DETAILED ACTION
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 responsive to the application filed June 05, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and are presenting for examination.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 1:
Lines 10-11, recites to include the following limitation “the source code”
should be changed to, for example –the compiled source code – instead,
Line 20, recites to include the following limitation “the application”
should be changed to, for example –the single page application – instead.
Lines 21-22, recites to include the following limitation “validate deployment via conducting one or more tests to ensure functionality and monitor application performance”
should be changed to, for example
– validate deployment via conducting one or more tests to ensure functionality of the single page application and monitor the single page application’s performance – instead.
As to claim 2, recites to include the following limitation “wherein the step of defining merchant requirements” should be changed to for example, -- wherein the generate merchant requirements—instead.
As to claim 3, recites to include the following limitation “The system of claim 1, wherein the step of developing and compiling the source code includes using a version control system to manage changes and track history of the source code” should be changed to for example,
-- The system of claim 1, wherein the compiling [[the]] source code includes using a version control system to manage changes and track history of the compiled source code – instead.
As to claim 4, recites to include the following limitation “the configuration parameters” should be changed to for example, -- the configuration deployment parameters—instead.
As to claim 5, recites to include the following limitation “wherein the step of generating the assembly” should be changed to for example, -- wherein the generating the assembly —instead.
As to claim 7, recites to include the following limitation “the deployed application” should be changed to for example, -- the single page application —instead.
As to claim 8:
Lines 8-9, recites to include the following limitation “the source code”
should be changed to, for example –the compiled source code – instead,
Line 18, recites to include the following limitation “the application”
should be changed to, for example –the single page application – instead.
Lines 19-20, recites to include the following limitation “validate deployment via conducting one or more tests to ensure functionality and monitor application performance”
should be changed to, for example
– validate deployment via conducting one or more tests to ensure functionality of the single page application and monitor the single page application’s performance – instead.
As to claim 9, recites to include the following limitation “wherein the step of defining merchant requirements” should be changed to for example, -- wherein the generate merchant requirements—instead.
As to claim 10, recites to include the following limitation “The system of claim 1, wherein the step of developing and compiling the source code includes using a version control system to manage changes and track history of the source code” should be changed to for example,
-- The system of claim 1, wherein the compiling [[the]] source code includes using a version control system to manage changes and track history of the compiled source code – instead.
As to claim 11, recites to include the following limitation “the configuration parameters” should be changed to for example, -- the configuration deployment parameters—instead.
As to claim 12, recites to include the following limitation “wherein the step of generating the assembly” should be changed to for example, -- wherein the generating the assembly —instead.
As to claim 14, recites to include the following limitation “the deployed application” should be changed to for example, -- the single page application —instead.
As to claim 15:
Lines 7-8, recites to include the following limitation “the source code”
should be changed to, for example –the compiled source code – instead,
Line 17, recites to include the following limitation “the application”
should be changed to, for example –the single page application – instead.
Lines 18-19, recites to include the following limitation “validate deployment via conducting one or more tests to ensure functionality and monitor application performance”
should be changed to, for example
– validate deployment via conducting one or more tests to ensure functionality of the single page application and monitor the single page application’s performance – instead.
As to claim 16, recites to include the following limitation “wherein the step of defining merchant requirements” should be changed to for example, -- wherein the generate merchant requirements—instead.
As to claim 17, recites to include the following limitation “The system of claim 1, wherein the step of developing and compiling the source code includes using a version control system to manage changes and track history of the source code” should be changed to for example,
-- The system of claim 1, wherein the compiling [[the]] source code includes using a version control system to manage changes and track history of the compiled source code – instead.
As to claim 18, recites to include the following limitation “the configuration parameters” should be changed to for example, -- the configuration deployment parameters—instead.
As to claim 19, recites to include the following limitation “wherein the step of generating the assembly” should be changed to for example, -- wherein the generating the assembly —instead.
As to claim 20, recites to include the following limitation “the deployed application” should be changed to for example, -- the single page application —instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6 and 13 are also objected to for being depended upon the objection of base claims 1 and 8 respectively.
Claim Interpretation
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
7. The claim 1 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
8. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“the processing device, causes the processing device to perform the steps of: generate… compile… generate…configure… transmit… merge… deploy… and validate…” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
10. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “the processing device, causes the processing device to perform the steps of: generate… compile… generate…configure… transmit… merge… deploy… and validate…” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
However, the written description fails to mention to disclose the corresponding “processing device” structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Therefore, the claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Clams 6-7 recite the limitation that do not cure the deficiency of base claim 1; accordingly, they are also rejected for the same rationale as set forth above.
11. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
12. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “the processing device, causes the processing device to perform the steps of: generate… compile… generate…configure… transmit… merge… deploy… and validate…” However, the written description fails to mention to disclose the corresponding “processing device” structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Clams 6-7 recite the limitation that do not cure the deficiency of base claim 1; accordingly, they are also rejected for the same rationale as set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections and rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, set forth in this Office action.
14. The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior arts of record or made of record, taken alone or in combination do not disclose and/or suggest, and/or motivation to combine, at least “ generate an assembly from the compiled source code by organizing the source code into a structured unit comprising necessary components and dependencies; configure deployment parameters to tailor the deployment package to a merchant context comprising settings for server specifications and deployment environment; transmit instructions to an intelligent deployment tool to select Single Page Application (SPA) components from a library via a large language model and prompt engineering to ensure compatibility and suitability; merge the SPA components and the compiled source code into the deployment package; deploy the deployment package to application servers via executing deployment scripts to install and configure the application; and validate deployment via conducting one or more tests to ensure functionality and monitor application performance” as limitations recited in as such manners as in independent claim 1 or variants thereof in other independent claims.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon (cited on 892 form) is considered pertinent to application disclosure.
Lincoln et al. (US-20160364554-A1) disclosed receiving a deployed computer application to be staged, verifying the integrity of the downloaded code package included in the deployed computer application, and staging the deployed computer application to provide a staged computer application.
Kunjuramanpillai et al. (US-11263005-B2) disclosed automate deployment of an application as a cloud computing service.
Kerins et al. (US-12039301-B2) disclosed developing a containerized application using a pipeline platform consisting of a plurality of stages with associated development tools.
Sharma et al. (US-20250298720-A1) disclosed intelligent code interceptor for generating a no-code automation test suite using generative artificial intelligence (AI).
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARINA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8 am to 4: 30 pm ET).
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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached on (571)-272-6799. 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.
/MARINA LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights