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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 4/27/2026. Claims 1-3, 5-12, 15-16, 18, and 20-24 are currently pending and claims 4, 13-14, 17, 19 are cancelled. Claims 1, 10, and 16 are the independent claims.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is longer than 150 words in length. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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, 5-12, 15-16, 18, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1, it recites “A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, by a validation system, a software deployment request, the software deployment request including an identifier associated with a software component and a deployment location, the deployment location comprising a first cloud deployment platform; retrieving, by the validation system, metadata associated with the software component, based on the identifier; determining, by the validation system, a set of validations associated with the software deployment request, based at least in part on the metadata and the first cloud deployment platform; initiating one or more validation processes, based at least in part on the set of validations; determining, by the validation system, a set of results of the one or more validation processes; and initiating, by the validation system, deployment of the software component to the first cloud deployment platform, based at least in part on the set of results, wherein initiating deployment of the software component comprises at least one of: generating an executable software build based at least in part on the software component; provisioning the executable software build using a cloud provisioning component; or deploying the executable software build to the first cloud deployment platform using a cloud service provider.”
The limitations “determining… a set of validations associated with the software deployment request, based at least in part on the metadata and the first cloud deployment platform”, “initiating one or more validation processes, based at least in part on the set of validations”, and “determining…a set of results of the one or more validation processes”, as drafted recites a function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, a human may mentally/with pen and paper/etc. judge/decide/determine/select/etc. validations associated with deployment request, mentally/with pen and paper/etc. initiate/decide to start/determine to begin/etc. validation process/perform analysis/perform judgement/perform evaluation/etc., and may mentally/with pen and paper/etc. determine/decide/judge/etc. results of validation/evaluation/analysis/judgement/etc./judge whether evaluation has been passed successfully/etc.. As such, the limitations, as drafted, is a function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements “receiving, by a validation system, a software deployment request, the software deployment request including an identifier associated with a software component and a deployment location, the deployment location comprising a first cloud deployment platform”, “retrieving, by the validation system, metadata associated with the software component, based on the identifier”, “by the validation system”, “a cloud provisioning component/a cloud service provider” and “initiating, by the validation system, deployment of the software component to the first cloud deployment platform, based at least in part on the set of results, wherein initiating deployment of the software component comprises at least one of: generating an executable software build based at least in part on the software component; provisioning the executable software build using a cloud provisioning component; or deploying the executable software build to the first cloud deployment platform using a cloud service provider.” The limitations “a first cloud deployment platform”, “by the validation system”, and “a cloud provisioning component/a cloud service provider” recites that high level/generic computer/computer components/cloud deployment platform/a validation system/cloud provisioning component/clous service provider are used to implement/perform the abstract idea/mental process, and as such amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and/or mere computer components. The additional elements “receiving, by a validation system, a software deployment request, the software deployment request including an identifier associated with a software component and a deployment location, the deployment location comprising a first cloud deployment platform”, “retrieving, by the validation system, metadata associated with the software component, based on the identifier”, and “initiating, by the validation system, deployment of the software component to the first cloud deployment platform, based at least in part on the set of results, wherein initiating deployment of the software component comprises at least one of: generating an executable software build based at least in part on the software component; provisioning the executable software build using a cloud provisioning component; or deploying the executable software build to the first cloud deployment platform using a cloud service provider” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering/receiving/retrieving data/information/deployment requests/metadata/etc. and transmitting/storing/deploying data/information/software component/software build/etc., and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g), etc..
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and/or mere computer components which is not significantly more than the abstract idea, and mere insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception of merely gathering/receiving/retrieving data/information/requests/metadata/etc. and transmitting/storing/deploying data/information/software component/software build/etc., and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
As per claim 2, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…rendering, via a user interface, the set of results of the one or more validation processes; and receiving a user response via the user interface,
wherein initiating the deployment of the software component is based at least in part on the user response” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, recites that high level/generic computer/computer components/user interface/etc. are used to perform insignificant extra solution activities of displaying data/information/results and gathering/receiving data/information/user response, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)), and further provides further clarification as to the insignificant extra solution activity of transmitting/deploying data/information/software components, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. As such, claim 2 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 3, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…determining a user associated with the software deployment request; and recording, in a validation results data store, an association between the set of results and the user” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/determining/judging/etc. being performed and further recites the insignificant extra solution activity of recording/storing/etc. data/information/association between data/etc. which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). As such, claim 3 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 5, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein determining the set of validations comprises at least one of: determining a criticality level associated with the software component; or determining whether the software component is a consumer-facing application” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/determining/judging/etc. being performed, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. As such claim 5 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 6, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein initiating the one or more validation processes comprises: initiating, prior to deploying the software component to the first cloud deployment platform, a first validation process on the software component; and initiating, prior to deploying the software component to the first cloud deployment platform, a second validation process on a computing environment associated with the first cloud deployment platform” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/validating/judging/evaluating/etc. being performed, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. As such claim 6 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 7, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein initiating the one or more validation processes comprises: executing a first validation process configured to verify a presence of documentation associated with the software deployment request, at a network location separate from the first cloud deployment platform”, which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/validating/judging/evaluating/etc. being performed, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. As such claim 7 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 8, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…receiving a second software deployment request including the identifier associated with the software component, wherein the software deployment request is associated with a first time and the second software deployment request is associated with a second time after the first time; retrieving second metadata associated with the software component, based on the identifier, wherein the second metadata is different from the metadata; determining a second set of validations associated with the second software deployment request, based at least in part on the second metadata, wherein the second set of validations is different from the set of validations; initiating one or more additional validation processes, based at least in part on the second set of validations; determining a second set of results of the one or more additional validation processes; and initiating second deployment of the software component to the first cloud deployment platform, based at least in part on the second set of results” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/determining/validating/judging/deciding/evaluating/etc. being performed which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process, and recites further insignificant extra solution activities of gathering/receiving/retrieving/etc. data/information/request/metadata/etc. and transmitting/deploying data/information/software component/etc. which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). As such claim 8 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 9, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…receiving a second software deployment request including the identifier associated with a software component and a second deployment location different from the first cloud deployment platform; determining a second set of validations associated with the second software deployment request, based at least in part on the metadata and the second deployment location, wherein the second set of validations is different from the set of validations; initiating one or more additional validation processes, based at least in part on the second set of validations; determining a second set of results of the one or more validation processes; and initiating second deployment of the software component to the second deployment location, based at least in part on the second set of results” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/determining/validating/judging/deciding/evaluating/etc. being performed which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process, and recites further insignificant extra solution activities of gathering/receiving/retrieving/etc. data/information/request/metadata/etc. and transmitting/deploying data/information/software component/etc. which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). As such claim 9 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 10, it recites a computer system having similar limitations as the computer-implemented method of claims 1 and 3, and as such recites the same deficiencies as claims 1 and 3, as seen above. Claim 10 further recites the additional element “A computer system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising” which, with broadest reasonable interpretation, recites that high level/generic computer/computer components/one or more processors and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media/etc. are used to implement/perform the abstract idea/mental process, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process; and further recites the additional element “wherein determining the set of validations comprise: determining a first cloud deployment platform associated with the software deployment request; and determining a first validation based on the first cloud deployment platform” which, with broadest reasonable interpretation, recites further abstract idea/mental process of judging/determining/selecting/deciding/etc. a first cloud deployment platform and a first validation as a human may mentally determine/decide/select/judge/choose/etc. a deployment platform and a first validation. As such, the additional elements of claim 10 fail to correct the deficiencies of claims 1 and 3, and therefore claim 10 is rejected for similar reasoning as claims 1 and 3, above.
As per claim 11, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 10, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein determining the set of validations is based at least in part on the user associated with the software deployment request” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/determining/judging/etc. being performed, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. As such claim 11 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 10, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 10, above.
As per claim 12, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 10, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein determining the set of validations comprises: determining a development group associated with the software deployment request; and determining a first validation associated with the development group” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/determining/judging/etc. being performed, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. As such claim 12 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 10, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 10, above.
As per claim 15, it recites a computer system having similar limitations as the method of claim 2, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 2, above.
As per claim 16, it recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable media having similar limitations as the computer implemented method of claim 1, and as such recites the same deficiencies as claim 1, as seen above. Claim 16 further recites the additional elements of “one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by a processor, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising” which, with broadest reasonable interpretation, recites that high level/generic computer/computer components/one or more non-transitory computer-readable media and a processor/etc. are used to implement/perform the abstract idea/mental process, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. As such, the additional elements of claim 16 fail to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore claim 16 is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claims 18 and 20, they recite non-transitory computer-readable media having similar limitations as the methods of claims 3 and 5, respectively, and are therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claims 3 and 5, respectively, above.
As per claim 21, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 10, upon which it depends, and further recites “…receiving a second software deployment request including the identifier associated with the software component, wherein the software deployment request is associated with a first time and the second software deployment request is associated with a second time after the first time; retrieving second metadata associated with the software component, based on the identifier, wherein the second metadata is different from the metadata; determining a second set of validations associated with the second software deployment request, based at least in part on the second metadata, wherein the second set of validations is different from the set of validations; initiating one or more additional validation processes, based at least in part on the second set of validations; and determining a second set of validation results of the one or more additional validation processes” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/judgements/determinations performed/determining second set of validations and second set of validation results/etc. and judging/analyzing/evaluating/initiating additional validation process/etc., and recites further insignificant extra solution activities of gathering/receiving/retrieving/etc. data/information/second software deployment request/second metadata/etc., which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). As such, claim 21 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 10, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 10, above.
As per claim 22, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 10, upon which it depends, and further recites “… receiving a second software deployment request including the identifier associated with the software component and a second deployment location different from the first cloud deployment platform; determining a second set of validations associated with the second software deployment request, based at least in part on the metadata and the second deployment location, wherein the second set of validations is different from the set of validations; initiating one or more additional validation processes, based at least in part on the second set of validations; and determining a second set of results of the one or more additional validation processes” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/judgements/determinations performed/determining second set of validations and second set of results/etc. and judging/analyzing/evaluating/initiating additional validation process/etc., and recites further insignificant extra solution activities of gathering/receiving/retrieving/etc. data/information/second software deployment request/etc., which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). As such, claim 22 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 10, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 10, above.
As per claim 23, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 16, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein initiating the one or more validation processes comprises: executing a security testing tool on the software component, wherein the security testing tool is configured to perform at least one of a dependency scanning validation, an endpoint security validation, a data exfiltration validation, or a lateral movement vulnerability validation on the software component” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to an abstract idea/mental process/judgment/evaluation/analysis/verification performed, as a human may mentally/with pen and paper observe/scan/evaluate/analyze/etc. software/code/etc. and judge/determine/validate/etc. dependencies/security/etc., and further recites that an additional high level/generic computer component/security testing tool is used to implement/perform the abstract idea/mental process/etc., which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception/abstract idea. As such, claim 23 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 16, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 16, above.
As per claim 24, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 16, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein initiating the one or more validation processes comprises: generating a modified software build including the software component; and executing, on the modified software build, a performance testing tool configured to perform at least one of a stress test, a spike test, a load test, an endurance test, or a scalability test on the modified software build” which, with broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a further insignificant extra solution activity of updating data/modifying software/generating a modified software build/etc., which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); recites further clarification as to the judging/evaluating/analyzing/testing/validating/etc. of the software that occurs when performing the abstract idea/mental process; and further recites that a high level/generic computer component/performance testing tool/etc. may be used to perform the abstract idea/mental process/judging/evaluating/testing/analyzing/etc., which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. As such, claim 24 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 16, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 16, above.
Allowable Subject Matter Over Prior Art
The prior art of record (Muranaka et al. (US PG Pub. 2011/0203001 A1), Orozco et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0157560 A1), Natari (US PG Pub. 2019/0243742 A1), Agarwal et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0300499 A1), and Bird et al. (US PG Pub. 2011/0047527 A1)) teaches that a software deployment request may include an identifier of a software component and deployment location, that metadata/information/etc. associated with the software component may be retrieved based on the identifier and used to determine validations to be performed, performing determined validations, and that deployment of the software component to the location may be based on results of the validations and may include deploying an executable software build.
However, the prior art of record fails to render an obviousness of determining a set of validations associated with a software deployment request, based at least in part on metadata and a first cloud deployment platform; initiating one or more validation processes based at least in part on the set of validations; determining a set of results of the one or more validation processes; and initiating deployment of the software component to the first cloud deployment platform, based at least in part on the set of results, wherein initiating deployment of the software component comprises at least one of: generating an executable software build based at least in part on the software component, provisioning the executable software build using a cloud provisioning component, or deploying the executable software build to the first cloud deployment platform using a cloud service provider; after receiving a software deployment request including an identifier associated with the software component and a deployment location comprising the first cloud deployment platform; and when the metadata is associated with the software component and the metadata is retrieved based on the identifier; as required by the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per the 101 arguments on pg. 11 par. 1-pg. 15 par. 3 that the amended independent claims do not recite an abstract idea/mental process because the claims are directed to determining and executing automated operational validations associated with requests for software component deployments, which is similar to determining location from GPS, network activity, encryption protocols, and rendering half-tone images, which are examples in the MPEP of activities that cannot be practically performed in the human mind, and as such the independent claims do not fall into the mental processes grouping of abstract activities and are therefore not directed to an abstract idea, and the assertion that many of the elements/limitations in the amended independent claims cannot be practically performed in the human mind and therefore the amended independent claims are not directed to an abstract idea/mental process; and the further arguments that any alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application/is significantly more than the abstract idea because the amended independent claims recite “…determining, by the validation system, a set of validations associated with the software deployment request, based at least in part on the metadata and the first cloud deployment platform…and initiating, by the validation system, deployment of the software component to the first cloud deployment platform, based at least in part on the set of results, wherein initiating deployment of the software component comprises at least one of: generating an executable software build based at least in part on the software component; provisioning the executable software build using a cloud provisioning component; or deploying the executable software build to the first cloud deployment platform using a cloud service provider” which are outside of any abstract idea/mental process and integrate any abstract idea into a practical application by improving security and efficiency of integrating/deploying software in various environments by ensuring that all appropriate validations are performed for each software deployment request, and that, as seen in the specification, the elements/limitations of the amended independent claims improve the functioning of a CI/CD system or other software deployment systems by performing validations in response to requested software changes and ensures that the appropriate validations are performed for each software change, and confirming, prior to deployment, that both the requested software change and the configuration of the deployment environment have been sufficiently validated, and further that the speed and efficiency of CI/CD systems are improved by executing the determined set of validations for a requested software change and receiving and analyzing the results of the validations prior to the review/approval of the requested change by a deployment user, and as such any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application and/or is significantly more than the abstract idea, the examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
The examiner would first like to point out that the amended independent claims are not directed to determining location from GPS, network activity, encryption protocols, or rendering half-tone images; but rather recite validating/judging/analyzing and deploying/transmitting/etc. software/data/etc., and as such they do recite an abstract idea/mental process, as seen in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 101, above. Examiner would further like to point out that the actual wording/phrasing of the amended independent claims (claim 1) is “receiving, by a validation system, a software deployment request, the software deployment request including an identifier associated with a software component and a deployment location, the deployment location comprising a first cloud deployment platform; retrieving, by the validation system, metadata associated with the software component, based on the identifier; determining, by the validation system, a set of validations associated with the software deployment request, based at least in part on the metadata and the first cloud deployment platform; initiating one or more validation processes, based at least in part on the set of validations; determining, by the validation system, a set of results of the one or more validation processes; and initiating, by the validation system, deployment of the software component to the first cloud deployment platform, based at least in part on the set of results, wherein initiating deployment of the software component comprises at least one of: generating an executable software build based at least in part on the software component; provisioning the executable software build using a cloud provisioning component; or deploying the executable software build to the first cloud deployment platform using a cloud service provider” and as such, with broadest reasonable interpretation, does not explicitly recite/require/etc. that all of the amended features/limitations occur but rather may be interpreted as only the deploying executable software limitation occurs, which is transmitting/deploying/sending/etc. data/information/etc., which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea, as seen in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 101, above. Further, the examiner would like to point out that the actual wording/phrasing of the amended independent claims does not recite that a “all” appropriate validations are performed/that a customized set of validations is determined/etc., but rather only that “a set of validations associated with the software deployment request” is determined, which may be interpreted as any set of validations somehow associated with/related to/etc. the deployment request, not necessary “all” validations. Further, the independent claims do not recite a determination that the requested software change and the deployment environment are “sufficiently” validated, or a way of determining what would constitute “sufficient” validation, prior to deployment, do not recite/clarify an analysis of the results of the validations, and do not recite any approval/review of the requested change by a deployment user, and as such, with broadest reasonable interpretation, these features/limitations are not required by the amended independent claims. As such, the amended independent claims do recite an abstract idea/mental process and the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, as seen above in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 101 above. If applicant intended for the broadest reasonable interpretation of the independent claims to be limited such that it includes these features/elements the examiner would recommend applicant consider further clarification in order to potentially overcome the 101 issues.
Therefore, the examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive and maintains that the rejection under 35 USC 101 is proper.
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 DOUGLAS M SLACHTA whose telephone number is (571)270-0653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-4pm.
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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/DOUGLAS M SLACHTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights