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 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 1-20 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, 8 and 15 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 limitations “identifying that the software change operation corresponds to a software change to make a pipeline change to a configuration of the deployment pipeline; determining from the simulating that one or more functionalities with respect to the use case are adversely affected by the software change; mapping the software change to the one or more functionalities that are determined ... to be adversely affected by the software change, the mapping comprising structuring data to associate the software change with the one or more functionalities and the use case adversely affected” as drafted, 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 comprising: one or more processing devices; and memory communicatively coupled with and readable by the one or more processing devices and having stored therein processor-readable instructions,” “one or more non-transitory, machine-readable media having machine-readable instructions thereon which, when executed by one or more processing devices,” “a user interface,” and “simulating a pipeline run with a use case ... using a dummy application, with its variables and associated configurations stored in a template, that is executed with respect to the deployment pipeline.” These additional elements are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a generic computer or generic computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The claims further recite the additional elements “processing a software change operation within a deployment pipeline,” “exposing, based on the mapping and via a user interface, graphical indicia of the software change mapped to the one or more functionalities and the use case adversely affected,” and “blocking deployment of the software change to production.” The processing limitation amounts to mere data gathering, the exposing limitation amounts to outputting and displaying the result of the abstract idea, and the blocking limitation amounts to nominal post-solution activity that selectively applies the result of the abstract idea. Each of these is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and 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 into a practical application, the processing devices, memory, non-transitory machine-readable media, and user interface are generic computer components used as tools to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and the processing, exposing, and blocking limitations are insignificant extra-solution activity that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional (MPEP § 2106.05(d) and (g)). Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 2-5, 9-12 and 16-19 further define the “software change operation” as part of the processing and identifying functions of the claims from which they depend, and are therefore also considered to recite a mental process that can reasonably be carried out through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. These claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 further define the “simulating” and “mapping” functions of the claims from which they depend, and are therefore also considered to recite a mental process. The recited performing a test of a plurality of tests on the deployment pipeline for each use case is the use of a generic computing tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and does not amount to significantly more.
Claims 7 and 14 recite the additional element “exposing, via the user interface, details of the one or more functionalities and the use case adversely affected by the software change,” which does nothing more than add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, such as outputting and displaying the result of the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The courts have identified displaying the output of an abstract idea as well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional element cannot provide an inventive concept, and these claims are not patent eligible.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,174,732. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the referenced patent and the instant application are claiming common subject matter. For illustration, the rejection of claim 1 is provided as follows:
Current Application 18/947,454
U.S. Patent No. 12,174,732
1. A system comprising: one or more processing devices; and memory communicatively coupled with and readable by the one or more processing devices and having stored therein processor-readable instructions which, when executed by the one or more processing devices, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
processing a software change operation within a deployment pipeline;
identifying that the software change operation corresponds to a software change to make a pipeline change to a configuration of the deployment pipeline;
simulating a pipeline run with a use case, where the simulating comprises using a dummy application, with its variables and associated configurations stored in a template, that is executed with respect to the deployment pipeline to test the software change; determining from the simulating that one or more functionalities with respect to the use case are adversely affected by the software change; mapping the software change to the one or more functionalities that are determined, based on results of the simulating using the dummy application, to be adversely affected by the software change, the mapping comprising structuring data to associate the software change with the one or more functionalities and the use case adversely affected; exposing, based on the mapping and via a user interface, graphical indicia of the software change mapped to the one or more functionalities and the use case adversely affected; and blocking deployment of the software change to production.
1. A system comprising: one or more processing devices; and memory communicatively coupled with and readable by the one or more processing devices and having stored therein processor-readable instructions which, when executed by the one or more processing devices, cause the one or more processing devices to perform operations comprising:
processing a software change operation within a deployment pipeline for testing and deploying a software change to a production computing service;
identifying that the software change operation corresponds to a software change with the deployment pipeline, where the software change is identified as being configured to make a pipeline change to a configuration of the deployment pipeline itself;
responsive to the identifying, invoking a regression suite configured to run a plurality of test applications on the deployment pipeline to test the deployment pipeline with respect to the software change, and running the plurality of test applications with the software change, where the running the plurality of test applications comprises:
simulating pipeline runs with a plurality of use cases, where the simulating the pipeline runs comprises: for each simulation of a pipeline run with respect to a use case of the plurality of use cases: identifying functionalities of the use case; and determining whether one or more of the functionalities of the use case is adversely affected by the software change; where one or more of the simulations comprise using a dummy application, with its variables and associated configurations stored in a template, that is executed with respect to the deployment pipeline to test the software change; determining from the running of at least one test application of the plurality of test applications that one or more of the functionalities of one or more of the use cases is adversely affected by the software change; mapping the software change to the one or more of the functionalities and the one or more of the use cases adversely affected by the software change; and exposing the mapping via a user interface.
Claim 1 of the instant application differs from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,174,732 in that the instant claim recites that the mapping comprises structuring data to associate the software change with the affected functionalities and use case, that the exposing presents graphical indicia of the software change mapped to the affected functionalities and use case via a user interface, and that deployment of the software change to production is blocked. These differences do not render the instant claims patentably distinct. The patented claim already recites mapping the software change to the affected functionalities and use cases and exposing the mapping via a user interface, and the additional structuring, graphical indicia, and blocking limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of Frank (US 2017/0255460 A1), which teaches composing the mapping report in a structured interchange format (Para [0155]), presenting the report as graphical indicia in a risk report panel of a user interface (Para [0156] and Para [0143], FIG. 14), and blocking a deployment pipeline based on a customizable severity level of identified rule violations (Para [0141]). Accordingly, the instant claims are not patentably distinct from claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,174,732 and are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank (US 2017/0255460 A1) in view of Mirantes (US 2021/0232388 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Frank (US 2017/0255460 A1) teaches
A system comprising one or more processing devices and memory communicatively coupled with and readable by the one or more processing devices and having stored therein processor-readable instructions which, when executed by the one or more processing devices, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
processing a software change operation within a deployment pipeline (Para [0054], “the meta-pipeline 210 includes a version of an LPT package 212 and a version of an LPT instance 214, which inherits from the LPT package 212. The meta-pipeline also includes a build stage 216 and a test stage 218.”) Examiner Comments: Frank teaches a meta-pipeline that processes a change, namely a software change operation, committed to the live pipeline template source code within a continuous deployment pipeline infrastructure, such that the LPT package change constitutes a software change operation being processed within the deployment pipeline.
identifying that the software change operation corresponds to a software change to make a pipeline change to a configuration of the deployment pipeline (Para [0103], “the method 800 begins at step 805, where the meta-pipeline (or component of the LPT engine) detects a triggering event changing the record version of an LPT package associated with a continuous deployment pipeline.”) Examiner Comments: Frank teaches identifying that the software change operation, namely the LPT package version change, corresponds to a software change configured to make a pipeline change to the configuration of the deployment pipeline itself, because the LPT package directly specifies and configures the deployment pipeline stages, services, and monitors.
determining from the simulating that one or more functionalities with respect to the use case are adversely affected by the software change (Para [0131], “the pipeline analysis 1236 may evaluate the application definition 1234 against a set of rules 1238. The rules 1238 may be used to capture the best practices or configuration requirements for a deployment pipeline. That is, the rules 1238 may be used to ensure that deployment pipeline 1229 follows the best practices established by an enterprise for deployment pipelines.”) Examiner Comments: Frank teaches determining, from evaluation of the pipeline against rules 1238 during testing, which pipeline functionalities, such as a missing rollback monitor or a missing gamma stage test, are adversely affected by the software change, where the rules represent the expected functionalities of the deployment pipeline that must be preserved.
mapping the software change to the one or more functionalities that are determined, based on results of the simulating using the dummy application, to be adversely affected by the software change, the mapping comprising structuring data to associate the software change with the one or more functionalities and the use case adversely affected (Para [0161], “the pipeline analysis engine may generate a report specifying any rule violations identified at step 1620 or differences between the current configuration of the deployment pipeline and a reference configuration generated for the deployment pipeline.”; Para [0155], “the report 1508 is also composed using an interchange format (e.g., JSON), allowing it to be consumed by a publishing engine 1507.”) Examiner Comments: Frank teaches generating an analysis report that associates each identified rule violation, namely a functionality adversely affected by the pipeline software change, with the specific pipeline configuration discrepancy caused by that software change, and composes that report using a structured interchange format such as JSON, which reads on mapping the software change to the adversely affected functionalities and structuring data to associate the software change with those functionalities and the use case adversely affected.
exposing, based on the mapping and via a user interface, graphical indicia of the software change mapped to the one or more functionalities and the use case adversely affected (Para [0156], “the publishing engine 1507 may provide the report 1508 to the LPT service console 1506, which could generate an interface presenting the report to a developer (e.g., the interface 1400 of FIG. 14).”; Para [0143] and FIG. 14, “the risk report indicates that a deployment pipeline in the US-East computing region is missing a rollback monitor for a production stage and that a deployment pipeline in the US-West computing region is missing a gamma stage test in one of two availability zones in the US-West computing region.”) Examiner Comments: Frank teaches exposing the analysis report, which associates the software change with the adversely affected pipeline functionalities, via a graphical user interface (interface 1400, FIG. 14) that presents a risk report panel graphically indicating which functionalities are missing for each computing region, which reads on exposing, based on the mapping and via a user interface, graphical indicia of the software change mapped to the functionalities and use case adversely affected.
blocking deployment of the software change to production (Para [0141], “the approval workflow could block a deployment pipeline based on a customizable severity level of any rule violations identified by the pipeline analysis 1236.”) Examiner Comments: Frank teaches that the approval workflow can block a deployment pipeline based on a customizable severity level of the rule violations identified by the pipeline analysis, which reads on blocking deployment of the software change to production, because the pipeline configuration that is blocked from activation is itself the changed artifact that would otherwise be deployed to production.
Frank did not specifically teach
simulating a pipeline run with a use case, where the simulating comprises using a dummy application, with its variables and associated configurations stored in a template, that is executed with respect to the deployment pipeline to test the software change.
However, Mirantes (US 2021/0232388 A1) teaches
simulating a pipeline run with a use case, where the simulating comprises using a dummy application, with its variables and associated configurations stored in a template, that is executed with respect to the deployment pipeline to test the software change (Para [0006], “a system obtains a configuration file having a set of attribute values that is descriptive of an application... processes the configuration file using the gate mapping file to determine a set of gates to be invoked for progressing the application in the pipeline, and invokes the set of gates causing the corresponding set of software routines to be executed for progressing the application.”; Para [0021], “System 100 may determine the gates to be invoked for the application based on a configuration file associated with the application. The configuration file may include properties of the application as attributes and attribute values... the configuration file may include attributes such as process type (‘A1’), destination (‘A2’), release type (‘A3’), geographical region (‘A4’) where the application is to be deployed... programming language of the application (‘A5’).”) Examiner Comments: Mirantes teaches an application, namely a dummy application, whose variables and associated configurations are stored in a configuration file, namely a template, where the configuration file stores attribute values descriptive of the application, and the application is executed through the pipeline by invoking the corresponding gate mapping in order to test the pipeline for a particular combination of attribute values constituting a use case.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Frank’s teaching of meta-pipeline-based pipeline change detection and analysis with Mirantes’s teaching of template-based application configuration in order to provide a regression testing system that uses a template-stored dummy application configuration to simulate pipeline runs, thereby systematically verifying that pipeline changes do not break existing use case functionalities, which would yield the predictable result of a more organized and scalable pipeline regression testing system, since using a configuration file (template) to drive different application type simulations (use cases) within the pipeline testing framework was a known technique in CI/CD pipeline development.
Regarding Claim 2, Frank and Mirantes teach
the system as recited in claim 1.
Frank further teaches
where the software change operation corresponds to an instantiation of a branch of the deployment pipeline (Para [0051], “client system 105 includes an integrated development environment (IDE) 107, which may be used to generate a service-specific instance of a live pipeline template 109, i.e., to generate LPT instance 103 which inherits the source code of the live pipeline template 109.”) Examiner Comments: instantiating an LPT instance, a service-specific version of the live pipeline template, corresponds to an instantiation of a branch of the deployment pipeline, because the LPT instance represents a branch of the pipeline template source code from which pipeline changes are made and tested prior to merging.
Regarding Claim 3, Frank and Mirantes teach
the system as recited in claim 1.
Frank further teaches
where the software change operation corresponds to a merge request to merge a branch of the deployment pipeline into the deployment pipeline (Para [0053], “Proposed changes to a deployment pipeline may be peer reviewed before being committed in the source code of live pipeline template 109 or LPT instance 103 and deployed to the pipeline in manner controlled by the meta-pipeline.”) Examiner Comments: the peer review and committing of changes from the LPT instance (branch) into the main live pipeline template (the deployment pipeline) via the meta-pipeline corresponds to a merge request to merge a branch of the deployment pipeline into the deployment pipeline, because the version control system manages this process of integrating branch changes into the main pipeline.
Regarding Claim 4, Frank and Mirantes teach
the system as recited in claim 1.
Frank further teaches
where the software change operation corresponds to communicating code corresponding to the software change to a software repository system (Para [0103], “the LPT engine may monitor for changes to the source code of a live pipeline template being committed to a deploy-version branch within a version control system.”) Examiner Comments: Frank teaches committing the updated live pipeline template source code, namely code corresponding to the software change, to a deploy-version branch within a version control system, namely a software repository system, which reads on communicating code corresponding to the software change to a software repository system under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding Claim 5, Frank and Mirantes teach
the system as recited in claim 1.
Frank further teaches
where the software change comprises a change to a deployment pipeline template (Para [0103], “the method 800 begins at step 805, where the meta-pipeline (or component of the LPT engine) detects a triggering event changing the record version of an LPT package associated with a continuous deployment pipeline.”) Examiner Comments: Frank explicitly teaches that the software change is a change to the LPT package, namely the live pipeline template, which directly reads on a change to a deployment pipeline template, because the LPT package is the source code template that defines and configures the deployment pipeline.
Regarding Claim 6, Frank and Mirantes teach
the system as recited in claim 1.
Mirantes further teaches
where the simulating the pipeline run comprises performing a test of a plurality of tests on the deployment pipeline for each use case of a plurality of use cases, and where each test of the plurality of tests is mapped to a particular use case of the plurality of use cases (Para [0025], “Each mapping in gate mapping file 204 indicates a set of gates to be invoked for a set of attribute values. In other words, each mapping indicates a set of actions to be performed for progressing an application having a set of attribute values.”) Examiner Comments: under the broadest reasonable interpretation, each distinct set of attribute values in Mirantes constitutes a use case, each gate represents a test, and the gate mapping file maps each gate (test) to a particular set of attribute values (use case), thus teaching performing a plurality of tests on the deployment pipeline for each use case with each test mapped to a particular use case of the plurality of use cases.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Frank’s teaching of meta-pipeline-based pipeline change detection and analysis with Mirantes’s teaching of template-based application configuration in order to provide a regression testing system that uses a template-stored dummy application configuration to simulate pipeline runs, thereby systematically verifying that pipeline changes do not break existing use case functionalities, which would yield the predictable result of a more organized and scalable pipeline regression testing system, since using a configuration file (template) to drive different application type simulations (use cases) within the pipeline testing framework was a known technique in CI/CD pipeline development.
Regarding Claim 7, Frank and Mirantes teach
the system as recited in claim 1.
Frank further teaches
the operations further comprising exposing, via the user interface, details of the one or more functionalities and the use case adversely affected by the software change (Para [0143] and FIG. 14, “A risk report panel 1410 shows a set of results generated by the evaluation component 1305 in assessing the actual configuration of the deployment pipeline identified in panel 1405.”) Examiner Comments: Frank’s interface 1400 (FIG. 14) exposes, via a graphical user interface, details of the specific pipeline functionalities that are adversely affected, such as a missing rollback monitor or a missing gamma stage, per specific computing region (use case), which reads on exposing details of the one or more functionalities and the use case adversely affected by the software change.
Regarding Claim 8, Frank (US 2017/0255460 A1) teaches
A method comprising:
processing a software change operation within a deployment pipeline (Para [0054], “the meta-pipeline 210 includes a version of an LPT package 212 and a version of an LPT instance 214, which inherits from the LPT package 212. The meta-pipeline also includes a build stage 216 and a test stage 218.”) Examiner Comments: Frank teaches a meta-pipeline that processes a change, namely a software change operation, committed to the live pipeline template source code within a continuous deployment pipeline infrastructure, such that the LPT package change constitutes a software change operation being processed within the deployment pipeline.
identifying that the software change operation corresponds to a software change to make a pipeline change to a configuration of the deployment pipeline (Para [0103], “the method 800 begins at step 805, where the meta-pipeline (or component of the LPT engine) detects a triggering event changing the record version of an LPT package associated with a continuous deployment pipeline.”) Examiner Comments: Frank teaches identifying that the software change operation, namely the LPT package version change, corresponds to a software change configured to make a pipeline change to the configuration of the deployment pipeline itself, because the LPT package directly specifies and configures the deployment pipeline stages, services, and monitors.
determining from the simulating that one or more functionalities with respect to the use case are adversely affected by the software change (Para [0131], “the pipeline analysis 1236 may evaluate the application definition 1234 against a set of rules 1238. The rules 1238 may be used to capture the best practices or configuration requirements for a deployment pipeline. That is, the rules 1238 may be used to ensure that deployment pipeline 1229 follows the best practices established by an enterprise for deployment pipelines.”) Examiner Comments: Frank teaches determining, from evaluation of the pipeline against rules 1238 during testing, which pipeline functionalities, such as a missing rollback monitor or a missing gamma stage test, are adversely affected by the software change, where the rules represent the expected functionalities of the deployment pipeline that must be preserved.
mapping the software change to the one or more functionalities that are determined, based on results of the simulating using the dummy application, to be adversely affected by the software change, the mapping comprising structuring data to associate the software change with the one or more functionalities and the use case adversely affected (Para [0161], “the pipeline analysis engine may generate a report specifying any rule violations identified at step 1620 or differences between the current configuration of the deployment pipeline and a reference configuration generated for the deployment pipeline.”; Para [0155], “the report 1508 is also composed using an interchange format (e.g., JSON), allowing it to be consumed by a publishing engine 1507.”) Examiner Comments: Frank teaches generating an analysis report that associates each identified rule violation, namely a functionality adversely affected by the pipeline software change, with the specific pipeline configuration discrepancy caused by that software change, and composes that report using a structured interchange format such as JSON, which reads on mapping the software change to the adversely affected functionalities and structuring data to associate the software change with those functionalities and the use case adversely affected.
exposing, based on the mapping and via a user interface, graphical indicia of the software change mapped to the one or more functionalities and the use case adversely affected (Para [0156], “the publishing engine 1507 may provide the report 1508 to the LPT service console 1506, which could generate an interface presenting the report to a developer (e.g., the interface 1400 of FIG. 14).”; Para [0143] and FIG. 14, “the risk report indicates that a deployment pipeline in the US-East computing region is missing a rollback monitor for a production stage and that a deployment pipeline in the US-West computing region is missing a gamma stage test in one of two availability zones in the US-West computing region.”) Examiner Comments: Frank teaches exposing the analysis report, which associates the software change with the adversely affected pipeline functionalities, via a graphical user interface (interface 1400, FIG. 14) that presents a risk report panel graphically indicating which functionalities are missing for each computing region, which reads on exposing, based on the mapping and via a user interface, graphical indicia of the software change mapped to the functionalities and use case adversely affected.
blocking deployment of the software change to production (Para [0141], “the approval workflow could block a deployment pipeline based on a customizable severity level of any rule violations identified by the pipeline analysis 1236.”) Examiner Comments: Frank teaches that the approval workflow can block a deployment pipeline based on a customizable severity level of the rule violations identified by the pipeline analysis, which reads on blocking deployment of the software change to production, because the pipeline configuration that is blocked from activation is itself the changed artifact that would otherwise be deployed to production.
Frank did not specifically teach
simulating a pipeline run with a use case, where the simulating comprises using a dummy application, with its variables and associated configurations stored in a template, that is executed with respect to the deployment pipeline to test the software change.
However, Mirantes (US 2021/0232388 A1) teaches
simulating a pipeline run with a use case, where the simulating comprises using a dummy application, with its variables and associated configurations stored in a template, that is executed with respect to the deployment pipeline to test the software change (Para [0006], “a system obtains a configuration file having a set of attribute values that is descriptive of an application... processes the configuration file using the gate mapping file to determine a set of gates to be invoked for progressing the application in the pipeline, and invokes the set of gates causing the corresponding set of software routines to be executed for progressing the application.”; Para [0021], “System 100 may determine the gates to be invoked for the application based on a configuration file associated with the application. The configuration file may include properties of the application as attributes and attribute values... the configuration file may include attributes such as process type (‘A1’), destination (‘A2’), release type (‘A3’), geographical region (‘A4’) where the application is to be deployed... programming language of the application (‘A5’).”) Examiner Comments: Mirantes teaches an application, namely a dummy application, whose variables and associated configurations are stored in a configuration file, namely a template, where the configuration file stores attribute values descriptive of the application, and the application is executed through the pipeline by invoking the corresponding gate mapping in order to test the pipeline for a particular combination of attribute values constituting a use case.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Frank’s teaching of meta-pipeline-based pipeline change detection and analysis with Mirantes’s teaching of template-based application configuration in order to provide a regression testing system that uses a template-stored dummy application configuration to simulate pipeline runs, thereby systematically verifying that pipeline changes do not break existing use case functionalities, which would yield the predictable result of a more organized and scalable pipeline regression testing system, since using a configuration file (template) to drive different application type simulations (use cases) within the pipeline testing framework was a known technique in CI/CD pipeline development.
Regarding Claim 9, Frank and Mirantes teach
the method as recited in claim 8.
Frank further teaches
where the software change operation corresponds to an instantiation of a branch of the deployment pipeline (Para [0051], “client system 105 includes an integrated development environment (IDE) 107, which may be used to generate a service-specific instance of a live pipeline template 109, i.e., to generate LPT instance 103 which inherits the source code of the live pipeline template 109.”) Examiner Comments: instantiating an LPT instance, a service-specific version of the live pipeline template, corresponds to an instantiation of a branch of the deployment pipeline, because the LPT instance represents a branch of the pipeline template source code from which pipeline changes are made and tested prior to merging.
Regarding Claim 10, Frank and Mirantes teach
the method as recited in claim 8.
Frank further teaches
where the software change operation corresponds to a merge request to merge a branch of the deployment pipeline into the deployment pipeline (Para [0053], “Proposed changes to a deployment pipeline may be peer reviewed before being committed in the source code of live pipeline template 109 or LPT instance 103 and deployed to the pipeline in manner controlled by the meta-pipeline.”) Examiner Comments: the peer review and committing of changes from the LPT instance (branch) into the main live pipeline template (the deployment pipeline) via the meta-pipeline corresponds to a merge request to merge a branch of the deployment pipeline into the deployment pipeline, because the version control system manages this process of integrating branch changes into the main pipeline.
Regarding Claim 11, Frank and Mirantes teach
the method as recited in claim 8.
Frank further teaches
where the software change operation corresponds to communicating code corresponding to the software change to a software repository system (Para [0103], “the LPT engine may monitor for changes to the source code of a live pipeline template being committed to a deploy-version branch within a version control system.”) Examiner Comments: Frank teaches committing the updated live pipeline template source code, namely code corresponding to the software change, to a deploy-version branch within a version control system, namely a software repository system, which reads on communicating code corresponding to the software change to a software repository system under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding Claim 12, Frank and Mirantes teach
the method as recited in claim 8.
Frank further teaches
where the software change comprises a change to a deployment pipeline template (Para [0103], “the method 800 begins at step 805, where the meta-pipeline (or component of the LPT engine) detects a triggering event changing the record version of an LPT package associated with a continuous deployment pipeline.”) Examiner Comments: Frank explicitly teaches that the software change is a change to the LPT package, namely the live pipeline template, which directly reads on a change to a deployment pipeline template, because the LPT package is the source code template that defines and configures the deployment pipeline.
Regarding Claim 13, Frank and Mirantes teach
the method as recited in claim 8.
Mirantes further teaches
where the simulating the pipeline run comprises performing a test of a plurality of tests on the deployment pipeline for each use case of a plurality of use cases, and where each test of the plurality of tests is mapped to a particular use case of the plurality of use cases (Para [0025], “Each mapping in gate mapping file 204 indicates a set of gates to be invoked for a set of attribute values. In other words, each mapping indicates a set of actions to be performed for progressing an application having a set of attribute values.”) Examiner Comments: under the broadest reasonable interpretation, each distinct set of attribute values in Mirantes constitutes a use case, each gate represents a test, and the gate mapping file maps each gate (test) to a particular set of attribute values (use case), thus teaching performing a plurality of tests on the deployment pipeline for each use case with each test mapped to a particular use case of the plurality of use cases.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Frank’s teaching of meta-pipeline-based pipeline change detection and analysis with Mirantes’s teaching of template-based application configuration in order to provide a regression testing system that uses a template-stored dummy application configuration to simulate pipeline runs, thereby systematically verifying that pipeline changes do not break existing use case functionalities, which would yield the predictable result of a more organized and scalable pipeline regression testing system, since using a configuration file (template) to drive different application type simulations (use cases) within the pipeline testing framework was a known technique in CI/CD pipeline development.
Regarding Claim 14, Frank and Mirantes teach
the method as recited in claim 8.
Frank further teaches
further comprising exposing, via the user interface, details of the one or more functionalities and the use case adversely affected by the software change (Para [0143] and FIG. 14, “A risk report panel 1410 shows a set of results generated by the evaluation component 1305 in assessing the actual configuration of the deployment pipeline identified in panel 1405.”) Examiner Comments: Frank’s interface 1400 (FIG. 14) exposes, via a graphical user interface, details of the specific pipeline functionalities that are adversely affected, such as a missing rollback monitor or a missing gamma stage, per specific computing region (use case), which reads on exposing details of the one or more functionalities and the use case adversely affected by the software change.
Regarding Claim 15, Frank (US 2017/0255460 A1) teaches
One or more non-transitory, machine-readable media having machine-readable instructions thereon which, when executed by one or more processing devices, cause a system to perform operations comprising:
processing a software change operation within a deployment pipeline (Para [0054], “the meta-pipeline 210 includes a version of an LPT package 212 and a version of an LPT instance 214, which inherits from the LPT package 212. The meta-pipeline also includes a build stage 216 and a test stage 218.”) Examiner Comments: Frank teaches a meta-pipeline that processes a change, namely a software change operation, committed to the live pipeline template source code within a continuous deployment pipeline infrastructure, such that the LPT package change constitutes a software change operation being processed within the deployment pipeline.
identifying that the software change operation corresponds to a software change to make a pipeline change to a configuration of the deployment pipeline (Para [0103], “the method 800 begins at step 805, where the meta-pipeline (or component of the LPT engine) detects a triggering event changing the record version of an LPT package associated with a continuous deployment pipeline.”) Examiner Comments: Frank teaches identifying that the software change operation, namely the LPT package version change, corresponds to a software change configured to make a pipeline change to the configuration of the deployment pipeline itself, because the LPT package directly specifies and configures the deployment pipeline stages, services, and monitors.
determining from the simulating that one or more functionalities with respect to the use case are adversely affected by the software change (Para [0131], “the pipeline analysis 1236 may evaluate the application definition 1234 against a set of rules 1238. The rules 1238 may be used to capture the best practices or configuration requirements for a deployment pipeline. That is, the rules 1238 may be used to ensure that deployment pipeline 1229 follows the best practices established by an enterprise for deployment pipelines.”) Examiner Comments: Frank teaches determining, from evaluation of the pipeline against rules 1238 during testing, which pipeline functionalities, such as a missing rollback monitor or a missing gamma stage test, are adversely affected by the software change, where the rules represent the expected functionalities of the deployment pipeline that must be preserved.
mapping the software change to the one or more functionalities that are determined, based on results of the simulating using the dummy application, to be adversely affected by the software change, the mapping comprising structuring data to associate the software change with the one or more functionalities and the use case adversely affected (Para [0161], “the pipeline analysis engine may generate a report specifying any rule violations identified at step 1620 or differences between the current configuration of the deployment pipeline and a reference configuration generated for the deployment pipeline.”; Para [0155], “the report 1508 is also composed using an interchange format (e.g., JSON), allowing it to be consumed by a publishing engine 1507.”) Examiner Comments: Frank teaches generating an analysis report that associates each identified rule violation, namely a functionality adversely affected by the pipeline software change, with the specific pipeline configuration discrepancy caused by that software change, and composes that report using a structured interchange format such as JSON, which reads on mapping the software change to the adversely affected functionalities and structuring data to associate the software change with those functionalities and the use case adversely affected.
exposing, based on the mapping and via a user interface, graphical indicia of the software change mapped to the one or more functionalities and the use case adversely affected (Para [0156], “the publishing engine 1507 may provide the report 1508 to the LPT service console 1506, which could generate an interface presenting the report to a developer (e.g., the interface 1400 of FIG. 14).”; Para [0143] and FIG. 14, “the risk report indicates that a deployment pipeline in the US-East computing region is missing a rollback monitor for a production stage and that a deployment pipeline in the US-West computing region is missing a gamma stage test in one of two availability zones in the US-West computing region.”) Examiner Comments: Frank teaches exposing the analysis report, which associates the software change with the adversely affected pipeline functionalities, via a graphical user interface (interface 1400, FIG. 14) that presents a risk report panel graphically indicating which functionalities are missing for each computing region, which reads on exposing, based on the mapping and via a user interface, graphical indicia of the software change mapped to the functionalities and use case adversely affected.
blocking deployment of the software change to production (Para [0141], “the approval workflow could block a deployment pipeline based on a customizable severity level of any rule violations identified by the pipeline analysis 1236.”) Examiner Comments: Frank teaches that the approval workflow can block a deployment pipeline based on a customizable severity level of the rule violations identified by the pipeline analysis, which reads on blocking deployment of the software change to production, because the pipeline configuration that is blocked from activation is itself the changed artifact that would otherwise be deployed to production.
Frank did not specifically teach
simulating a pipeline run with a use case, where the simulating comprises using a dummy application, with its variables and associated configurations stored in a template, that is executed with respect to the deployment pipeline to test the software change.
However, Mirantes (US 2021/0232388 A1) teaches
simulating a pipeline run with a use case, where the simulating comprises using a dummy application, with its variables and associated configurations stored in a template, that is executed with respect to the deployment pipeline to test the software change (Para [0006], “a system obtains a configuration file having a set of attribute values that is descriptive of an application... processes the configuration file using the gate mapping file to determine a set of gates to be invoked for progressing the application in the pipeline, and invokes the set of gates causing the corresponding set of software routines to be executed for progressing the application.”; Para [0021], “System 100 may determine the gates to be invoked for the application based on a configuration file associated with the application. The configuration file may include properties of the application as attributes and attribute values... the configuration file may include attributes such as process type (‘A1’), destination (‘A2’), release type (‘A3’), geographical region (‘A4’) where the application is to be deployed... programming language of the application (‘A5’).”) Examiner Comments: Mirantes teaches an application, namely a dummy application, whose variables and associated configurations are stored in a configuration file, namely a template, where the configuration file stores attribute values descriptive of the application, and the application is executed through the pipeline by invoking the corresponding gate mapping in order to test the pipeline for a particular combination of attribute values constituting a use case.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Frank’s teaching of meta-pipeline-based pipeline change detection and analysis with Mirantes’s teaching of template-based application configuration in order to provide a regression testing system that uses a template-stored dummy application configuration to simulate pipeline runs, thereby systematically verifying that pipeline changes do not break existing use case functionalities, which would yield the predictable result of a more organized and scalable pipeline regression testing system, since using a configuration file (template) to drive different application type simulations (use cases) within the pipeline testing framework was a known technique in CI/CD pipeline development.
Regarding Claim 16, Frank and Mirantes teach
the one or more non-transitory, machine-readable media as recited in claim 15.
Frank further teaches
where the software change operation corresponds to an instantiation of a branch of the deployment pipeline (Para [0051], “client system 105 includes an integrated development environment (IDE) 107, which may be used to generate a service-specific instance of a live pipeline template 109, i.e., to generate LPT instance 103 which inherits the source code of the live pipeline template 109.”) Examiner Comments: instantiating an LPT instance, a service-specific version of the live pipeline template, corresponds to an instantiation of a branch of the deployment pipeline, because the LPT instance represents a branch of the pipeline template source code from which pipeline changes are made and tested prior to merging.
Regarding Claim 17, Frank and Mirantes teach
the one or more non-transitory, machine-readable media as recited in claim 15.
Frank further teaches
where the software change operation corresponds to a merge request to merge a branch of the deployment pipeline into the deployment pipeline (Para [0053], “Proposed changes to a deployment pipeline may be peer reviewed before being committed in the source code of live pipeline template 109 or LPT instance 103 and deployed to the pipeline in manner controlled by the meta-pipeline.”) Examiner Comments: the peer review and committing of changes from the LPT instance (branch) into the main live pipeline template (the deployment pipeline) via the meta-pipeline corresponds to a merge request to merge a branch of the deployment pipeline into the deployment pipeline, because the version control system manages this process of integrating branch changes into the main pipeline.
Regarding Claim 18, Frank and Mirantes teach
the one or more non-transitory, machine-readable media as recited in claim 15.
Frank further teaches
where the software change operation corresponds to communicating code corresponding to the software change to a software repository system (Para [0103], “the LPT engine may monitor for changes to the source code of a live pipeline template being committed to a deploy-version branch within a version control system.”) Examiner Comments: Frank teaches committing the updated live pipeline template source code, namely code corresponding to the software change, to a deploy-version branch within a version control system, namely a software repository system, which reads on communicating code corresponding to the software change to a software repository system under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding Claim 19, Frank and Mirantes teach
the one or more non-transitory, machine-readable media as recited in claim 15.
Frank further teaches
where the software change comprises a change to a deployment pipeline template (Para [0103], “the method 800 begins at step 805, where the meta-pipeline (or component of the LPT engine) detects a triggering event changing the record version of an LPT package associated with a continuous deployment pipeline.”) Examiner Comments: Frank explicitly teaches that the software change is a change to the LPT package, namely the live pipeline template, which directly reads on a change to a deployment pipeline template, because the LPT package is the source code template that defines and configures the deployment pipeline.
Regarding Claim 20, Frank and Mirantes teach
the one or more non-transitory, machine-readable media as recited in claim 15.
Mirantes further teaches
where the simulating the pipeline run comprises performing a test of a plurality of tests on the deployment pipeline for each use case of a plurality of use cases, and where each test of the plurality of tests is mapped to a particular use case of the plurality of use cases (Para [0025], “Each mapping in gate mapping file 204 indicates a set of gates to be invoked for a set of attribute values. In other words, each mapping indicates a set of actions to be performed for progressing an application having a set of attribute values.”) Examiner Comments: under the broadest reasonable interpretation, each distinct set of attribute values in Mirantes constitutes a use case, each gate represents a test, and the gate mapping file maps each gate (test) to a particular set of attribute values (use case), thus teaching performing a plurality of tests on the deployment pipeline for each use case with each test mapped to a particular use case of the plurality of use cases.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Frank’s teaching of meta-pipeline-based pipeline change detection and analysis with Mirantes’s teaching of template-based application configuration in order to provide a regression testing system that uses a template-stored dummy application configuration to simulate pipeline runs, thereby systematically verifying that pipeline changes do not break existing use case functionalities, which would yield the predictable result of a more organized and scalable pipeline regression testing system, since using a configuration file (template) to drive different application type simulations (use cases) within the pipeline testing framework was a known technique in CI/CD pipeline development.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the claimed simulation “represents a technical solution to the technical problem of safely evaluating the impact of pipeline changes prior to production deployment” and that the structuring, graphical indicia, and blocking limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The identifying, determining, and mapping limitations recite a mental process of observation, evaluation, and judgment, as set forth above. The simulating, processing devices, memory, machine-readable media, and user interface are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than applying the abstract idea using generic computer components as a tool. See MPEP § 2106.05(f). The processing, exposing of graphical indicia, and blocking of deployment amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, namely data gathering, displaying the result of the abstract idea, and selectively applying that result. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Reciting these functions at a high level of generality does not reflect any improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology, and therefore does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Applicant argues that Frank “does not teach or suggest blocking deployment of the software change to production based on such mapping or simulation results” and that neither reference teaches the structuring, graphical indicia, and blocking limitations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Frank teaches an approval workflow that can block a deployment pipeline based on a customizable severity level of any rule violations identified by the pipeline analysis (Para [0141]), where the pipeline configuration so blocked is the changed artifact that would otherwise be deployed; Frank teaches composing the analysis report in a structured JSON interchange format that associates each rule violation with the corresponding pipeline configuration discrepancy (Para [0155] and Para [0161]); and Frank teaches presenting that report as graphical indicia in a risk report panel of the user interface 1400 (Para [0156] and Para [0143], FIG. 14). The rejection relies on the combined teachings of Frank and Mirantes, and one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking the references individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR SOLTANZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-3451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am - 5pm 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, Wei Mui can be reached at (571) 272-3708. 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.
/AMIR SOLTANZADEH/Examiner, Art Unit 2191 /WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights