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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (US 2022/0171745, hereinafter Jones) in view of Bregman et al. (US 2022/0083350, hereinafter Bregman).
Regarding claim 1, Jones discloses
A method comprising:
obtaining a configuration of a task group, the task group comprising a plurality of tasks (paragraph [0077]: The server process 100 provides access to files (118a, 118b, 118c, 118d, 118e, 118f, 118g, 118h) which are stored to a files data storage 116, as well as version control of various levels of entities; Note: files are interpreted as a task group and each file 118a, 118b … is interpreted as a task),
for a task of the plurality of tasks to execute on a computing node of a plurality of computing nodes (paragraph [0077]: “the server process 100 is configured to provide check-out of files for use by client devices, and check-in of files from the client devices, while tracking version history; Note: client devices are computing nodes);
for the task of the plurality of tasks of the task group, accessing, by a processing device, a version control system to retrieve the task, wherein the each task is stored as a data object within the version control system (paragraphs [0077], [0080]: a server process accesses the asset management system/version control system to retrieve requested information; Note: the asset management stores data/files to the node data storage); and
transmitting the task to one or more of the plurality of computing nodes for execution (paragraph [0080]: the server process 100 … transmit a response including such information … to a user of the client device 122).
Jones does not explicitly disclose wherein the task comprises a placeholder for the one or more of the plurality of computing nodes; and prior to the execution, replacing the placeholder with a value that identifies the one or more of the plurality of computing nodes. Bregman discloses wherein the task comprises a placeholder for the one or more of the plurality of computing nodes; and prior to the execution, replacing the placeholder with a value that identifies the one or more of the plurality of computing nodes (paragraph [0007]: the developer may provide a configuration dataset in the form of an Ansible playbook (i.e., the task of the plurality of tasks of the task group) as input to Ansible. Ansible can receive the playbook and attempt to automatically deploy the debugging environment in accordance with the playbook … it is often the case that many of the variables in the playbook have undefined values because data from the production environment used to populate values for variables is not available in the debugging environment. Variables with undefined values may be referred to herein as undefined variable (i.e., placeholders for the computing nodes/servers)); paragraph [0008]: The computing system can replace the identified variables with the synthesized values in the configuration dataset to create an updated configuration dataset… The computing system can then provide the updated configuration dataset to the configuration manager to cause the configuration manager to automatically provision (e.g., deploy and configure) the servers; paragraph [0016]: the configuration dataset 114 can include variables with undefined values that can be populated by the computing system 112 prior to the configuration manager 116 using the configuration dataset; paragraph [0023]: The computing system 112 can replace the variables 118 with the synthesized values 120 in the configuration dataset 114… prior to the updated configuration dataset 124 being provided to the configuration manager 116)..
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the task management method of Jones to include tasks comprising placeholders that are replaced with values identifying computing nodes prior to execution, as taught by Bregman. The motivation would have been to yield errors that prevent Ansible from deploying a computing environment by automatically generating some or all of the required variable values for a configuration dataset, such as an Ansible playbook. (Bregman paragraphs [0007] and [0008]).
Regarding claim 8 referring to claim 1, Jones discloses A system comprising: a memory; and a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory, to: … (paragraphs [0077], [0230]).
Regarding claim 15 referring to claim 1, Jones discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to: … (paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Jones discloses
wherein the task group is stored as a branch of a plurality of data objects of the version control system (paragraph [0184]: development branch from the version 1710a of task 1706a is created … consisting of versions 1712a, 1714a, and 1716a).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 16, Jones discloses
wherein the task group is a first task group, and wherein the method further comprises: modifying a first task of the first task group to create a second task group by creating a branch from the first task group that includes a new data object comprising a second task (Paragraph [0173]: if the connection/communication between two sites is lost for a time, and both sites wish to make a change to the same entity, then instead of stacking changes, the result is a fork (i.e., creating a branch); paragraph [0184]: a development branch from the version 1710a of task 1706a is created at the local site, consisting of versions 1712a, 1714a, and 1716a; Note: the original version 1710a is the first task group, modifying the files creates a new branch/fork, and the resulting new versions in the branch correspond to the second task group comprising new data objects/tasks).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 17, Jones discloses
merging the branch from the second task of the second task group to connect to a third task of the first task group (paragraph [0186]: In some implementations, the two development branches are merged according to predefined merge rules; paragraph [0188]: In the illustrated implementation, the result of merging the branches is the creation of version 1724a at the local site… Accordingly, the mainline branch of the version history for the task 1706a consists of versions 1710a and 1724a; Note: The merging of the development branch back into the mainline branch to create a new subsequent version maps directly to merging the branch to connect to a third task of the first task group).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 18, Jones discloses
wherein a first task of the plurality of tasks of the task group is included in at least one other task group (paragraph [0039]: If certain of the files from the group are dependent from or are used by other groups of files; paragraph [0089]: no changes were made to this file during the course of the user's work on the task, and thus the same file is carried forward for inclusion in the new version of the task 218 as conceptually indicated at reference 244).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, Jones discloses
further comprising sequentially retrieving the plurality of tasks from the version control system (paragraph [0083]: Through the checkout process, the files 202, 204, and 206 that are associated with the specific version N of the task 200, are downloaded to the client device 210; Note: Retrieving and downloading a plurality of files over a network from a server to a client device implicitly involves sequential data transmission and retrieval).
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, Jones does not explicitly disclose wherein the task comprises an execution variable, and where, the method further comprises replacing the execution variable with a data value associated with the task group during the execution of the task. Bregman discloses wherein the task comprises an execution variable, and where, the method further comprises replacing the execution variable with a data value associated with the task group during the execution of the task (paragraph [0016]: the configuration dataset 114 can include variables with undefined values that can be populated by the computing system 112 prior to the configuration manager 116 using the configuration dataset; paragraph [0023]: The computing system 112 can replace the variables 118 with the synthesized values 120 in the configuration dataset 114… prior to the updated configuration dataset 124 being provided to the configuration manager 116). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the task management method of Jones to include tasks comprising an execution variable that is replaced with a data value associated with the task group during execution as taught by Bregman. The motivation would have been to yield errors that prevent Ansible from deploying a computing environment by automatically generating some or all of the required variable values for a configuration dataset, such as an Ansible playbook. (Bregman paragraphs [0007] and [0008]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Bregman et al. (US 2023/0138602) discloses task automation and execution configurations within a continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) environment (paragraphs [0010] and [0019]), specifically disclosing the management and execution of tasks and playbooks, such as Ansible playbooks, across computing pipelines (paragraphs [0014], [0018], and [0030]).
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 [0037] CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to [0037] 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SISLEY N. KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-7832. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:30AM -7:30PM.
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, April Y. Blair can be reached on (571)270-1014. 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.
/SISLEY N KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196 9/12/2026
Prosecution Insights