DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to an amendment to application 18/602617, filed on 7/1/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPGPUB 2023/0066141, hereinafter “Mohanty,” and USPGPUB 2023/0029624, hereinafter “Olejarz.”
Regarding claim 1, Mohanty discloses “A method, comprising:
determining, by a computing device, a verve of a feature; (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 139; “The maturity assessment engine 424 may be configured to assess a current state of a development of the software product against a set of benchmarks to determine a readiness of a feature or the software product for productization (to be used in real-time environment). The maturity assessment model may assess each feature or product against the set of benchmarks established by a maturity model (e.g., a capability maturity model or CMM).”)
determining, by the computing device, a first release intensity score (RIS) of the feature; (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 135; “a type of dependency between first and second releases, of the plurality of releases of the software product, may be one of low, moderate, or high.”)
stabilizing, by the computing device, a release train based on the verve and the RIS of the feature; (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 135; “The product orchestration designer 402 may provide a release orchestration view (e.g., a release train) associated with the plurality of releases.” “The release dependency view may also enable addition or definition of a type of dependency and/or an extent of dependency between any two releases of the plurality of releases.”) and
modifying, by the computing device, an engagement schedule based on the stabilized release train.” (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 135; “A type of dependency of the second release on the first release may affect (e.g., cause delays) its timeline. For example, a delay in the first release may delay the second release, since the second release is dependent on the first release.”; para. 139; “The maturity assessment engine 424 may enable for planning, engineering, and management of the software product. Further, the maturity assessment engine 424 may enable the plurality of users to assess, further develop, and improve the software product.”).
Mohanty does not appear to disclose the underlined portion of the limitation “determining, by a computing device, a verve of a feature as a numerical score computed based on an intensity of intents associated with the feature.” In other words, Mohanty does not appear to disclose computing “a verve” as a numerical score as claimed. However, Olejarz discloses (at para. 43-47) computing a numerical score whereby “technical attributes for the software application and the corresponding release readiness assessment criteria are identified and captured, the release readiness analysis module 112 applies (208) the plurality of technical attributes of the identified software application to the release readiness assessment criteria to generate a release readiness score.” (Olejarz, para. 46).
Mohanty and Olejarz are directed toward software engineering and therefore are analogous art. On or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the numerical score computation of Olejarz with the release train management method of Mohanty, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear and predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to better “determine release readiness between one or more inter-dependent computing systems.” (Olejarz, para. 3). Accordingly, the instant claim is unpatentable over Mohanty and Olejarz.
NB: Applicant did not traverse the foregoing invocation of Official Notice and
thereby acquiesced to its use. See MPEP 2144.03(C).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz renders obvious “The method of claim 1,” but does not appear to disclose the limitation “further comprising packetizing the feature, the verve, and the RIS.” Stated more simply, the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz does not disclose packetizing. However, on or before the effective filing date of the instant application, packetizing information for organized storage and reuse was known in the art. Official Notice is hereby invoked to that effect. Also on or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try combining packetizing with the release train management method of the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim, namely packetizing information and other elements of the release train for organized storage and reuse. Accordingly, the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz.
NB: Applicant did not traverse the foregoing invocation of Official Notice and
thereby acquiesced to its use. See MPEP 2144.03(C).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz renders obvious “The method of claim 1, wherein the determining the RIS comprises estimating the required resources, timelines, and features of a [release] and a relative importance of the [release] within the release train.” (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 130, 135-137). The combination of Mohanty and Olejarz does not disclose packetizing, as in the underlined portions of the claim limitation “features of a code packet and a relative importance of the code packet within the release train.” However, on or before the effective filing date of the instant application, packetizing information for organized storage and reuse was known in the art. Official Notice is hereby invoked to that effect. Also on or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try combining packetizing with the release train management method of the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim, namely packetizing information and other elements of the release train for organized storage and reuse. Accordingly, the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz.
NB: Applicant did not traverse the foregoing invocation of Official Notice and
thereby acquiesced to its use. See MPEP 2144.03(C).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz renders obvious “The method of claim 1, further comprising continuously updating the RIS and rearranging the feature within the release train based on an updated RIS.” (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 130; “provides a visual representation of one or more issues associated with the software product to one or more versions or changes in the software product that may have resulted in any issue.” para. 135; “the product orchestration designer 402 may facilitate release orchestration associated with a plurality of releases associated with the software product and/or other software products. The product orchestration designer 402 may further provide one or more tools for configuring the plurality of releases.”).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz renders obvious “The method of claim 1, further comprising generating a dashboard displaying the release train.” (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 137; “The release train tracker 420 may be configured to monitor and maintain a track of one or more releases associated with one or more software products, features associated with each software product, or the like. The release train tracker 420 may maintain a release timeline of the one or more releases that may have to be performed by the organisation during a first time-interval (e.g., one month, two months, six months, a year, or the like). The release train tracker 420 may provide the release timeline based on product timeline of the one or more products or one or more features associated with the one or more products. Further, the release train tracker 420 may provide a summary of releases that the organization may have planned for a threshold time-interval.”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz renders obvious “The method of claim 1, further comprising generating a user interface element indicating the verve of a plurality of [releases] in the release train.” (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 130, 135-137). The combination of Mohanty and Olejarz does not disclose packetizing, as in the underlined portions of the claim limitation “the verve of a plurality of code packets in the release train.” However, on or before the effective filing date of the instant application, packetizing information for organized storage and reuse was known in the art. Official Notice is hereby invoked to that effect. Also on or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try combining packetizing with the release train management method of the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim, namely packetizing information and other elements of the release train for organized storage and reuse. Accordingly, the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz.
NB: Applicant did not traverse the foregoing invocation of Official Notice and
thereby acquiesced to its use. See MPEP 2144.03(C).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz renders obvious “The method of claim 1, further comprising subjecting a low-verve code packet back through a development framework to determine an updated verve.” (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 139; “The maturity assessment engine 424 may be configured to assess a current state of a development of the software product against a set of benchmarks to determine a readiness of a feature or the software product for productization (to be used in real-time environment). The maturity assessment model may assess each feature or product against the set of benchmarks established by a maturity model (e.g., a capability maturity model or CMM). The maturity assessment engine 424 may enable for planning, engineering, and management of the software product. Further, the maturity assessment engine 424 may enable the plurality of users to assess, further develop, and improve the software product.”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz renders obvious “The method of claim 1, further comprising re-ordering the release train based on the verve and the RIS of the feature.” (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 130; “provides a visual representation of one or more issues associated with the software product to one or more versions or changes in the software product that may have resulted in any issue.” para. 135; “the product orchestration designer 402 may facilitate release orchestration associated with a plurality of releases associated with the software product and/or other software products. The product orchestration designer 402 may further provide one or more tools for configuring the plurality of releases.”).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz renders obvious “The method of claim 1, further comprising modifying a development timeline based on the verve and the RIS of the feature.” (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 130, 135-137).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz renders obvious “The method of claim 1, further comprising determining a second RIS of the release train.” (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 130, 135-137).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz renders obvious “The method of claim 10, further comprising rearranging the feature within the release train based on the second RIS of the release train.” (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 130, 135-137).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz renders obvious “The method of claim 1, wherein the computing device includes software provided as a service in a cloud environment.” (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 31, 48).
Regarding claim 13, Mohanty discloses “A computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media having program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 158-161) the program instructions executable to:
determine a verve of a feature; (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 139; “The maturity assessment engine 424 may be configured to assess a current state of a development of the software product against a set of benchmarks to determine a readiness of a feature or the software product for productization (to be used in real-time environment). The maturity assessment model may assess each feature or product against the set of benchmarks established by a maturity model (e.g., a capability maturity model or CMM).”)
determine a first release intensity score (RIS) of the feature; (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 135; “a type of dependency between first and second releases, of the plurality of releases of the software product, may be one of low, moderate, or high.”)
stabilize a release train based on the verve and the RIS of the feature; (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 135; “The product orchestration designer 402 may provide a release orchestration view (e.g., a release train) associated with the plurality of releases.” “The release dependency view may also enable addition or definition of a type of dependency and/or an extent of dependency between any two releases of the plurality of releases.”) and
determine a mode of engagement and an engagement schedule based on the stabilized release train.” (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 135; “A type of dependency of the second release on the first release may affect (e.g., cause delays) its timeline. For example, a delay in the first release may delay the second release, since the second release is dependent on the first release.”; para. 139; “The maturity assessment engine 424 may enable for planning, engineering, and management of the software product. Further, the maturity assessment engine 424 may enable the plurality of users to assess, further develop, and improve the software product.”).
Mohanty does not appear to disclose the underlined portion of the limitation “determining a verve of a feature as a numerical score computed based on an intensity of intents associated with the feature.” In other words, Mohanty does not appear to disclose computing “a verve” as a numerical score as claimed. However, Olejarz discloses (at para. 43-47) computing a numerical score whereby “technical attributes for the software application and the corresponding release readiness assessment criteria are identified and captured, the release readiness analysis module 112 applies (208) the plurality of technical attributes of the identified software application to the release readiness assessment criteria to generate a release readiness score.” (Olejarz, para. 46).
Mohanty and Olejarz are directed toward software engineering and therefore are analogous art. On or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the numerical score computation of Olejarz with the release train management method of Mohanty, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear and predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to better “determine release readiness between one or more inter-dependent computing systems.” (Olejarz, para. 3). Accordingly, the instant claim is unpatentable over Mohanty and Olejarz.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz renders obvious “The computer program product of claim 13,” but does not appear to disclose the further limitation “wherein the program instructions are executable to packetize the feature, the verve, and the RIS.” Stated more simply, the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz does not disclose packetizing. However, on or before the effective filing date of the instant application, packetizing information for organized storage and reuse was known in the art. Official Notice is hereby invoked to that effect. Also on or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try combining packetizing with the release train management method of the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim, namely packetizing information and other elements of the release train for organized storage and reuse. Accordingly, the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz.
NB: Applicant did not traverse the foregoing invocation of Official Notice and
thereby acquiesced to its use. See MPEP 2144.03(C).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz renders obvious “The computer program product of claim 13, wherein the determining the RIS comprises estimating the required resources, timelines, and features of a [release] and a relative importance of the [release] within the release train.” (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 130, 135-137). The combination of Mohanty and Olejarz does not disclose packetizing, as in the underlined portions of the claim limitation “features of a code packet and a relative importance of the code packet within the release train.” However, on or before the effective filing date of the instant application, packetizing information for organized storage and reuse was known in the art. Official Notice is hereby invoked to that effect. Also on or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try combining packetizing with the release train management method of the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim, namely packetizing information and other elements of the release train for organized storage and reuse. Accordingly, the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz.
NB: Applicant did not traverse the foregoing invocation of Official Notice and
thereby acquiesced to its use. See MPEP 2144.03(C).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz renders obvious “The computer program product of claim 13, wherein the program instructions are executable to continuously update the RIS and rearrange the feature within the release train based on an updated RIS.” (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 130, 135-137).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz renders obvious “The computer program product of claim 13, wherein the program instructions are executable to generate a dashboard displaying the release train.” (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 137; “The release train tracker 420 may be configured to monitor and maintain a track of one or more releases associated with one or more software products, features associated with each software product, or the like. The release train tracker 420 may maintain a release timeline of the one or more releases that may have to be performed by the organisation during a first time-interval (e.g., one month, two months, six months, a year, or the like). The release train tracker 420 may provide the release timeline based on product timeline of the one or more products or one or more features associated with the one or more products. Further, the release train tracker 420 may provide a summary of releases that the organization may have planned for a threshold time-interval.”).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz renders obvious “The computer program product of claim 13, wherein the program instructions are executable to generate a user interface element indicating the verve of a plurality of [releases] in the release train.” (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 130, 135-137). The combination of Mohanty and Olejarz does not disclose packetizing, as in the underlined portions of the claim limitation “the verve of a plurality of code packets in the release train.” However, on or before the effective filing date of the instant application, packetizing information for organized storage and reuse was known in the art. Official Notice is hereby invoked to that effect. Also on or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try combining packetizing with the release train management method of the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim, namely packetizing information and other elements of the release train for organized storage and reuse. Accordingly, the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz.
NB: Applicant did not traverse the foregoing invocation of Official Notice and
thereby acquiesced to its use. See MPEP 2144.03(C).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Mohanty and Olejarz renders obvious “The computer program product of claim 13, wherein the program instructions are executable to re-order the release train based on the verve and the RIS of the feature.” (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 130, 135-137).
Regarding claim 20, Mohanty discloses “A system comprising: a processor, a computer readable memory, one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 158-161) the program instructions executable to:
determine a verve of a feature; (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 139; “The maturity assessment engine 424 may be configured to assess a current state of a development of the software product against a set of benchmarks to determine a readiness of a feature or the software product for productization (to be used in real-time environment). The maturity assessment model may assess each feature or product against the set of benchmarks established by a maturity model (e.g., a capability maturity model or CMM).”)
determine a first release intensity score (RIS) of the feature; (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 135; “a type of dependency between first and second releases, of the plurality of releases of the software product, may be one of low, moderate, or high.”)
stabilize a release train based on the verve and the RIS of the feature; (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 135; “The product orchestration designer 402 may provide a release orchestration view (e.g., a release train) associated with the plurality of releases.” “The release dependency view may also enable addition or definition of a type of dependency and/or an extent of dependency between any two releases of the plurality of releases.”) and
modify an engagement schedule based on the stabilized release train.” (see, e.g., Mohanty, para. 135; “A type of dependency of the second release on the first release may affect (e.g., cause delays) its timeline. For example, a delay in the first release may delay the second release, since the second release is dependent on the first release.”; para. 139; “The maturity assessment engine 424 may enable for planning, engineering, and management of the software product. Further, the maturity assessment engine 424 may enable the plurality of users to assess, further develop, and improve the software product.”).
Mohanty does not appear to disclose the underlined portion of the limitation “determining a verve of a feature as a numerical score computed based on an intensity of intents associated with the feature.” In other words, Mohanty does not appear to disclose computing “a verve” as a numerical score as claimed. However, Olejarz discloses (at para. 43-47) computing a numerical score whereby “technical attributes for the software application and the corresponding release readiness assessment criteria are identified and captured, the release readiness analysis module 112 applies (208) the plurality of technical attributes of the identified software application to the release readiness assessment criteria to generate a release readiness score.” (Olejarz, para. 46).
Mohanty and Olejarz are directed toward software engineering and therefore are analogous art. On or before the effective filing date of the instant application, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the numerical score computation of Olejarz with the release train management method of Mohanty, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear and predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as the ability to better “determine release readiness between one or more inter-dependent computing systems.” (Olejarz, para. 3). Accordingly, the instant claim is unpatentable over Mohanty and Olejarz.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s claim amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s arguments in traversal of the previously standing grounds of rejection therefore are moot.
Conclusion
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 RYAN D. COYER whose telephone number is (571) 270-5306 and whose fax number is (571) 270-6306. The examiner normally can be reached via phone on Monday-Friday 12pm-10pm Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached on 571-272-3708. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ryan D. Coyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights