin as applied to claim 9 and further in view of Moorthi et al. (US 20170374151 A1, hereinafter Moorthi).
As to claim 13, R discloses as modified by Francis, Dai and Pape do not explicitly discloses the following limitations but,
Moorthi discloses the one or more hardware storage devices wherein executing the new installation instruction is performed by executing a corresponding installation instruction for the one or more other package versions and then executing the new installation instruction for the new package version (par. 0146, …various sets of software can be installed and made available can be thought of in layers of decreasing volatility (e.g., shown in Table I) … table 1, … Bundle Installs Customer package requirements (name, Package Installs version, dependencies) Parallel usually latest, but possibly enabling Control Agent older versions as well as new versions and other installs in pre-release Common package requirements (name, version, Packages installs, …).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by R to include the one or more hardware storage devices wherein executing the new installation instruction is performed by executing a corresponding installation instruction for the one or more other package versions and then executing the new installation instruction for the new package version, as disclosed by Moorthi for the purpose of decreasing volatility various sets of software available to install (e.g., shown in Table I) (see par. 0146).
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 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 Mohammad Kabir whose telephone number is (571)270-13411. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sam Sough can be reached on (571) 272-6799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohammad Kabir/
Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. SOUGH/spe, art unit 2192