DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is in response to the communication filed on 02/03/2024.
3. Claims filed 02/03/2024 have been acknowledged. Claims 1-19 are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
5. 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 of this title, 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.
6. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
7. Claims 1,3-5,9,11-13,17,19 are rejected under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Davis (Pub. No. US 2020/0272457 A1; hereinafter referred to as Davis), in view of Toub (Patent No. US 9,632,771 B2; hereinafter referred to as Toub).
As per claim 1, Davis discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code executable by one or more processors to:
initiate, by an integrated development environment, a project instance comprising project data, the project data stored in a plurality of data blocks in cloud storage (See p. [0052] – IDE project data, cloud storage).
However, Davis does not explicitly states - generate a project manifest for the project instance comprising a reference to each of the plurality of data blocks storing the project data of the project instance; wherein at least a portion of the data blocks are referenced in additional manifests for additional projects.
Toub discloses - generate a project manifest for the project instance comprising a reference to each of the plurality of data blocks storing the project data of the project instance (See column 2, lines 10-25 - metadata generated for project);
wherein at least a portion of the data blocks are referenced in additional manifests for additional projects (See Fig. 2 – additional metadata).
Davis and Toub are directed to software program development, which are analogous prior art.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (first inventor to file provisions of the AIA ) to incorporate and combine Davis’ diagnosing production applications; and further combine it with association of metadata with source code and applications and services; thus, enables metadata to be associated with source code at various levels of granularity and metadata to be accessed independently of the source code with which it is associated, providing advanced functionality in the environment of a software development system, while collecting specific and abstracted data to allow trends to be determined easily. (See Davis’ and Toub’s abstracts and backgrounds).
As per claim 3, Davis and Toub disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), further comprising computer readable code to modify project data stored in an initial set of data blocks by: performing a copy-on-write process to write the modified project data to an additional set of data blocks; and updating the project manifest to reference the additional set of data blocks (See Toub’s column 10, lines 45-55 – updating/metadata).
As per claim 4, Davis and Toub disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 3 (See claim 3 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein: the project manifest includes a current version of the project instance; and updating the project manifest to reference the additional set of data blocks comprises updating the current version to reference the additional set of data blocks (See Toub’s column 10, lines 57-67 – updating version).
As per claim 5, Davis and Toub disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 3 (See claim 3 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein modifying the project data stored in the initial set of data blocks further comprises updating the project manifest to include a historic version of the project instance referencing the initial set of data blocks (See Toub’s column 12, lines 56-60; Fig. 10 – historic version).
Claims 9,11-13 are essentially the same as claims 1,3-5 except that they are set forth the claimed invention as a method, and they are rejected with the same reasoning as applied hereinabove.
Claims 17,19 are essentially the same as claims 1,3 except that they are set forth the claimed invention as a system, and they are rejected with the same reasoning as applied hereinabove.
8. Claims 1,10,18 are rejected under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Davis (Pub. No. US 2020/0272457 A1; hereinafter referred to as Davis), in view of Toub (Patent No. US 9,632,771 B2; hereinafter referred to as Toub), in further view of Raviv et al. (Patent No. US 10,795,801 B2; hereinafter referred to as Raviv).
As per claim 2, Davis and Toub disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), the previously initiated project instance has a project manifest referencing a current version of the previously initiated project instance (See Toub’s column 6, lines 60-65 – version control) ; and generating the project manifest for the initiated project instance comprising copying the current version of the project manifest for the previously initiated project instance (See column 2, lines 51-60; column 7, lines 1-20; generating project metadata and copying version) .
However Davis nor Toub explicitly state - wherein: initiating the project instance comprises forking a previously initiated project instance.
Raviv discloses - initiating the project instance comprises forking a previously initiated project instance (See column 4, line 5; column 50, line 1 – fork).
Davis, Toub and Raviv are directed to software program development, which are analogous prior art.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (first inventor to file provisions of the AIA ) to incorporate and combine Davis’ diagnosing production applications; and further combine it with association of metadata with source code and applications and services; thus, enables metadata to be associated with source code at various levels of granularity and metadata to be accessed independently of the source code with which it is associated, providing advanced functionality in the environment of a software development system, while collecting specific and abstracted data to allow trends to be determined easily. (See Davis’ and Toub’s abstracts and backgrounds).
Claim 10 is essentially the same as claim 2 except that it is set forth the claimed invention as a method, and it is rejected with the same reasoning as applied hereinabove.
Claim 18 is essentially the same as claim 2 except that it is set forth the claimed invention as a system, and it is rejected with the same reasoning as applied hereinabove.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record fails to disclose the limitations: “… storing the data blocks referenced by at least one historic version of the project manifest for retrieval for a predefined time period; and in response to a request for a historic version within the predefined time period, providing a read-only version of the data blocks referenced by the requested historic version… determine whether the initial data block is referenced by any project manifest of any of the plurality of project instances; and making the initial data block available for deletion in response to a determination that the initial data block is not referenced by any of the project manifests”; as specified by the claims.
10. Please see M.P.E.P. 2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reasonable Interpretation [R-9]; 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-9]: III. “Plain Meaning” Refers to the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art”
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation during examination, and limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claims (See M.P.E.P. 2111 [R-I]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCISCO JAVIER APONTE whose telephone number is (571)270-7164. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-4.
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, James Trujillo can be reached on (571)272-3677. 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.
/FRANCISCO J APONTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151 01/17/2026.