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 1/30/2026. Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are currently pending and claims 3, 10 and 17 are cancelled. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims.
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 1-20 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 system for centralized application development and pipeline management via event data streaming, the system comprising: a processing device; a non-transitory storage device containing instructions when executed by the processing device, causes the processing device to perform the steps of: receiving event data from at least one discrete component of a plurality of discrete components of an application development pipeline platform, each discrete component of the plurality of discrete components operating independently and subject to its own development cycle; analyzing the event data to determine conformity to a standardized data structure; routing, in response to determining non-conformity to the standardized data structure, the event data from at least one discrete component of a plurality of discrete components through an adaptive middleware layer that performs data mapping and data type conversion to transform the event data into the standardized data structure; automatically generating an update signal whenever the event data from the at least one discrete component is received; and transmitting, based on the update signal, a display signal to display a pipeline progress on a graphical dashboard of a user interface, wherein the pipeline progress comprises the event data.”
The limitations “analyzing the event data to determine conformity to a standardized data structure”, “…performs data mapping and data type conversion to transform the event data into the standardized data structure”, and “automatically generating an update signal whenever the event data from the at least one discrete component is received”, as drafted, recites a function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components, and as such is a function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. For example, a human may mentally/with pen and paper/etc. judge/analyze/evaluate/etc. data/information/event data and judge/decide/determine/etc. if the data conforms/matches/is similar/etc. to a standardized data structure, may mentally/with pen and paper map and convert the data to the standardized data structure/organize/write the event data into a standardized format/etc., and may mentally/with pen and paper/etc. decide/judge updated data from the event data/write update data/indicate updated data/generate update signal/data/etc. As such, 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, and therefore 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 system for centralized application development and pipeline management via event data streaming, the system comprising: a processing device; a non-transitory storage device containing instructions when executed by the processing device, causes the processing device to perform the steps of”, “receiving event data from at least one discrete component of a plurality of discrete components of an application development pipeline platform, each discrete component of the plurality of discrete components operating independently and subject to its own development cycle”, “routing, in response to determining non-conformity to the standardized data structure, the event data from at least one discrete component of a plurality of discrete components through an adaptive middleware layer…”, and “transmitting, based on the update signal, a display signal to display a pipeline progress on a graphical dashboard of a user interface, wherein the pipeline progress comprises the event data.” The additional element/limitation “A system for centralized application development and pipeline management via event data streaming, the system comprising: a processing device; a non-transitory storage device containing instructions when executed by the processing device, causes the processing device to perform the steps of” recites that high-level/generic computer/computer components are used to implement/perform the abstract idea/mental process, and as such that amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and/or mere computer components. The additional elements/limitations “receiving event data from at least one discrete component of a plurality of discrete components of an application development pipeline platform, each discrete component of the plurality of discrete components operating independently and subject to its own development cycle” and “transmitting, based on the update signal, a display signal to display a pipeline progress on a graphical dashboard of a user interface, wherein the pipeline progress comprises the event data” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception of merely gathering/receiving/obtaining/updating/etc. data/information, transmitting/sending/etc. data/information/signal, and displaying/outputting/etc. data/information/progress/status/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)); and the additional element/limitation “routing, in response to determining non-conformity to the standardized data structure, the event data from at least one discrete component of a plurality of discrete components through an adaptive middleware layer” recites that event data is routed/transmitted/etc. to high level/generic computer components/adaptive middleware layer” to perform the abstract idea/data mapping and data type conversion to transform the event data into the standardized data structure/etc. and as such amounts to instructions to apply/implement the instruction using generic computer components and a mere extra solution activity of transmitting/routing data/information, 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 no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and/or mere computer components, and insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception of merely gathering/receiving/obtaining/updating/etc. data, transmitting/sending/etc. data/information/signal, and displaying/outputting/etc. data/information/progress/status/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)).. As such, the additional elements/limitations do not provide an inventive concept and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception/abstract idea/mental process. 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 at least one discrete component transmits and receives event data in the standardized data structure” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the insignificant extra solution activity of transmitting/receiving data/information/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 2 does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore claim 2 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is 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 “…wherein receiving the event data from the at least one discrete component comprises receiving the event data via receiving the event data directly” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the insignificant extra solution activity of receiving data/information/event 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 4 does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore claim 4 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is 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 receiving the event data from the at least one discrete component comprises receiving the event data via webhooks” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the insignificant extra solution activity of receiving data/information/event data/etc. and instructions to apply/perform/implement the insignificant extra solution activity using generic/high level computer components/webhooks, 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 5 does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore claim 5 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is 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 receiving the event data from the at least one discrete component comprises receiving the event data via change data capture” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the insignificant extra solution activity of receiving data/information/event 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 6 does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore claim 6 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is 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 event data is an output of at least one selected from a group consisting of: version control, security, scanning, load testing, code review, and functional testing” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the data/information/event data used to perform/implement/etc. the abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception/the data judged/analyzed when performing the abstract idea/mental process, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore claim 7 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per independent claim 8, it recites a computer program product having similar limitations as the system of claim 1, and as such recites the same abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception and has the same deficiencies as claim1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above. Claim 8 further recites the additional elements “A computer program product for centralized application development and pipeline management via event data streaming, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising code causing an apparatus to” which recites that high level/generic computer components are used to implement/perform 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, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not provide an inventive concept and so is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, the additional elements/limitations of claim 8 fail to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and claim 8 is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claims 9 and 11-14 they recite computer program products having similar limitations as the systems of claim 2 and 4-7, respectively, and are therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 2 and 4-7, respectively, above.
As per independent claim 15, it recites a method having similar limitations as the steps performed by the processing device of the system of claim 1, and as such claim 15 recites the same abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception and has similar deficiencies as claim 1. Therefore claim 15 is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claims 16 and 18-20, they recite methods having similar limitations as the systems of claim 2 and 5-7, respectively, and are therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claims 2 and 5-7, respectively, above.
Allowable Subject Matter Over Prior Art of Record
The prior art of record (Bond et al. US PG Pub. 2021/0011698 A1, Khazanchi et al. US Patent 10,157,044 B2, Acosta et al. US Patent 9,934,016 B1, Chandrasekharan et al. US Patent 11,675,816 B1, and Ramasamy US PG Pub. 2019/0227793 A1) teaches that an application development pipeline may have multiple/different/discrete components/stages/etc. where pipeline events occur, that the components/stages may be independent from each other, that the components/stages/etc. may provide data/information/etc. about events occurring/pipeline progress/etc. which may be formatted/reformatted/converted/etc. into a standard format/data structure/etc., and that the data/information in the standard format/structure may be sent/output/etc. to a display/dashboard/etc. for display on a user interface so users/developers/etc. may be informed about pipeline progress of the components/stages/etc.. However, the prior art of record fails to render an obviousness of receiving event data from at least one discrete component of a plurality of discrete components of an application development pipeline platform, each discrete component of the plurality of discrete components operating independently and subject to its own development cycle; analyzing the event data to determine conformity to a standardized data structure; routing, in response to determining non-conformity to the standardized data structure, the event data from at least one discrete component of a plurality of discrete components through an adaptive middleware layer that performs data mapping and data type conversion to transform the event data into the standardized data structure automatically generating an update signal whenever the event data from the at least one discrete component is received; and transmitting, based on the update signal, a display signal to display a pipeline progress on a graphical dashboard of a user interface, wherein the pipeline progress comprises the event data, as required by the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per the 101 arguments on pg. 8 par. 1-pg. 13 par. 1 of the remarks that the amended independent claims are allowable under 35 USC 101 because the independent claims can not practically be performed in the mind as the claims recite processor-controlled functions that represent a computationally intensive task that exceeds the capacity of mental processing even with the aid of pen and paper, and as such require a process and computer memory to perform the operations and that the claims recite several specific steps of manipulation of data which rely on processor-controlled access to memory structures that store event data, standardized data structure specifications, and data mapping and type conversion rules, which are unsuitable for performance in the human mind; and that even if the claims did recite an abstract idea it would be integrated into a practical application as the independent claims are necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome the problem of manually reconfiguring application development pipeline platforms when discrete components operating independently are updated, which previously required several weeks or months of manual effort to program interconnecting modules, by automatically integrating event data from independently operating discrete components into a centralized pipeline platform by routing non-conforming event data through an adaptive middleware layer that performs data mapping and data type conversion thereby eliminating the need for manual reconfiguration when discrete components are updated which is an improvement over existing computer technology/development pipeline platforms/etc. as it eliminates manual reconfiguration and programming of interconnected modules, enables real-time monitoring and integration of event data therefore determining an optimal amount of resources to be used to implement the solutions thereby reducing network traffic and load on computing resources; and therefore the amended independent claims and their respective dependent claims are allowable, the examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
The examiner would first like to point out that the actual wording/phrasing of the claims does not actually recite/clarify/etc. memory structures that store event data, standardized data structure specifications, and data mapping and type conversion rules, any updating of discrete components or reconfiguring of the application development pipeline platforms/reconfiguration and programming of interconnected modules when the discrete components are updated, any determining of an amount of resources to be used to implement the solutions, etc.. Rather, the actual wording/phrasing of the independent claims only recites “receiving event data from at least one discrete component of a plurality of discrete components of an application development pipeline platform, each discrete component of the plurality of discrete components operating independently and subject to its own development cycle; analyzing the event data to determine conformity to a standardized data structure; routing, in response to determining non-conformity to the standardized data structure, the event data from at least one discrete component of a plurality of discrete components through an adaptive middleware layer that performs data mapping and data type conversion to transform the event data into the standardized data structure; automatically generating an update signal whenever the event data from the at least one discrete component is received; and transmitting, based on the update signal, a display signal to display a pipeline progress on a graphical dashboard of a user interface, wherein the pipeline progress comprises the event data.” Additionally, the claims do not clarify what the event data is, how it is received, how the analyzing is performed, what steps are included in data mapping and data type conversion to transform the event data into a standardized data structure, how update signals are generated, etc., and as such, with broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations do not necessarily require processor controlled access to computer memory to perform these limitations and a human could perform these steps mentally/with pen and paper/etc.. For example, if a standardized data structure is a table format with the data in the table being in a first language, a human may judge/analyze/etc. received data to determine if it is in a table format, list format, etc. and in the first language, second language, etc., and if the even data is in a list format in the second language then a human may mentally/with pen and paper map the data of the list to corresponding locations in a table and convert/translate/etc. the data from the second language to the first language. As such, with broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims 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 as the claims do not actually recite memory structures that store event data, standardized data structure specifications, and data mapping and type conversion rules; any updating of discrete components or reconfiguring of the application development pipeline platforms/reconfiguration and programming of interconnected modules when the discrete components are updated; any determining of an amount of resources to be used to implement the solutions, etc. the additional elements/limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and/or mere computer components, and insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception of merely gathering/receiving/obtaining/updating/etc. data, transmitting/sending/etc. data/information/signal, and displaying/outputting/etc. data/information/progress/status, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/judicial exception, as seen in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 101 above. If applicant intended for the broadest reasonable interpretation of the independent claims to include accessing memory structures that store event data, standardized data structure specifications, and data mapping and type conversion rules; updating of discrete components or reconfiguring of the application development pipeline platforms/reconfiguration and programming of interconnected modules when the discrete components are updated; determining of an amount of resources to be used to implement the solutions, etc., then examiner would recommend applicant consider further clarification to the independent claims as to these potential features/limitations to limit the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
Therefore, the examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive and maintains that the rejection under 35 USC 101 is proper.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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