CTNF 18/788,928 CTNF 94441 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-20 are pending. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/30/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter (See MPEP § 2106.03, subsections I and II). Claims 1-8 are directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Claims 9-16 are directed to a computer-implemented system (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Claims 17-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention. Step 2A, Prong One Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)). Claims 1, 9 and 17 under a broadest reasonable interpretation recite an abstract idea because the claims describe deployment validation, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe fundamental economic principles or practices, including mitigating risk, and describe commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. Claim 1: A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a command to configure source code of an application for deployment on a deployment platform ; generating, by one or more processors, a containerization prompt for a large language model (LLM) instructing the LLM to generate a containerization file corresponding to the source code; receiving the containerization file from the LLM ; providing the containerization file to a containerization validator configured to validate the containerization file; generating, by the one or more processors, a manifest prompt for the LLM instructing the LLM to generate a manifest for the deployment platform ; receiving the manifest from the LLM for the deployment platform ; and providing, by the one or more processors , the manifest to the deployment platform for the deployment. Claim 9: A system comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to perform operations comprising: receiving a command to configure source code of an application for deployment on a deployment platform ; generating a containerization prompt for a large language model (LLM) instructing the LLM to generate a containerization file corresponding to the source code; receiving the containerization file from the LLM ; providing the containerization file to a containerization validator configured to validate the containerization file; generating a manifest prompt for the LLM instructing the LLM to generate a manifest for the deployment platform ; receiving the manifest from the LLM for the deployment platform ; and providing the manifest to the deployment platform for the deployment. Claim 17: A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform operations comprising: receiving a command to configure source code of an application for deployment on a deployment platform ; generating a containerization prompt for a large language model (LLM) instructing the LLM to generate a containerization file corresponding to the source code; receiving the containerization file from the LLM ; providing the containerization file to a containerization validator configured to validate the containerization file; generating a manifest prompt for the LLM instructing the LLM to generate a manifest for the deployment platform ; receiving the manifest from the LLM for the deployment platform ; and providing the manifest to the deployment platform for the deployment. Step 2A, Prong Two Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). Here, the non-underlined claim limitations above recite additional elements. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of computers, another technology, or a technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). The Specification does not assert that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. The claim does not purport to improve computer capabilities, but rather invokes computers merely as a tool by adding general purpose computers post-hoc to an abstract idea. A commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. The Specification and the claim language provide evidence that the focus of the claim is on a scheme. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. Even if the Specification describes technical improvements, they are not claimed. The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). The additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). A general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. The additional elements do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)). The claim does not recite any transformation of an article where the article changes to a different state or thing. Nor do the additional elements apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way or impose a meaningful limit on it beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). The additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. A wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional feature that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself. The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements are being used in their ordinary capacity. The additional elements do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above. Step 2B Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP § 2106.05). In Step 2B examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f) and (h); re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Here, the specification of the application indicates that additional elements are well-known or conventional (See Spec. 0001, 0008-0030, 0033-0078). There is nothing in the specification to indicate that the operations recited in the claims require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more. The claims are not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis. Dependent Claims Claim 2 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes deployment validation, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0001, 0008-0030, 0033-0078). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. wherein the command is received via a plugin for an integrated development environment comprising the source code. Claim 3 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes deployment validation, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0001, 0008-0030, 0033-0078). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. wherein the deployment platform comprises KUBERNETES. Claim 4 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes deployment validation, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0001, 0008-0030, 0033-0078). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. wherein the generating the manifest comprises: receiving a first artifact generated by the LLM as part of the manifest; providing the first artifact to a manifest validator configured to validate the manifest including the first artifact; and receiving a validation result from the manifest validator regarding the first artifact. Claim 5 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes deployment validation, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0001, 0008-0030, 0033-0078). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. determining that the validation result indicates that the validation failed; generating, by the one or more processors, a regeneration prompt indicating the validation result, the regeneration prompt instructing the LLM to correct the first artifact; receiving a new version of the first artifact as generated by the LLM in response to the regeneration prompt ; and providing, by the one or more processors , the new version of the first artifact to the manifest validator for validating. Claim 6 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes deployment validation, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0001, 0008-0030, 0033-0078). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. wherein the validation result comprises an error code, and wherein the regeneration prompt includes the error code. Claim 7 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes deployment validation, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0001, 0008-0030, 0033-0078). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. wherein the providing the containerization file to the containerization validator comprises: determining that a containerization validation result comprises an error code; generating, by the one or more processors, a regeneration prompt including the error code indicating the containerization validation result, the regeneration prompt instructing the LLM to correct the containerization file; receiving a new version of the containerization file as generated by the LLM in response to the regeneration prompt ; and providing the new version of the containerization file to the containerization validator for validating. Claim 8 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes deployment validation, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0001, 0008-0030, 0033-0078). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. updating one or more configurations associated with the manifest, wherein the updating is performed after receiving the command and prior to receiving the manifest from the LLM , wherein the LLM is configured to use the one or more configurations in generating the manifest. Claim 10 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes deployment validation, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0001, 0008-0030, 0033-0078). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. wherein the command is received via a plugin for an integrated development environment comprising the source code. Claim 11 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes deployment validation, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0001, 0008-0030, 0033-0078). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. wherein the deployment platform comprises KUBERNETES. Claim 12 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes deployment validation, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0001, 0008-0030, 0033-0078). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. wherein the generating the manifest comprises: receiving a first artifact generated by the LLM as part of the manifest; providing the first artifact to a manifest validator configured to validate the manifest including the first artifact; and receiving a validation result from the manifest validator regarding the first artifact. Claim 13 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes deployment validation, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0001, 0008-0030, 0033-0078). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. determining that the validation result indicates that the validation failed; generating a regeneration prompt indicating the validation result, the regeneration prompt instructing the LLM to correct the first artifact; receiving a new version of the first artifact as generated by the LLM in response to the regeneration prompt ; and providing the new version of the first artifact to the manifest validator for validating. Claim 14 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes deployment validation, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0001, 0008-0030, 0033-0078). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. wherein the validation result comprises an error code, and wherein the regeneration prompt includes the error code . Claim 15 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes deployment validation, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0001, 0008-0030, 0033-0078). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. wherein the providing the containerization file to the containerization validator comprises: determining that a containerization validation result comprises an error code; generating a regeneration prompt including the error code indicating the containerization validation result, the regeneration prompt instructing the LLM to correct the containerization file; receiving a new version of the containerization file as generated by the LLM in response to the regeneration prompt ; and providing the new version of the containerization file to the containerization validator for validating. Claim 16 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes deployment validation, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0001, 0008-0030, 0033-0078). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. updating one or more configurations associated with the manifest, wherein the updating is performed after receiving the command and prior to receiving the manifest from the LLM, wherein the LLM is configured to use the one or more configurations in generating the manifest. Claim 18 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes deployment validation, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0001, 0008-0030, 0033-0078). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. wherein the command is received via a plugin for an integrated development environment comprising the source code . Claim 19 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes deployment validation, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0001, 0008-0030, 0033-0078). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. wherein the deployment platform comprises KUBERNETES. Claim 20 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes deployment validation, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0001, 0008-0030, 0033-0078). Therefore, the claim is not eligible. wherein the generating the manifest comprises: receiving a first artifact generated by the LLM as part of the manifest; providing the first artifact to a manifest validator configured to validate the manifest including the first artifact; and receiving a validation result from the manifest validator regarding the first artifact. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 4-6, 8-9, 12-14, 16-17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by US 2023/0280981 A1 (“Picco”) . Claims 1, 9, 17: Picco discloses: A computer-implemented method comprising: [a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and configured to perform operations comprising:] [A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device, cause the at least one computing device to perform operations comprising:] (0113-0120) receiving a command to configure source code of an application for deployment on a deployment platform; (0019, 0021, 0022, 0061, 0063, 0085) generating, by one or more processors, a containerization prompt for a large language model (LLM) instructing the LLM to generate a containerization file corresponding to the source code; (0021, 0023, 0024, 0061, 0062, 0066, 0072, 0075, 0080, 0081, 0085, 0090, 0091, 0096, 0097) receiving the containerization file from the LLM; (0081, 0085, 0086, 0097) providing the containerization file to a containerization validator configured to validate the containerization file; (0024, 0064, 0065, 0066, 0067, 0070, 0071, 0086, 0087, 0088, 0102, 0109) generating, by the one or more processors, a manifest prompt for the LLM instructing the LLM to generate a manifest for the deployment platform; (0021, 0023, 0024, 0064, 0081, 0085, 0111) receiving the manifest from the LLM for the deployment platform; and (0085, 0086, 0097) providing, by the one or more processors, the manifest to the deployment platform for the deployment. (0019, 0022, 0088, 0094) Claims 4, 12, 20: Picco discloses all limitations of claim 1, 9, 17. Picco further discloses: wherein the generating the manifest comprises: (0085, 0086) receiving a first artifact generated by the LLM as part of the manifest; (0085, 0086, 0097) providing the first artifact to a manifest validator configured to validate the manifest including the first artifact; and (0024, 0064, 0065, 0066, 0067, 0070, 0086, 0087, 0088) receiving a validation result from the manifest validator regarding the first artifact. (0066, 0067, 0087) Claims 5, 13: Picco discloses all limitations of claim 4, 12. Picco further discloses: determining that the validation result indicates that the validation failed; (0066, 0067) generating, by the one or more processors, a regeneration prompt indicating the validation result, the regeneration prompt instructing the LLM to correct the first artifact; (0022, 0023, 0067, 0069, 0070, 0071, 0088) receiving a new version of the first artifact as generated by the LLM in response to the regeneration prompt; and (0067, 0069, 0070, 0088) providing, by the one or more processors, the new version of the first artifact to the manifest validator for validating. (0064, 0067, 0069, 0070, 0071, 0088) Claims 6, 14: Picco discloses all limitations of claim 5, 13. Picco does not disclose: wherein the validation result comprises an error code, and wherein the regeneration prompt includes the error code. However, the limitation is non-functional descriptive material not functionally involved in a step/function recited. Any associated step/function would be performed the same regardless of the descriptive material since the step/function does not explicitly interact therewith. Limitations that are not functionally interrelated with the useful acts, structure, or properties of the claimed invention carry little or no patentable weight. Thus, this descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. See In re Ngai , 70 USPQ2d 1862 (CAFC 2004); In re Gulack , 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry , 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Claims 8, 16: Picco discloses all limitations of claim 1, 9. Picco further discloses: updating one or more configurations associated with the manifest, (0019, 0022, 0067, 0070, 0088) wherein the updating is performed after receiving the command and prior to receiving the manifest from the LLM, (0085, 0086, 0087, 0088) wherein the LLM is configured to use the one or more configurations in generating the manifest. (0066, 0067, 0086, 0091) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2, 10, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picco in view of US 2014/0372963 A1 (“Chandaria”) . Claims 2, 10, 18: Picco does not disclose: wherein the command is received via a plugin for an integrated development environment comprising the source code Chandaria, an analogous art of software development, discloses: wherein the command is received via a plugin for an integrated development environment comprising the source code (0021, 0024, 0025, 0040, 0046, 0047, 0048, 0049, 0069, 0070, 0086) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the command of Picco to include being received via a plugin for an integrated development environment comprising the source code, as disclosed in Chandaria. One or ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve security (See Chandaria, 0002-0007) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3, 11, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Picco in view of US 2020/0186616 A1 (“Fitzer”) . Claims 3, 11, 19: Picco does not disclose: wherein the deployment platform comprises KUBERNETES Fitzer, an analogous art of software development, discloses: wherein the deployment platform comprises KUBERNETES (0002, 0005, 0018, 0020, 0022, 0033, 0038, 0090, 0091) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the deployment platform of Picco to comprise Kubernetes, as disclosed in Fitzer. One or ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve automation and security (See Fitzer, 0002-0006). Claims Free of Art Claims 7 and 15 are free of art. Picco teaches: wherein the providing the containerization file to the containerization validator comprises: (0064, 0066, 0067, 0086, 0087) determining that a containerization validation result comprises an error code; (0064, 0066, 0067, 0086, 0087) receiving a new version of the containerization file as generated by the LLM in response to the regeneration prompt; and (0067, 0069, 0070, 0088) providing the new version of the containerization file to the containerization validator for validating. (0064, 0067, 0069, 0070, 0071, 0088) Therefore, the prior art does not teach, neither singly nor in combination the following: generating, by the one or more processors, a regeneration prompt including the error code indicating the containerization validation result, the regeneration prompt instructing the LLM to correct the containerization file; Conclusion 07-96 The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2022/0357930 A1 to Karri et al. discloses: A computer-implemented method classifies and creates a container file based on non-functional parameters. The method includes analyzing, by a learning model, a codebase. The codebase includes code for one or more applications. The method also includes identifying, based on the analyzing, a set of functional requirements for each application and a set of non-functional parameters. The method further includes classifying a first application of the one or more applications with a first non-functional parameter. The method includes generating a first container file for the first application. The first container file includes the functional requirements for the first application and the first non-functional parameter. The method further includes creating a first container from the first container file. US 2016/0350081 A1 to Kumar et al. discloses: A container configuration system for automatically generating a container configuration for a source application is provided. The container configuration system includes at least one processor and a memory. The at least one processor configured to receive a source element associated with the source application, determine a dependency component from the source element, generate the container configuration including at least the dependency component, and provide the container configuration for execution in an execution environment enabled to execute containers. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ari Shahabi whose telephone number is (571)272-2565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00. 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, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. 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. /ARI SHAHABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697 Application/Control Number: 18/788,928 Page 2 Art Unit: 3697
Prosecution Insights