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 July 26, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and are presented 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
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 1 (line 7), claim 7 (line 4), and claim 15 (line 6), recite to include the limitation “a project instance” should be changed to, for example – [[a]] the project instance—instead. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-6, 8-14 and 16-20 are also objected to for being depended upon the objection of base claims 1, 7, and 15 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. 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.
7. Claims 3, 9, and 17 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.
Claims 3, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are:
Per claims 3, 9, and 17 recite to include the limitation “extracting feature nodes from a plurality of samples; building a template graph with said feature nodes; and generating a project container template based on said template graph”; however, there is no correlation between the mentioned steps of per claims 3, 9, and 17 to the base claims 1, 7, and 15 respectively, which recite to include the step of “analyzing input source code; building a project instance based on said input source code; matching a project instance to a template; and generating, automatically, a command file based on said template”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims 1, 7, and 15 recite:
A method comprising:
[a] analyzing input source code;
[b] building a project instance based on said input source code;
[c] matching a project instance to a template; and
[d] generating, automatically, a command file based on said template.
Step 2A – prong 1:
The claims recite the limitation of:
[a] analyzing input source code;
[b] building a project instance based on said input source code;
[c] matching a project instance to a template; and
[d] generating, automatically, a command file based on said template.
These limitations of steps [a]-[d] as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Step 2A – Prong 2:
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements “A system comprising: a memory; and a processor in communication with said memory, said processor being configured to perform operation” and “A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, said program instructions executable by a processor to cause said processor to perform a function” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B:
Under Step 2B, the claims do 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 of “A system comprising: a memory; and a processor in communication with said memory, said processor being configured to perform operation” and “A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, said program instructions executable by a processor to cause said processor to perform a function” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer
/computer components to carry out the exception. The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101
Regarding to per claims 2, 8, and 16, do not include any additional abstract idea, however, recites the additional element of “further comprising: obtaining input feature nodes from said input source code” which is nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. Under step 2B, the courts of identified the generic function of obtaining data, the results of the judicial exception, is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding to per claims 3, 9, and 17, the limitation “further comprising: extracting feature nodes from a plurality of samples; building a template graph with said feature nodes; and generating a project container template based on said template graph” recites further mental process. The claims do not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more.
Regarding to per claims 4, 10, and 18, the limitation “further comprising: generating a container image based on said command file” recites further mental process. The claims do not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more.
Regarding to per claims 5, 11, and 19, the limitation “further comprising: generating a container based on said command file” recites further mental process. The claims do not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more.
Regarding to per claims 6 and 20, the limitation “said operations further comprising: detecting a problem based on said command file; identifying a solution to said problem; and correcting said problem using said solution” recites further mental process. The claims do not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more.
Regarding to claim 12, the limitation “further comprising: detecting a problem based on said command file” recites further mental process. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more.
Regarding to claim 13, the limitation “further comprising: identifying a solution to said problem” recites further mental process. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more.
Regarding to claim 14, the limitation “further comprising: correcting said problem using said solution” recites further mental process. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon (cited on 892 form) is considered pertinent to application disclosure.
Goldmann et al. (US-20190243628-A1) disclosed generating a first container command
file that references at least some of the first plurality of files on the first consolidated location, the first container command file including commands that comply with a container builder
syntax.
Picco et al. (US-11847431-B2) disclosed automatically generated for a codebase based on one or more extracted attribute names and values.
Jiang et al. (US-9569180-B1) disclosed builds a container application based on the new image, the container application builder module retrieves the corresponding metadata from the metadata registry and a matching template.
Davidov et al. (US-20030182625-A1) discloses creating project from template.
11. 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