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 .
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3 recites “the relevant infrastructure resource” should be “the infrastructure resource”; Claim 1, line 17, “the relevant changed system” should be “the changed system”.
Claim 3, line 6, recites “the relevant source code” should be “the source code of the added infrastructure”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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: “an input section”, “a system source code generating section”, “a deploying section”, “a setting change detecting section”, “a setting change reflecting section” 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 § 101
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-6 as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “… generates first source code defining a system satisfying the desired requirement; … when the system constructed in the execution environment is changed, detects a difference between second source code defining the relevant changed system and the first source code;… reflects the difference detected by the setting change detecting section in the first source code, … reflecting the difference in the first source code on a basis of a coding rule applied to the first source code” (in claim 1); “when the difference includes a change in the setting value, … corrects a setting value of the second source code on the basis of the coding rule, and corrects the first source code” (in claim 2); “when the difference includes addition of the infrastructure resource, …corrects the relevant source code on the basis of the coding rule, and corrects the first source code” (in claim 3); “…determines whether or not the added infrastructure resource is a new infrastructure resource on a basis of metadata identifying the system” in claim 4 as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of mental processes. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements “a system constructing device”, “an input section”, “a system source code generating section”, “a deploying section”, “a setting change detecting section”, “a setting change reflecting section” (claim 1), the input section includes a portal screen display unit (claim 5) and “inputs a request for a system construction satisfying a desired requirement”, “deploys and constructs the system in the execution environment on a basis of the request (in claim 1)”; “…obtains source code of the added infrastructure resource” (in claim 3), “…presents, to a user, a candidate for the system satisfying the functional requirement or the non-functional requirement that is input (claim 5); “…generates construction information for constructing the system selected by the user on a basis of a selection of the presented candidate for the system by the user, and constructs the system in the execution environment”(claim 6),
The additional elements of “a system constructing device”, “an input section”, “a system source code generating section”, “a deploying section”, “a setting change detecting section”, “a setting change reflecting section” (claim 1), the input section includes a portal screen display unit (claim 5) are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements “ inputs a request for a system construction satisfying a desired requirement”, “deploys and constructs the system in the execution environment on a basis of the request (in claim 1)”; “…obtains source code of the added infrastructure resource” (in claim 3), “…presents, to a user, a candidate for the system satisfying the functional requirement or the non-functional requirement that is input (claim 5); “…generates construction information for constructing the system selected by the user on a basis of a selection of the presented candidate for the system by the user, and constructs the system in the execution environment”(claim 6), does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 element “a system constructing device”, “an input section”, “a system source code generating section”, “a deploying section”, “a setting change detecting section”, “a setting changes reflecting section” (claim 1), “the input section includes a portal screen display unit” (claim 5 )are generic computer components and instructions used as the tools to perform the abstract idea. As to the additional element “inputs a request for a system construction satisfying a desired requirement”, “deploys and constructs the system in the execution environment on a basis of the request (in claim 1)”; “…obtains source code of the added infrastructure resource” (in claim 3), “…presents, to a user, a candidate for the system satisfying the functional requirement or the non-functional requirement that is input (claim 5); “…generates construction information for constructing the system selected by the user on a basis of a selection of the presented candidate for the system by the user, and constructs the system in the execution environment”(claim 6) are directed to insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering and displaying the output, the courts have identified data gathering and displaying the output of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept.
These additional elements taken alone or in combination fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and fail to amount to significant more. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130055194 (Wiegert et al ) in view of US 20210064351 (Naganuma et al – Applicant’s IDS) further in view of CN 112486566 (Jin).
As per claim 1, Wiegert disclose
A system constructing device for constructing a system including an infrastructure resource and a setting value of the relevant infrastructure resource in a predetermined execution environment (Fig. 1-6 and associated descriptions);
an input section that inputs a request for a system construction satisfying a desired requirement; a system source code generating section that generates first source code defining a system satisfying the desired requirement; a deploying section that deploys and constructs the system in the execution environment on a basis of the request (Fig 10-12 and associated descriptions ).
Wiegert et al does not explicitly discloses
a setting change detecting section that, when the system constructed in the execution environment is changed; detects a difference between second source code defining the relevant changed system and the first source code; and a setting change reflecting section that reflects the difference detected by the setting change detecting section in the first source code, the setting change reflecting section reflecting the difference in the first source code on a basis of a coding rule applied to the first source code.
However, Naganuma et al discloses
a setting change detecting section that, when the system constructed in the execution environment is changed ( [0047], [0098-0100] describing detecting if changes has been made to application image)
detects a difference between second source code defining the relevant changed system and the first source code; ([0098 -0100] describing judging whether or not any change has been made to the application instance from the base application image).
and a setting change reflecting section that reflects the difference detected by the setting change detecting section in the first source code, the setting change reflecting section reflecting the difference in the first source code ([0097-0100], [0165-0167] describing reflecting the changes in the original source code).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Naganuma et al into teachings of Wiegert to have a setting change detecting section that, when the system constructed in the execution environment is changed; detects a difference between second source code defining the relevant changed system and the first source code; and a setting change reflecting section that reflects the difference detected by the setting change detecting section in the first source code, the setting change reflecting section reflecting the difference in the first source because one would want to be able to easily package the system using the base system and being able to changing the setting to meet different needs of different systems (Naganuma et al [0013-0015], [0098-0100]).
The combination of Wiegert et al and Naganuma et al does not explicitly discloses reflecting the difference…on the basis of a code rule.
However, Jin discloses reflecting the difference…on the basis of a code rule (abstract).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Jin into the combined teaching of Wiegert et al and Naganuma et al to reflect the difference…on the basis of a code rule because one would want to be able to keep the style of code uniform for easy code maintenance (Jin, abstract)).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Wiegert et al does not explicitly discloses wherein, when the difference includes a change in the setting value, the setting change reflecting section corrects a setting value of the second source code on the basis of the coding rule, and corrects the first source code.
However, Naganuma et al discloses wherein, when the difference includes a change in the setting value, the setting change reflecting section corrects a setting value of the second source code …and corrects the first source code. ([0097-00100], [0165-0167])
Therefore, it would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Naganuma et al into the teaching Wiegert et al have when the difference includes a change in the setting value, the setting change reflecting section corrects a setting value of the second source code …and corrects the first source code because one would want to be able to easily package the system using the base system and be able to changing the setting to meet different needs of different systems ( Naganuma et al , [0013-0015], [0098-0100]).
The combination of Wiegert et al and Naganuma et al does not explicitly discloses corrects … source code on the basis of the coding rule
However, Jin discloses correct…the source code on the basis of a code rule (abstract).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Jin into the combined teaching of Wiegert et al and Naganuma et al to correct…the source code on the basis of a code rule because one would want to be able to keep the style of code uniform for easy code maintenance (Jin, abstract)).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 in incorporated and further Wiegert et al does not explicitly discloses when the difference includes addition of the infrastructure resource, the setting change reflecting section obtains source code of the added infrastructure resource, corrects the relevant source code on the basis of the coding rule and corrects the first source code.
However, Naganuma et al discloses when the difference includes addition of the infrastructure resource, the setting change reflecting section obtains source code of the added infrastructure resource, corrects the relevant source code…and corrects the first source code ([0097-00100], [0126-[0128], [0165-0167] , [0185-0189]) .
Therefore, it would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Naganuma et al into teachings of Wiegert et al to have when the difference includes addition of the infrastructure resource, the setting change reflecting section obtains source code of the added infrastructure resource, corrects the relevant source code…and corrects the first source code. because one would want to be able to easily package the system using the base system and being able to changing the setting to meet different needs of different systems (Naganuma et al, [0013-0015], [0098-0165]).
The combination of Wiegert et al and Naganuma et al does not explicitly corrects the source code on the basis of the coding rule.
However, Jin discloses corrects the source code on the basis of the coding rule (abstract).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Jin into the combined teaching of Wiegert eta la and Naganuma et al to corrects the relevant source code on the basis of the coding rule because one would want to be able to keep the style of code uniform for easy code maintenance (Jin, abstract).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated and further Wiegert et al does not explicitly discloses wherein the setting change detecting section determines whether or not the added infrastructure resource is a new infrastructure resource on a basis of metadata identifying the system. However, Naganuma et al discloses wherein the setting change detecting section determines whether or not the added infrastructure resource is a new infrastructure resource on a basis of metadata identifying the system ([0126-[0128], [0163-0168] describing to determine from pre-change to post change if the change is addition or deletion].
Therefore, it would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Naganuma et al into teachings of Wiegert et al have wherein the setting change detecting section determines whether or not the added infrastructure resource is a new infrastructure resource on a basis of metadata identifying the system because one would want to be able keep accurate inventory of the changes in the systems to keep the documentation up to date in order to help to be able to more easily package the system using the base system and being able to changing the setting to meet different needs of different systems.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130055194 (Wiegert et al ) in view of US 20210064351 (Naganuma et al – Applicant’s IDS) further in view of CN 112486566 (Jin) and US 11775262 (Kaduwela et al).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further Wiegert et al discloses the requirement includes a functional requirement and a non-functional requirement and … presents, to a user, a candidate for the system satisfying the functional requirement or the non-functional requirement that is input ([0010], Fig 10-12 and associated descriptions).
The combination of Weigert, Naganuma et al and Jin does not explicitly disclose wherein the input section includes a portal screen display unit.
Kaduwela et al discloses wherein the input section includes a portal screen display unit ([007-0026] describe input interface to obtain input from user).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kaduwela et al into the combined teaching of Wiegert, Naganuma et al and Jin to have wherein the input section includes a portal screen display unit because one would want to be able have a user-friendly interface for the user to pick the desired requirements to build the system (Kaduwela et al, [0022-0025]).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and further the combination of Weigert, Naganuma et al and Jin does not explicitly disclose wherein the deploying section generates construction information for constructing the system selected by the user on a basis of a selection of the presented candidate for the system by the user, and constructs the system in the execution environment.
However, Kaduwela et al discloses wherein the deploying section generates construction information for constructing the system selected by the user on a basis of a selection of the presented candidate for the system by the user, and constructs the system in the execution environment ([007-0026].
Therefore, it would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kaduwela et al into the combined teaching of Wiegert, Naganuma et al and Jin to have wherein the deploying section generates construction information for constructing the system selected by the user on a basis of a selection of the presented candidate for the system by the user, and constructs the system in the execution environment because one would want to be able have a user-friendly interface for the user to pick the desired requirements to build the system (Kaduwela et al, [0022-0025]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure.
US 20220137932 Cruz Torres et al discloses an embedded source code from the system requirements and a user can download the source via the web interface.
US 20130132709 Namba discloses determining whether or not a requirement is satisfied and generating the code line and storing the code line in a code buffer if the requirement has been determined to be satisfied and not generating the code line if the requirement has been determined to not be satisfied
US 7917890 Barcellona et al discloses generating a mapping between at least a portion of the metamodel and a code generation strategy,
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEI MUI whose telephone number is (571) 272-3708. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30am-4:30pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Cordelia Zecher can be reached at 571-272-7771. 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.
/WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights