DETAILED ACTION
Case Status
This office action is in response to remarks and amendments of 25 August 2026. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Pertinent Prior Art
Prior art that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not currently relied upon:
10872029
Fig.’s 3A-5
Natural language survey-based collection of configuration info, IaC code generation, pre-deployment compliance validation
20220353289
Pars. 3-5, 13
Pre-deployment IaC compliance validation using unified compliance rules against live environment standards
20240152363
Pars. 22-24
Extracting and managing parameters from IaC configuration templates across multiple infrastructure systems
20240171466
Pars. 3-6
Dynamically updating IaC configuration files based on policy changes and best practices recommendations
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bawcom et al., Pub. No.: US 20230393876 A1, hereinafter Bawcom in view of Zheng et al., Pub. No.: US 20240427595 A1, hereinafter Zheng and further in view of Kumar et al., Patent No.: US 11115272 B1, hereinafter Kumar.
As per claim 1, Bawcom discloses A system for customized landing zone code generation and deployment, the system comprising: a processor; and a computer-readable medium storing instructions (pars. 39-47) that are operative upon execution by the processor to:
[…] requesting customized configuration data associated with a landing zone configuration […] via a user interface device (Bawcom pars. 9, 11, 70, 75);
Bawcom does not explicitly disclose however Zheng (in the related field of endeavor of automated cloud infrastructure configuration and deployment) discloses present a set of prompts (Zheng, pars. 10, 31, 70, 78) and a template (Zheng, par. 32-40, 45). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Zheng would have allowed Bawcom to simplify collection of user specific landing zone parameters and automatically generate corresponding deployment configuration with a reasonable expectation of success.
the landing zone configuration template comprising a set of static code segments and a set of dynamic code segments (Bawcom pars. 9 discloses base services/operating parameters as fixed elements inherited by all landing zones associated with a given base (i.e. static code segments) and landing zone services/operating parameters as user-specified dynamic code segments. Zheng also discloses this limitation in pars. 32, 33, 99);
create a customized configuration file using the customized configuration data, the customized configuration data received in response to the set of prompts (Zheng at least pars. 32, 99 disclose creating elements 104, 112, 114, which include a file, using the user’s provided data and template, and see Zheng as cited above for data received in response to prompts; also, Bawcom at least pars. 9 and 70 disclose configuring a landing zone using user provided data (i.e. creating a customized configuration from user-provided data));
generate customized landing zone code using the customized configuration file, the customized configuration file comprising a set of user-specific policies (Bawcom, at least pars. 9, 10 discloses generating and executing scripts to implement the landing zone from the user-provided configuration, the scripts corresponding to customized landing zone code generated using the customized configuration, and Bawcom at least par. 11, second sentence, and par. 70, last two sentences disclose user-specific policies; see also Zheng pars. 11, 27 disclose generating infrastructure configuration data (e.g. IaC, Terraform) using the customized configuration);
deploy a customized landing zone infrastructure defined by the customized configuration file using the customized landing zone code to perform workloads via a cloud server (see rejection of above limitations including at least Bawcom par. 11, 71).
The combination does not disclose however Kumar discloses:
wherein the deployed customized landing zone infrastructure is automatically mapped to the customized configuration file used to generate the customized landing zone code (Kumar, abstract, col. 7, lines 3-15 and col. 11, lines 39-49 disclose using a selected infrastructure template to automatically provision a computing resource stack, and maintaining information identifying the corresponding infrastructure template used to create the deployed stack); and
monitor the deployed customized landing zone infrastructure for a difference from the customized configuration file, wherein the difference is detected by accumulating, from the cloud server, a point in time assessment of the deployed customized landing zone infrastructure and comparing the point in time assessment to the customized configuration file (Kumar, col. 9, lines 45-60, col. 10, lines 15-31, 38-51 and col. 6, lines 38-48 disclose monitoring a deployed computing resource stack for configuration drift, obtaining current configuration settings from cloud resource services to generate a current config snapshot, and using the current snapshot to identify differences).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Kumar would have allowed the combined teaching to incorporate configuration tracking and drift detection into the combination’s landing zone deployment system in order to maintain an association between deployed infrastructure and its corresponding configuration and to identify configuration changes.
As per claim 8, Bawcom discloses A method for customized landing zone code generation and deployment, the method comprising:
presenting a set of prompts […] requesting customized configuration data corresponding to a set of dynamic code segments of a landing zone configuration […] via a user interface device (Bawcom pars. 9, 11, 70, 75),
Bawcom does not explicitly disclose however Zheng (in the related field of endeavor of automated cloud infrastructure configuration and deployment) discloses presenting a set of prompts (Zheng, pars. 10, 31, 70, 78) and a template (Zheng, par. 32-40, 45). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Zheng would have allowed Bawcom to simplify collection of user specific landing zone parameters and automatically generate corresponding deployment configuration with a reasonable expectation of success.
the landing zone configuration template comprising a set of static code segments and the set of dynamic code segments (Bawcom pars. 9 discloses base services/operating parameters as fixed elements inherited by all landing zones associated with a given base (i.e. static code segments) and landing zone services/operating parameters as user-specified dynamic code segments. Zheng also discloses this limitation in pars. 32, 33, 99);
creating a customized configuration file using the customized configuration data obtained from a user in response to the set of prompts and the set of static code segments (Bawcom, par. 9, last sentence and claim 1. Zheng also discloses creating customized config file based on user input with static template data in pars. 32, 99);
generating customized landing zone code using the customized configuration file, the customized configuration file comprising a set of user-specific policies (Bawcom, at least pars. 9, 10 discloses generating and executing scripts to implement the landing zone from the user-provided configuration, the scripts corresponding to customized landing zone code generated using the customized configuration, and Bawcom at least par. 11, second sentence, and par. 70, last two sentences disclose user-specific policies; see also Zheng pars. 11, 27 disclose generating infrastructure configuration data (e.g. IaC, Terraform) using the customized configuration);
validating the customized landing zone code for compliance with the set of user-specific policies (see Bawcom, claim 7 and par. 59; also, Zheng teaches validating configuration details prior to deployment as prerequisite steps and verification/validation in at least par. 49-52, 101);
deploying a customized landing zone infrastructure defined by the customized configuration file using the customized landing zone code to perform workloads via a cloud server (see rejection of above limitations including at least Bawcom pars. 11, 71. Claim interpretation note: the language “to perform workloads via a cloud server” is directed to intended results/benefits and/or intended use – the claim is silent about what this limitation covers and what exactly is being performed).
The combination does not disclose however Kumar discloses:
wherein the deployed customized landing zone infrastructure is automatically mapped to the customized configuration file used to generate the customized landing zone code (Kumar, abstract, col. 7, lines 3-15 and col. 11, lines 39-49 disclose using a selected infrastructure template to automatically provision a computing resource stack, and maintaining information identifying the corresponding infrastructure template used to create the deployed stack); and
monitoring the deployed customized landing zone infrastructure for a difference from the customized configuration file, wherein the difference is detected by accumulating, from the cloud server, a point in time assessment of the deployed customized landing zone infrastructure and comparing the point in time assessment to the customized configuration file (Kumar, col. 9, lines 45-60, col. 10, lines 15-31, 38-51 and col. 6, lines 38-48 disclose monitoring a deployed computing resource stack for configuration drift, obtaining current configuration settings from cloud resource services to generate a current config snapshot, and using the current snapshot to identify differences).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Kumar would have allowed the combined teaching to incorporate configuration tracking and drift detection into the combination’s landing zone deployment system in order to maintain an association between deployed infrastructure and its corresponding configuration and to identify configuration changes.
As per claim 2, Bawcom as modified discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further operative to: validate the customized configuration file for compliance with the set of user-specific policies and a set of network configurations (Bawcom, par. 11, 59, 70, claim 7, Zheng, pars. 49-52, 101).
As per claim 3, Bawcom as modified discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further operative to: validate the customized landing zone code for compliance with the set of user-specific policies (Bawcom, par. 11, 59, claim 7, also, Zheng teaches validating code prior to deployment as prerequisite steps and verification/validation in at least par. 49-52, 101).
As per claim 4, Bawcom as modified discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further operative to: provide feedback via the user interface device in response to failure to validate the customized configuration file or the customized landing zone code (see rejection of claims 2-3 and see Zheng, par. 67, 84 GUI error display feedback).
As per claim 5, Bawcom as modified discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further operative to: map information obtained in response to a prompt in the set of prompts to one or more tokens in the set of dynamic code segments in the landing zone configuration template (see rejection of claim 8; Bawcom pars. 9 discloses base services/operating parameters as fixed elements inherited by all landing zones associated with a given base (i.e. static code segments) and landing zone services/operating parameters as user-specified dynamic code segments. Zheng also discloses this limitation in pars. 32, 33, 99).
As per claim 6, Bawcom as modified discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further operative to: obtain the customized configuration data using a series of natural language questions provided via the set of prompts (Zheng, pars. 10, 31, 70, 78 and Bawcom pars. 9, 11, 70, 75).
As per claim 7, Bawcom discloses The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further operative to: deploy workloads via the customized landing zone infrastructure that is compliant with the set of user-specific policies (see rejection of last limitation of claim 1).
As per claim 9, Bawcom as modified discloses The method of claim 8, further comprising: validating the customized configuration file for compliance with a set of network configurations (Bawcom, par. 11, 59, 70, claim 7, Zheng, pars. 49-52, 101).
As per claim 10, Bawcom as modified discloses The method of claim 8, further comprising: providing a second set of prompts requesting additional configuration data from the user in response to failure to validate the customized configuration file; and modifying the customized configuration file using the additional configuration data (Bawcom, claim 4, par. 10 disclose the modifying and Zhang, par. 67 discloses providing second user input in response to failure condition).
As per claim 11, Bawcom as modified discloses The method of claim 8, further comprising: providing feedback to the user via the user interface device in response to failure to validate the customized configuration file (see rejection of claims 2-3 and see Zheng, par. 67, 84 GUI error display feedback).
As per claim 12, Bawcom as modified discloses The method of claim 8, further comprising: mapping information obtained in response to a prompt in the set of prompts to one or more tokens in the set of dynamic code segments in the landing zone configuration template (see rejection of claim 8; Bawcom pars. 9 discloses base services/operating parameters as fixed elements inherited by all landing zones associated with a given base (i.e. static code segments) and landing zone services/operating parameters as user-specified dynamic code segments. Zheng also discloses this limitation in pars. 32, 33, 99).
As per claim 13, Bawcom as modified discloses The method of claim 8, further comprising: obtaining the customized configuration data using a series of natural language questions provided via the set of prompts (Zheng, pars. 10, 31, 70, 78 and Bawcom pars. 9, 11, 70, 75).
As per claim 14, Bawcom as modified discloses The method of claim 8, further comprising: deploying workloads via the customized landing zone infrastructure that is compliant with the set of user-specific policies (see rejection of last limitation of claim 8).
As per claims 15-19, they include the same or similar subject matter as claims above and are therefore likewise rejected.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bawcom as modified and further in view of N. Cooper, US 20240289103 A1, hereinafter Cooper.
As per claim 20, Bawcom as modified discloses The one or more computer storage devices of claim 15, wherein the operations further comprise: obtain the customized configuration data using a series of natural language questions (Zheng, pars. 10, 31, 70, 78 and Bawcom pars. 9, 11, 70, 75). The combination does not disclose that the questions are provided by a chatbot. However, Cooper discloses this in pars. 131-136.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Cooper would have allowed the combination to allow the user to “give instructions with natural languages” where “the application and/or the virtual assistant may employ natural language processing techniques and/or incorporate features of a chatbot” (Cooper, par. 134).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 August 2026 have been fully considered.
The 35 USC 101 rejection is withdrawn in view of the argument that the claimed invention integrates the abstract idea into a practical application that provides an improvement to a technical field. It is noted that the claims themselves reflect the disclosed improvement. That is, the claims include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1).
With respect to the prior art rejection, Kumar et al., Patent No.: US 11115272 B1, has been applied in response to claim amendments.
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 SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5 pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
/SYED H HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
