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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 5/18/26.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 2, par. 1-2, filed on 5/18/26, with respect to claims 1-9 and 11-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MP (US 2022/0214899) in view of Banister (US 2021/0334239), and further in view of Sundaram (US 2025/0217224) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 2, par. 1-2, filed on 5/18/26, with respect to claim 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MP (US 2022/0214899) in view of Banister (US 2021/0334239), further in view of Sundaram (US 2025/0217224), and further in view of Jain (US 12,189,572) has been withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
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, 9, 11-16 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MP (US 2022/0214899) in view of Hemadri (US 2024/0354102), and further in view of Sundaram (US 2025/0217224).
Per Claim 1:
MP teaches maintaining a project for a target computing system, wherein the project comprises a first integration and a second integration, and obtaining information indicating that a revision has been made to the first integration; determining whether the first integration should be transmitted to the target computing system for use in the project based at least in part on the first revision; responsive to determining that the first integration should be transmitted to the target system: transmitting the application comprising the first integration to the target computing system for implementation within the project of the target computing system; wherein the method is performed by at least one device including a hardware processor ([0012] During cloud platform integration (CPI) to integrate applications, two or more applications can be integrated to share data related to the states, requests, commands and other mechanisms to implement processes. For each element shared between the applications, integration steps may be created to share the data. For example, if System A wants to communicate/share data with system B via an HTTP protocol, and system B communicates/shares data via an OData protocol, there may be a problem in that these protocols may not be compatible. The integration steps may be used to allow the two systems to communicate with each other. Further, each set of integration steps may be different, depending on the complexity of the scenario that is modelled by the steps and the amount of data that is being processed. To that end, each set of integration steps may need a different amount of resources (e.g., memory and Computer Processing Unit (CPU) processing time). [0013] A user may design the integration steps that allow the two systems to communicate with each other. After designing the integration steps, the user may deploy these steps on to a Tenant (e.g., Virtual machine) for execution thereof (i.e., to have the two systems communicate with each other). The inventor notes that the integration may be of two systems or two applications. During execution, data is pulled from a source system. Then the data is enriched, and transformation logic is applied thereto, per the integration steps. When the enrichment and transformation is complete, the enriched and transformed data is sent to the target system. Often the integration steps are applied to a large volume of data, including but not limited to, millions or records. And see e.g. par. 0031 “… processor …”). MP does not explicitly teach wherein the first integration comprises a first revision identifier that identifies a version of the first integration and the second integration comprises a second revision identifier that identifies a version of the second integration; updating the first revision identifier based at least in part on the revision to the first integration or generating a container image comprising the first integration; and transmitting the container image to the target computing system.
However, Hemadri teaches wherein the first integration comprises a first revision identifier that identifies a version of the first integration and the second integration comprises a second revision identifier that identifies a version of the second integration; updating the first revision identifier based at least in part on the revision to the first integration ([0050] At operation (4) of the incremental build process 120, the incremental build unit 118 retrieves a snapshot of the past build unit for the qualified past version from the storage component 126. In some cases, to retrieve the snapshot of the past build unit, the incremental build unit 118 requests that a snapshot controller 128 of the build system 114 retrieves the snapshot from the storage component 14. The snapshot controller 128 may be a snapshot controller in a primary node of a container orchestration system such as a Kubernetes cluster. In some cases, to retrieve the snapshot of the past build unit, the snapshot controller 128 retrieves the stored file associated with the identifier of the snapshot from the storage component 126. … [0052] At operation (6) of the incremental build process 120, the incremental build unit 118 stores the restored snapshot on the storage component 126 based on (e.g., in response to) determining the end of the build process associated with the target version. In some cases, the incremental build unit 118 stores an identifier of the snapshot that is determined based on an identifier of the software application (e.g., a shasum of the code repository corresponding to the software application), an identifier (e.g., a job name) of the continuous integration pipeline associated with the target version, an identifier of the target version (e.g., a shasum of the commit associated with the target version), and/or a build number or pull request number associated with the snapshot.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by MP to include wherein the first integration comprises a first revision identifier that identifies a version of the first integration and the second integration comprises a second revision identifier that identifies a version of the second integration; updating the first revision identifier based at least in part on the revision to the first integration using the teaching of Hemadri. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have a more automated and efficient approach to building applications in cloud computing environments (Hemadri, par. 0003).
However, Sundaram teaches generating a container image comprising the first integration; and transmitting the container image to the target computing system ([0087] In at least one embodiment, tasks of data processing pipeline may be encapsulated in one or more container(s) that each represent a discrete, fully functional instantiation of an application and virtualized computing environment that is able to reference machine learning models. In at least one embodiment, containers or applications may be published into a private (e.g., limited access) area of a container registry (described in more detail herein), and trained or deployed models may be stored in model registry 924 and associated with one or more applications. In at least one embodiment, images of applications (e.g., container images) may be available in a container registry, and once selected by a user from a container registry for deployment in a pipeline, an image may be used to generate a container for an instantiation of an application for use by a user system.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by MP to include generating a container image comprising the first integration; and transmitting the container image to the target computing system using the teaching of Sundaram. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize Large Language Models for complex systems installation (Sundaram, par. 0015).
Per Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Hemadri further teaches wherein the updated first revision identifier indicates that the revision to the first integration is a major revision (par. 0052).
Per Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, and MP further teaches wherein the first integration is associated with an endpoint at the target computing system, and wherein the method further comprises: generating control instructions for the target computing system to disable the endpoint during an installation of the first integration at the target computing system; and transmitting the control instructions to the target computing system (par. 0013 -0014).
Per Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, and MP further teaches wherein the first integration is associated with a first endpoint at the target computing system, and wherein the method further comprises: generating control instructions for the target computing system to generate a second endpoint associated with the first integration that indicates the revision to the first integration (par. 0013 -0014).
Per Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Hemadri further teaches wherein the updated first revision identifier indicates that the revision to the first integration is a minor revision (par. 0052).
Per Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 5 is incorporated, and MP further teaches wherein the first integration is associated with an endpoint at the target computing system, and wherein the method further comprises: generating control instructions for the target computing system to permit the endpoint to remain enabled during an installation of the first integration at the target computing system; and transmitting the control instructions to the target computing system (par. 0013 -0014).
Per Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and MP further teaches wherein the first integration comprises a configured integration that is inactive for use at the target computing system or an activated integration that is available for use at the target computing system (par. 0013).
Per Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Sundaram further teaches wherein generating the container image further comprises: accessing metadata describing the first integration that is selected to be in the container image; and storing the metadata in the container image (par. 0080 and 0082).
Per Claims 11-16 & 18:
These claims are system versions of the claimed method discussed above (claims 1-6 and 8, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, these claims are also obvious.
Per Claim 19:
This claim is media version of the claimed method discussed above (claim 1, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious.
Claim(s) 7, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MP (US 2022/0214899) in view of Hemadri (US 2024/0354102), and in view of Sundaram (US 2025/0217224), and further in view of Banister (US 2021/0334239).
Per Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and MP does not explicitly teach accessing an indication of a user-based selection of the first integration with the updated first revision identifier, wherein determining whether the first integration is to be transmitted to the target computing system for use in the project is further based at least in part on the user-based selection.
However, Banister further teaches accessing an indication of a user-based selection of the first integration with the updated first revision identifier, wherein determining whether the first integration is to be transmitted to the target computing system for use in the project is further based at least in part on the user-based selection (par. 0111).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by MP to include accessing an indication of a user-based selection of the first integration with the updated first revision identifier, wherein determining whether the first integration is to be transmitted to the target computing system for use in the project is further based at least in part on the user-based selection using the teaching of Banister. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have data integrity for software revisions (Banister, par. 0003-0005).
Per Claim 17:
This is a system version of the claimed method discussed above (claims 7, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious.
Per Claim 20:
This is a media version of the claimed method discussed above (claim 7, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, this claim is also obvious.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MP (US 2022/0214899) in view of Hemadri (US 2024/0354102), and further in view of Sundaram (US 2025/0217224), and further in view of Jain (US 12,189,572).
Per Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, MP does not explicitly teach wherein compressing the container image using a compression algorithm, wherein the container image is transmitted in a compressed format. However, Jain teaches wherein compressing the container image using a compression algorithm, wherein the container image is transmitted in a compressed format (column 4, lines 1-36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by MP to include wherein compressing the container image using a compression algorithm, wherein the container image is transmitted in a compressed format using the teaching of Jain. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve portability of container images (Jain, column 1, lines 15-28).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gonzalez (US 2021/0397429) teaches a method for live updates for containers.
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 QAMRUN NAHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-6:30pm.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on (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 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.
/QAMRUN NAHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights