The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the application filed on 09/24/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. This action is made non-final.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 8, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:In claim 6, “datasets ,” should be "datasets,".
In claim 8, “data if present, and” should be “data if present; and”.
In claim 14, “comprising detecting” should be “comprising: detecting”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 –
(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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bowling (US 2020/0387607).
Re claims 1, 17, Bowling teaches a method comprising:
scanning code of a software solution that uses data inputs and one or more datasets associated with the code, the scanning including identification of sensitive data if present ([0043], scan source code files to identify in the source code the sensitive data); and
generating a data assessment document automatically and based at least in part on the scanning ([0051, generate a summary report comprising information that is associated with sensitive information).
Re claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bowling teaches further comprising updating the data assessment document based at least in part on:
an update scan of the one or more datasets associated with the code ([0061]-[0062], updating criteria for identifying the sensitive data).
Re claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated. However, the selection from “one or more of” in claim 2 was not “an update to the code”. Instead, “an update scan of the one or more datasets associated with the code” was selected for examination. Therefore, the limitations of this claim is no longer applicable.
Re claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bowling teaches wherein the one or more datasets comprise one or more written datasets ([0030], writing source code).
Re claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bowling teaches wherein generating the data assessment document comprises:
generating the data assessment document as a machine-readable document ([0051], generate a summary report comprising information that identifies the sensitive information).
Re claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated. Bowling teaches wherein the machine-readable document comprises:
indications of sensitive data if present ([0051], generate a summary report comprising information that identifies the sensitive information); and
metadata associated with the one or more datasets ([0051], generate a summary report comprising information that identifies the sensitive information).
Re claim 16, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bowling teaches further comprising generating a human-readable document based at least in part on the data assessment document ([0051], generate a summary report comprising information that identifies the sensitive information).
Re claim 19, Bowling teaches computer system comprising:
a processor set ([0005], processor);
one or more computer-readable storage media ([0065], computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions); and
program instructions stored on the one or more storage medium to cause the processor set to perform operations ([0065], computer-readable media storing computer-executable instructions) comprising:
scanning code of a software solution that uses data inputs and one or more datasets associated with the code, scanning including identification of sensitive data if present ([0043], scan source code files to identify in the source code the sensitive data);
generating a data assessment document and based at least in part on the scanning ([0051, generate a summary report comprising information that is associated with sensitive information);
detecting an update to the software solution ([0066], data being updated);
re-scanning the code of the software solution and the one or more datasets, the re-scanning including identification of sensitive data if present ([0011]-[0012], first and second sensitive information); and
generating an update to the data assessment document based at least in part on the re-scanning ([0012], generate a summary report wherein the detected information regarding to the sensitive information is obtained).
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 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 of this title, 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 4, 13, 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bowling in view of Stewart et al. (US Patent 12,615,294).
Re claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bowling does not teach the limitation of this claim. However, Stewart teaches wherein scanning the code and the one or more datasets is based at least in part on a request to merge the code into a main source control repository (col. 12 and lines 59-67, developer requests for new code changes to be merged into the main repository).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Stewart’s content into Bowling’s invention because it would prevent problematic code from being merged and improve the quality, security, or compliance of the software development process.
Re claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bowling does not teach the limitation of this claim. However, Stewart teaches further comprising:
transmitting a request for approval of the data assessment document based at least in part on detection of completion of the data assessment document (col. 12 and lines 59-67, when being ready, developer requests for new code changes to be merged into the main repository).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Stewart’s content into Bowling’s invention because it would prevent problematic code from being merged and improve the quality, security, or compliance of the software development process.
Re claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bowling does not teach the limitation of this claim. However, Stewart teaches further comprising generating control information associated with the data assessment document, wherein the control information identifies credentials for permissions to modify one or more fields of the data assessment document (col. 12 and lines 59-67, when being ready, developer requests for new code changes to be merged into the main repository which means the developer has the authority to merge the code once the request is granted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Stewart’s content into Bowling’s invention because it would prevent problematic code from being merged and improve the quality, security, or compliance of the software development process.
Re claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated. Bowling does not teach the limitation of this claim. However, Stewart teaches wherein the program instructions comprise:
program instructions to update the machine-readable data assessment document based at least in part on detecting an update to the code (col. 12 and lines 59-67, when being ready, developer requests for new code changes to be merged into the main repository which means the developer has the authority to merge the code once the request is granted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Stewart’s content into Bowling’s invention because it would prevent problematic code from being merged and improve the quality, security, or compliance of the software development process.
Re claim 20, the rejection of claim 19 is incorporated. Bowling does not teach the limitation of this claim. However, Stewart teaches wherein detecting the update to the software solution comprises:
receiving an input that indicates the update of the code (col. 12 and lines 59-67, developer requests for new code changes to be merged into the main repository which means the developer has the authority to merge the code once the request is granted).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching as seen in Stewart’s content into Bowling’s invention because it would prevent problematic code from being merged and improve the quality, security, or compliance of the software development process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9-12, 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims set forth in this action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 ( c ) to consider these references fully when responding to this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN H VU whose telephone number is (571)270-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on PHP 9-5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephen Hong can be reached on 571-272-4124. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TOAN H VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights