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 3/30/2026. Claims 1-17 are currently pending and claims 1, 15, 16, and 17 are the independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15-17 objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claims 1 and 15-17, they recite “…determining at least one of the at least two side branches includes at least one of the post-cut-off packages; determining the at least one side branch including the at least one post-cut-off package to be a respective retained side branch…” when, for consistency, it should recite “…determining the at least one side branch including the at least one of the post-cut-off packages to be a respective retained side branch…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per independent claims 1 and 15-17, they recite “…wherein the respective package includes app information of an app to be developed…”. Examiner would first like to point out that the claim previously recites “a respective preceding package”, “a respective earliest branch package”, “a respective amended version of a preceding package of the main branch”, “a respective post-cut-off package”, etc., and as such the examiner is unclear which “respective package” is being referred to as “the respective package”, and as such there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Examiner would further like to point out that the claims recite the acronym “app” without first defining/clarifying what “app” is intended to mean/that “app” stands for “application”/etc., and as such the examiner is unclear as to what is meant by “app”. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider these limitations to be “…wherein the respective post-cut-off package includes application (APP) information of an APP to be developed…”
As per dependent claims 2-14, they incorporate the deficiencies of independent claim 1, upon which they depend, and fail to correct the deficiencies of claim1. Therefore claims 2-14 are rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 13, it further recites “…receiving user input indicative of merging at least one retained file, at least one of the packages of the respective retained side branch, or the at least one retained file and the at least one package of the respective retained side branch into the main branch via the app development UI; creating a new package, the creating of the new package comprising amending the latest package to incorporate the at least one retained file, the respective package to be merged into the main branch, or the latest package to incorporate the at least one retained file and the respective package to be merged into the main branch according to the corresponding user input…”. Th examiner would first like to point out that while the claim previously recites “receiving user input indicative of merging…” it does not previously recite/state/clarify what the user input is corresponding to/corresponding user input/etc. and claim 13 depends on claim 12 which previously recites “receiving user input indicative of an amendment…”, and as such the examiner is unclear as to what is considered “the corresponding user input” as there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the corresponding user input” in the claim. Examiner would further like to point out that claim 13 depends on claim 12 which depends on claim 1, and while claim 1 previously recites “determining the at least one side branch including the at least one post-cut-off package to be a respective retained side branch”, the phrasing “at least one post-cut-off package” may be interpreted as one package, and as such, with broadest reasonable interpretation, the previously recited respective retained side branch is not previously recited to have “packages”/more than one package/multiple packages/etc., and as such there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “at least one of the packages of the respective retained side branch”. Similarly, while the claim previously recites “receiving user input indicative of merging ate least one retained file, at least one of the packages of the respective retained side branch, or the at least one retained file and the at least one package of the respective retained side branch into the main branch…”, it does not explicitly previously recite a singular “respective package” to be merged into the main branch, and as such there is insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claims. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider these limitations to be “…at least one package of the respective retained side branch, or the at least one retained file and the at least one package of the respective retained side branch into the main branch via the app development UI; creating a new package, the creating of the new package comprising amending the latest package to incorporate the at least one retained file, merging the at least one package of the respective retained side branch into the main branch, or amending the latest package to incorporate the at least one retained file and merging the at least one package of the respective retained side branch into the main branch, according to the user input indicative of merging…”
As per claim 14, it further recites “…amending the selected package of the one of the retained side branches according to the corresponding user input; determining the one retained side branch including the selected package and the created further package to be a new main branch…”. Th examiner would first like to point out that while the claim previously recites “receiving user input indicative of amending…” it does not previously recite/state/clarify what the user input is corresponding to/corresponding user input/etc. and claim 14 depends on claim 12 which previously recites “receiving user input indicative of an amendment…”, and as such the examiner is unclear as to what is considered “the corresponding user input” as there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the corresponding user input” in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider these limitations to be “…amending the selected package of the one of the retained side branches according to the user input indicative of amending…”.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per independent claim 1, it recites “A computer-implemented method comprising: providing a sequence of artifact information packages including an earliest package and a latest package in a data repository, wherein each package of the sequence of artifact information packages except the earliest package is an amended version of a respective preceding package, wherein the sequence of artifact information packages further includes at least three branches of packages including a main branch, the main branch including the latest package, and wherein the at least three branches of packages further include at least two side branches of which a respective earliest branch package is a respective amended version of a preceding package of the main branch; providing cut-off information separating the sequence of artifact information packages into pre-cut-off packages and post-cut-off packages; determining at least one side branch includes at least one of the at least one post-cut-off packages; determining the at least one side branch including the at least one post-cut-off package to be a respective retained side branch; storing at least a part of the earliest package in a data store; determining a respective side branch other than the respective retained side branch, wherein the respective side branch other than the respective retained side branch includes a respective post-cut-off package of the post cut-off-packages; and discarding the respective post-cut-off package of the respective side branch other than the respective retained side branch, wherein the respective package includes app information of an app to be developed, and wherein the method further comprises deploying an app developed based on the app information on a target platform.”
The limitations “determining at least one side branch includes at least one of the at least one post-cut-off packages”, “determining the at least one side branch including the at least one post-cut-off package to be a respective retained side branch”, and “determining a respective side branch other than the respective retained side branch, wherein the respective side branch other than the respective retained side branch includes a respective post-cut-off package of the post cut-off-packages”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, and as such recites the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a human may mentally/with pen and paper judge/determine/decide/observe/etc. that branches/at least one side branches/etc. include a post-cut-off package, judge/determine/decide/etc. that at least one of the branches/side branches/etc. including the post-cut-off packages are to be retained/are a respective retained side branch/etc. and may judge/determine/decide/etc. branches are not included in/other than/etc. the branches to be retained/the respective retained side branch/etc. and that the branches not included in/other than/etc. the retained side branches include a post-cut-off package. 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 “A computer-implemented method comprising”, “providing a sequence of artifact information packages including an earliest package and a latest package in a data repository, wherein each package of the sequence of artifact information packages except the earliest package is an amended version of a respective preceding package, wherein the sequence of artifact information packages further includes at least three branches of packages including a main branch, the main branch including the latest package, and wherein the at least three branches of packages further include at least two side branches of which a respective earliest branch package is a respective amended version of a preceding package of the main branch”, “providing cut-off information separating the sequence of artifact information packages into pre-cut-off packages and post-cut-off packages”, “storing at least a part of the earliest package in a data store”, and “discarding the respective post-cut-off package of the respective side branch other than the respective retained side branch, wherein the respective package includes app information of an app to be developed”, and “wherein the method further comprises deploying an app developed based on the app information on a target platform.” The additional elements “A computer-implemented method comprising” recites that a high level/generic “computer” is used to implement/perform/etc. the abstract idea/mental process, and as such amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and/or mere computer components. The additional elements “providing a sequence of artifact information packages including an earliest package and a latest package in a data repository, wherein each package of the sequence of artifact information packages except the earliest package is an amended version of a respective preceding package, wherein the sequence of artifact information packages further includes at least three branches of packages including a main branch, the main branch including the latest package, and wherein the at least three branches of packages further include at least two side branches of which a respective earliest branch package is a respective amended version of a preceding package of the main branch”, “providing cut-off information separating the sequence of artifact information packages into pre-cut-off packages and post-cut-off packages”, “storing at least a part of the earliest package in a data store”, “discarding the respective post-cut-off package of the respective side branch other than the respective retained side branch, wherein the respective package includes app information of an app to be developed”, and “wherein the method further comprises deploying an app developed based on the app information on a target platform” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception/abstract idea of merely obtaining/gathering/etc. data, storing data, updating/discarding stored data, and transferring/transmitting/deploying/etc. data. 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 does 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 instruction to implement/perform/etc. the abstract idea using generic computer/computer components, which does not provide an inventive concept and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process, and merely further adds insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception/abstract idea of merely obtaining/gathering/etc. data, storing data, updating/discarding stored data, etc. and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activities, 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 “…wherein the latest package and the respective latest branch package of the respective retained side branch includes at least one head file, respectively, wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises: determining a respective head file to be a respective retained file when a latest amendment to the respective head file is stored in one of the pre-cut-off packages; discarding a respective file of a respective pre-cut-off package other than the respective retained file; and storing the respective retained file in the data store” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification about the data stored and used, the abstract idea/mental process/judging/determining/etc. performed, and the insignificant extra solution activities of storing data and updating/deleting stored data, and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activities, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, with broadest reasonable interpretation, these additional elements of claim 2 do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Accordingly, 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 “…discarding the respective file of the respective pre-cut-off package other than the respective retained file only when a respective storage size exceeds a storage size threshold” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the insignificant extra solution activity of updating/discarding/storing/etc. data, and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activities, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, with broadest reasonable interpretation, these additional elements of claim 3 do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Accordingly, claim 3 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 4, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…storing the respective post-cut-off package of the respective retained side branch and a respective post-cut0off package of the main branch in the data store” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the insignificant extra solution activity of storing data, and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activities, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, with broadest reasonable interpretation, these additional elements of claim 4 do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Accordingly, claim 4 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 the at least two side branches include at least one merged side branch including at least one post-cut-off package, wherein one package of the sequence of artifact information packages of the main branch is an amended version of a latest package of the at least one merged side branch, wherein the computer-implemented method further comprises: determining a respective merged side branch to be one of the retained side branches” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the data being stored/updated/used to perform the abstract idea, and further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/determining/judging/etc. performed, and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activities, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, with broadest reasonable interpretation, these additional elements of claim 5 do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Accordingly, 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 “…determining one of the at least two side branches including at least one post-cut-off package to be one of the retained side branches when the respective side branch complies with at least one retention criterion, wherein the at least one retention criterion includes currentness of the latest package of the respective side branch or a relevance of the respective side branch” which, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provided further clarification as to the performance of the abstract idea/mental process/the determining/judging/etc. performed. Therefore, with broadest reasonable interpretation, these additional elements of claim 6 do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Accordingly, 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 the cut-off information is determined to be such that: a target data storage size of stored packages is not exceeded; a target compression rate with respect to discarded packages relative to the stored packages is complied with; or a combination thereof” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the data obtained/received and used in performing the abstract idea/mental process, and as such provided further clarification as to the insignificant extra solution activity of gathering/obtaining/receiving/providing/etc. data, and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activities, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, with broadest reasonable interpretation, these additional elements of claim 7 do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Accordingly, 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 “… validating storing a stored part of the earliest package in the data store, wherein: the validating includes checking whether the respective file of the stored part of the earliest package is the same in the repository and in the data store; the validating includes checking whether the stored part of the earliest package is the same in the repository and in the data store; or a combination thereof” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, further recites a judgment/evaluation/validation/checking/observation/etc. that may be performed mentally/with pen and paper by a human, and as such recites further clarification as to the performance of the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, with broadest reasonable interpretation, these additional elements of claim 8 do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Accordingly, 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 “…validating storing a stored part of the respective post-cut-off package of the respective retained side branch and a respective post-cut-off package of the main branch, wherein: the validating includes checking whether the respective file of the respective post-cut-off package of the respective retained side branch and a respective file of the respective post-cut-off package of the main branch is the same in the repository and in the data store; the validating includes checking whether the stored part of the respective post-cut-off package of the respective retained side branch and of the main branch is the same in the repository and in the data store; or a combination thereof” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, further recites a judgment/evaluation/validation/checking/observation/etc. that may be performed mentally/with pen and paper by a human, and as such recites further clarification as to the performance of the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, with broadest reasonable interpretation, these additional elements of claim 9 do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Accordingly, 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 incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…validating discarding the respective post-cut-off package of the respective side branch other than the respective retained side branch, wherein: the discard validation includes checking whether a respective file of the post-cut-off package of the respective side branch other than the respective retained side branch is not stored in the data store; the discard validation includes checking whether the respective post-cut-off package of the respective side branch other than the respective retained side branch is not stored in the data store; or a combination thereof” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, further recites a judgment/evaluation/validation/checking/observation/etc. that may be performed mentally/with pen and paper by a human, and as such recites further clarification as to the performance of the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, with broadest reasonable interpretation, these additional elements of claim 10 do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Accordingly, claim 10 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 11, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…validating discarding of a respective file of a respective pre-cut-off package other than the respective retained file, wherein the discard validation includes checking whether the respective file of the respective pre-cut-off package other than the respective retained file is not stored in the data store” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, further recites a judgment/evaluation/validation/checking/observation/etc. that may be performed mentally/with pen and paper by a human, and as such recites further clarification as to the performance of the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, with broadest reasonable interpretation, these additional elements of claim 11 do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Accordingly, claim 11 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 12, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the app information includes a workflow, a model, an input or output interface, a user interface (UI) layout or element, deployment information, metadata, or any combination thereof of the app, respectively, and wherein the method further comprises: providing an app development UI of an app development platform to a user for developing the app; receiving user input indicative of an amendment to at least one aspect of the app information via the app development UI; amending the app information according to the user input, such that amended app information is generated, wherein the app information before the amending corresponds to one package of the sequence of artifact information packages, and the amended app information corresponds to an amended version of the one package; and developing the app through the app development platform using the amended app information” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the data stored/updated/discarded/used in performing the abstract idea/etc., and provided further insignificant extra solution activities of displaying information/user interface, gathering/obtaining/receiving data, updating/amending/etc. data/information, and updating/developing/etc. data/information/app/app information/etc., and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activities, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, with broadest reasonable interpretation, these additional elements of claim 12 do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Accordingly, claim 12 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 13, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…receiving user input indicative of merging at least one retained file, at least one of the packages of the respective retained side branch, or the at least one retained file and the at least one package of the respective retained side branch into the main branch via the app development UI; creating a new package, the creating of the new package comprising amending the latest package to incorporate the at least one retained file, the respective package to be merged into the main branch, or the latest package to incorporate the at least one retained file and the respective package to be merged into the main branch according to the corresponding user input; storing the new package in the data store; and developing the app through the app development platform using the new package” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, recites further insignificant extra solution activities of receiving/gathering/obtaining data/information/user input, updating/amending data/information/updating data in a package to create a new package/etc., storing data, and updating/developing data/information/app/etc., and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activities, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, with broadest reasonable interpretation, these additional elements of claim 13 do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Accordingly, claim 13 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 14, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…receiving user input indicative of amending a selected package of one of the retained side branches; creating a further package, the creating of the further package comprising amending the selected package of the one of the retained side branches according to the corresponding user input; determining the one retained side branch including the selected package and the created further package to be a new main branch; storing the new main branch in the data store; and developing the app through the app development platform using the further package and the new main branch” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to abstract idea/mental process/determining/judgment/etc. performed, and recites further insignificant extra solution activities of receiving/gathering/obtaining data/information/user input, updating/amending data/information/updating data in a package to create a further package/etc., storing data, and updating/developing data/information/app/etc., and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activities, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, with broadest reasonable interpretation, these additional elements of claim 14 do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Accordingly, claim 14 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per independent claim 15, it recites a computer system having similar limitations as the computer implemented method of claim 1, and as such recites the same abstract idea/mental process and recites the same deficiencies as claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above. Claim 15 recites the further additional elements of “a computer system comprising: a processor configured to…” which recites that high level/generic computer/computer components are used to implement/perform the abstract idea/mental process, and as such amount to no more than mere instructions to implement/perform the abstract idea using generic computer/computer components, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception. As such, the additional elements of claim 15 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore claim 15 is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per independent claim 16, it recites a computer program product having similar limitations as the computer implemented method of claim 1, and as such recites the same abstract idea/mental process and recites the same deficiencies as claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above. Claim 16 recites the further additional elements of “A computer program product comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores computer program code that, when executed by a computer system, cause the computer system to:…” which recites that high level/generic computer/computer components/non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing program/code/etc. are used to implement/perform the abstract idea/mental process, and as such amount to no more than mere instructions to implement/perform the abstract idea using generic computer/computer components, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception. As such, the additional elements of claim 16 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore claim 16 is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per independent claim 17, it recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having similar limitations as the computer implemented method of claim 1, and as such recites the same abstract idea/mental process and recites the same deficiencies as claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above. Claim 17 recites the further additional elements of “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions executable by a computer system, the instructions comprising…” which recites that high level/generic computer/computer components/storage medium storing instructions/etc. are used to implement/perform the abstract idea/mental process, and as such amount to no more than mere instructions to implement/perform the abstract idea using generic computer/computer components, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception. As such, the additional elements of claim 17 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore claim 17 is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per the claim objections and 112 arguments on pg. 13 pars. 3-4 of the remarks that the claims have been amended to obviate the objections and 112 issues, and therefore the claims are allowable, the examiner would like to point out that while the amendments addressed the previous objections and 112 issues, they raise new objections and 112 issues as seen in the objections and rejections under 35 USC 112 above.
Therefore, the examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive and maintains that the objections and rejection under 35 USC 112 is proper.
As per the 101 arguments/assertion on pg. 14 par. 2 of the remarks that the amended independent claims have been amended to incorporate a real-world application of the deployment of an app developed based on app information of the respective package on a target platform, and therefore the amended independent claims and their respective dependent claims are allowable, the examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
The examiner would like to point out that, with broadest reasonable interpretation, deploying an application/app on a target platform may be interpreted as merely sending/transmitting/downloading the application to the target platform, storing/saving/etc. the application on the target platform, etc., which is a conventional computer activity of transmitting/storing/etc. data/information/application on a target platform/computer/device/etc., and is therefore a mere extra solution activity to the abstract idea/mental process which does not integrate the recited abstract idea/mental process into a practical application, and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activities, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). As such, the amended limitations merely recite extra solution activities which do not incorporate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process, as seen in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 101, above.
Therefore, the examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive and maintains that the rejection under 35 USC 101 is proper.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Regni et al. US Patent 10,248,682 B2 teaches managing versions/branches/etc. that may include a primary/active/main/etc. branch and subsequent/other/side/etc. versions/branches created by modifying/changing/etc. a snapshot/copy/etc. of the primary/main/active branch and that branches/versions and data/information/artifacts/etc. in the branches/versions/etc. may be deleted/removed/discarded/etc..
Bole et al. US Patent 10,853,316 B1 teaches a versioning system that maintains historical records of all/multiple/different/etc. versions/branches/etc. of files, that a version/branch may be a latest/current/etc., that data/content/artifacts may be deleted/removed/purged/etc. from a specific version/branch or from all versions/branches, and that versions/branches may be deleted/removed/etc..
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