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 .
Detail Action
This office action is in response to the RCE filed on 3/3/2026.
Claims 1-19 and 21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-16, and 18-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomlin (US 10,866,792 B1) in view of Wright et al. ( US 2022/0091966 A1)
Per claim 1,
Tomlin discloses
obtain, via a user interface of a compliance checker, one or more user input indicating a compliance condition associated with source code; (c7:50-c8:67, discloses user input to set up deployment pipeline rules, where conditions are specified; C7:1-6, discloses values of parameters; c5: 15-40, discloses rules specified one or more conditions to determine if source code is erroneous)
generate, using the compliance checker in association with the indication of the compliance condition, a compliance file indicative of the compliance condition based on mapping the one or more user inputs obtained via the user interface to corresponding fields in the compliance file; (c10: 9-21, discloses rule repository storing rules. File is interpreted as stored data. See cleaning rule table including identification of cleaning rules, parameters, parameter values…. C6:60-C7:7, discloses cleaning rules set up including parameters and values of parameters which are mapped in cleaning rule table in rule repository as disclosed above.)
perform, using the compliance checker in association with the compliance file, a compliance test on the source code to generate a compliance test result; output an indication of the compliance test result; (c9: 40-55, discloses applying rules to test if source code is compliant in GUI)
and
perform an action in association with the indication of the compliance test result. (c11: 17-40, discloses addressing issue…automatically modify source code)
output an indication of the compliance test result, wherein the indication of the compliance test result includes a respective interface element for each respective compliance condition that is not satisfied (c14:14-42, disclose GUI for presenting the first and/or second issue and notification for first issue and/or second issue corresponding to respective compliance condition not satisfied. )
and wherein each respective interface element is configured to cause, in response to an interaction with the respective interface element, the compliance checker to perform an action that corresponds to the respective interface element. (continue, see addressing a first issue and/or second issue via modifying dataset and/or metadata causing the corresponding issue.)
perform, in response to an interaction with at least one of the respective interface elements, and in association with the indication of the compliance test result, an action that corresponds to the at least one of the respective interface elements.(continue from above modification corresponding first issue and/or second issue in GUI.)
Tomlin does not, however, Wright discloses
prior to deployment of the source code in a production environment ([0060], discloses performing checks based on preconfigured rules as part of deployment pipeline prior to deployment.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Wright into the teachings of Tomlin to include the limitation disclosed by Wright. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to ensure compliant functioning of software as suggested by Wright ([0002])
Per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Tomin/ Wright discloses
wherein the indication of the compliance test result comprises a pass indication or a fail indication. (Tomlin, c8: 48-62, discloses rule condition tested for valid/violated corresponding to pass/fail)
Per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Tomin/ Wright discloses
wherein the user interface of the compliance checker comprises an interactive interface configured to receive non-code user inputs. (Tomlin, c7:65-c8-5, discloses rules according to user inputs where the rules are not programming code or non-code.)
Per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Tomin/ Wright discloses
wherein the compliance condition is associated with a specified deployment parameter. (Tomlin, c6:60-c7:6, discloses parameters)
Per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Tomin/ Wright discloses
wherein the compliance file is further indicative of at least one additional compliance condition associated with at least one additional specified deployment parameter. (c7: discloses pipeline cleaning rule import new deployment pipeline cleaning rule.)
Per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Tomin/ Wright discloses
wherein the compliance condition is associated with a plurality of code components, and wherein the one or more processors, to perform the compliance test, are configured to determine whether the source code includes at least one code component of the plurality of code components. (Tomlin, c8: 29-45, discloses source code of a branch is broken)
Per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Tomin/ Wright discloses
wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to cause a display device to display a representation of the indication of the compliance test result. (Tomlin, c9: 40-55, discloses applying rules to test if source code is compliant as presented in GUI)
Per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Tomin/ Wright discloses
wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action, are configured to modify the source code in association with the compliance condition. (Tomlin, c11: 17-40, discloses addressing issue…automatically modify source code)
Per claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated.
Tomin/ Wright discloses
wherein the compliance checker comprises an application programming interface. (Tomlin, c20:16-25, discloses method comprises API)
Per claim 11,
Tomin discloses
providing a user interface of a compliance checker; obtaining, via the user interface, one or more user input indicating a compliance condition associated with source code;( c7:50-c8:67, discloses user input to set up deployment pipeline rules, where conditions are specified; C7:1-6, discloses values of parameters)
performing, using the compliance checker in association with the compliance condition, a compliance test on the source code to generate a compliance test result; (c9: 40-55, discloses applying rules to test if source code is compliant as presented in GUI)and
presenting, via the user interface, an indication of the compliance test result. (c6: 45-52 discloses GUI for presenting issues.)
presenting, via the user interface, an indication of the compliance test result,
wherein the indication of the compliance test result includes a respective interface element for each respective compliance condition that is not satisfied (c14:14-42, disclose GUI for presenting the first and/or second issue and notification for first issue and/or second issue corresponding to respective compliance condition not satisfied. )
and wherein each respective interface element is configured to cause, in response to an interaction with the respective interface element, the compliance checker to perform an action that corresponds to the respective interface element. (continue, see addressing a first issue and/or second issue via modifying dataset and/or metadata causing the corresponding issue.)
Tomlin does not, however, Wright discloses
prior to deployment of the source code in a production environment ([0060], discloses performing checks based on preconfigured rules as part of deployment pipeline prior to deployment.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Wright into the teachings of Tomlin to include the limitation disclosed by Wright. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to ensure compliant functioning of software as suggested by Wright ([0002])
Per claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated.
further comprising generating, using the compliance checker in association with the indication of the compliance condition, a compliance file indicative of the compliance condition. (Tomlin, c10: 9-21, discloses rule repository storing rules. File is interpreted as stored data.)
Claims 13-16 are method claims corresponding to system claims of 2, 4, 6 and 7 and are rejected for similar reason of rejections of claims 2,4,6, and 7.
Per claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated.
Tomin discloses
wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the device to perform an action and in association with the indication of the compliance test result. (Tomin, c11: 17-40, discloses addressing issue...automatically modify source code)
Tomlin does not, however, Wright discloses
prior to deployment of the source code in a production environment ([0060], discloses performing checks based on preconfigured rules as part of deployment pipeline prior to deployment.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Wright into the teachings of Tomlin to include the limitation disclosed by Wright. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to ensure compliant functioning of software as suggested by Wright ([0002])
Claims 19 is computer-readable medium claims corresponding to claims 3 and 10 and are rejected for similar reason.
Per claim 21, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Tomlin/Wright discloses
wherein the compliance test result includes an indication of a location in the source code associated with a failed compliance condition.(Tomlin, C5:15-65, discloses flagging programming errors and automatically modify, relocate, or remove source code involving the issue.” In order to remove/modify or relocate source code involving at issue, the location of the source code must be know prior to the remove/modify or relocate of source code.)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomlin (US 10,866,792 B1) in view of Wright et al. ( US 2022/0091966 A1) and further in view of Liu et al., (CN 202010737890 A)
Per claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated.
Tomin/ Wright does not disclose, however, Liu discloses
wherein the one or more processors, to determine whether the source code includes the at least one code component, are configured to determine whether the source code includes each code component of the plurality of code components. (Abstract, discloses deployment rules to include all modules to provide association among modules.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of into the teachings of Tomlin/ Wright to include the limitation disclosed by Wright/ Wright. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to provide associated modules in a software deployment via deployment rules to ensure all components are part of a deployment as suggested by Liu.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tomlin (US 10,866,792 B1).
Per claim 17,
Tomlin discloses
obtain, via a user interface of a compliance checker, one or more user input indicating compliance condition associated with source code; (c7:50-c8:67, discloses user input to set up deployment pipeline rules, where conditions are specified; C7:1-6, discloses values of parameters)
generate, using the compliance checker in association with the indication of the compliance condition, a compliance file indicative of the compliance condition based on mapping the one or more user inputs obtained via the user interface to corresponding fields in the compliance file; (c10: 9-21, discloses rule repository storing rules. File is interpreted as stored data. See cleaning rule table including identification of cleaning rules, parameters, parameter values…. C6:60-C7:7, discloses cleaning rules set up including parameters and values of parameters which are mapped in cleaning rule table in rule repository as disclosed above.)
perform, using the compliance checker in association with the compliance file, a compliance test on the source code to generate a compliance test result;(c9: 40-55, discloses applying rules to test if source code is compliant as presented in GUI)and
output an indication of the compliance test result.(c9: 40-55, discloses applying rules to test if source code is compliant as presented in GUI),
wherein the indication of the compliance test result includes a respective interface element for each respective compliance condition that is not satisfied (c14:14-42, disclose GUI for presenting the first and/or second issue and notification for first issue and/or second issue corresponding to respective compliance condition not satisfied. )
and wherein each respective interface element is configured to cause, in response to an interaction with the respective interface element, the compliance checker to perform an action that corresponds to the respective interface element. (continue, see addressing a first issue and/or second issue via modifying dataset and/or metadata causing the corresponding issue.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please refer to revised office action addressing additional limitation and argument are included in this office action.
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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip Wang whose telephone number is 571-272-5934. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:00AM -4:00PM. Any inquiry of general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC2100 Group receptionist: 571-272-2100.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lewis Bullock, can be reached at 571-272-3759. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/PHILIP WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199