DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 are pending in this examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4.1. 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.
4.2. Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 11-13, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application No. 20230029624 to Olejarz et al (“Olejarz”) in view of US Patent Application No. 11507358 to Watt et al (“Watt”).
As per claim 1, Olejarz discloses a computer system comprising: one or more processors; and a computer-readable storage media storing computer-executable instructions, wherein, the instructions when executed by the one or more processors, cause the computer system to: receive a request for deploying an application in a production environment ([0038], computing device 106 receives (202) identification of a software application to be deployed to a production computing environment (e.g., environment 126). fig.2 and associated texts);
analyze the data to determine a status of the application ([0034], software security analysis tool 122 is configured to perform detailed analysis and testing of source code files to identify flaws and weaknesses in the software application that could be used to compromise the integrity or security of the application. .., also see [0040]),
determine whether the application is ready for deployment based at least in part on the status of the application and a predetermined policy; and block the application from deployment into the production environment in response to a determination that the application is not ready ([0071] The release readiness analysis module 112 then checks (1232) for source code quality including, e.g., relevant code coverage, code repository health, branching correctness, code blocker issues, and the like using, e.g., data obtained from the source code management tool 116. When the module 112 determines the source code quality falls below a desired level due to one or more problems with the above criteria, the module 112 can determine that the software application is not ready to be released (i.e., assign a release readiness score of 0) and end the release readiness assessment process. [0072] Next, the release readiness analysis module 112 can check (1234) for code security compliance, such as server patching completion, static code scan status, and penetration testing status—among other criteria—using, e.g., data obtained from the software security analysis tool 122. If the module 112 concludes that the source code for the software application has not satisfied security compliance requirements, then the module 112 can determine that the software application is not ready to be released (i.e., assign a release readiness score of 0) and end the release readiness assessment process. As a final step in the use case, the release readiness analysis module 112 can assess (1236) whether performance testing of the software application has been performed and whether the results of such testing is published. If not, the module 112 can determine that the software application is not ready to be released (i.e., assign a release readiness score of 0) and end the release readiness assessment process. Otherwise, if the release readiness analysis module 112 determines that the software application has satisfied the necessary release readiness criteria as described above, the module 112 can determine that the software application is ready to be released (i.e., assign a release readiness score of 1) and end the release readiness assessment process—designating that the software application is ready to be deployed to the production computing environment, also see [0055],[0060], also see fig. 12A and associated texts).
Olejarz does not explicitly disclose however in the same field of endeavor, Watt discloses access data generated during continued integration/continued development (CI/CD) pipeline execution of the application (col.4, lines 1-20, col. 6, lines 20-60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Olejarz with the teaching of Watt by including the feature of accessing data, in order for Olejarz’s system to a production system when the deployment of the code has been authorized by the second responder, the code being deployed by the admission controller. A method, comprising: receiving, by an admission controller, a deployment object associated with code that is desired to be deployed to a production system; detecting, by a first responder, whether the deployment object is associated with a change ticket and, when the deployment object is not associated with a change ticket, submitting a change ticket that is associated with the deployment object, the change ticket being submitted by the first responder; detecting, by a second responder, whether the change ticket, that is associated with the deployment object, is allowed, and, when the change ticket is allowed, authorizing a deployment of the code, the deployment being authorized by the second responder; and deploying the code to a production system when the deployment of the code has been authorized by the second responder, the code being deployed by the admission controller (Watt, abstract).
As per claim 2, the combination of Olejarz and Watt discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the data comprises security scan results of the application, the status of the application indicates a security score determined based on the security scan results, and the application is determined not ready for deployment if the security score does not meet a threshold specified in the predetermined policy (Olejarz, [0072] , fig. 12C and associated texts).
As per claim 3, the combination of Olejarz and Watt discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the data comprises incident data indicating presence or absence of an incident open to resolution in the production environment, the status of the application indicates whether the incident is solved or not and whether the application is related to the incident, and the application is determined not ready for deployment if the application is related to the incident and the incident is not resolved (Olejarz, [0060]-[0061], figs. 10-11 and associated texts).
As per claim 5, the combination of Olejarz and Watt discloses computer system of claim 1, wherein the data comprises service level objective (SLO) or service level indicator (SLI) of the application and test data generated from testing of the application in one or more pre-production environments during the CI/CD pipeline execution of the application, the status of the application indicates a compliance level of the application against the SLO/SLI based on the test data, and the application is determined not ready for deployment if the compliance level meets a threshold level specified in the predetermined policy (Olejarz, [0060]-[0061], figs. 10-11 and associated texts, also see [0072]).
As per claim 8, the combination of Olejarz and Watt discloses computer system of claim 1, wherein the predetermined policy specifies required steps of the CI/CD pipeline execution of the application, and the application is determined not ready for deployment if the status of the application indicates that not all of the required steps are completed (Olejarz, [0055]-[0057], figs. 5-7 and associated texts, also see [0066]).
Claims 11-13, 15 and 18, are rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
4.3. Claims 4, 6, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olejarz and Watt as applied to claim above, and in view of US Patent Application No. 20070192763 to Helvick et al (“Helvick”).
As per claim 4, the combination of Olejarz and Watt discloses the invention as described above. Olejarz and Watt do not explicitly disclose however, In the same field of endeavor, Helvick discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the data comprises prime time data indicating a predetermined prime time during production operation, the status of the application indicates whether a scheduled deployment time of the application is within the predetermined prime time, and the application is determined not ready for deployment if the scheduled deployment time of the application is within the predetermined prime time (Helvick ,[0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Olejarz with the teaching of Helvick and Watt by including the feature of schedule, in order for Olejarz’s system to provides a software update application method and system that is adapted to schedule application of a software update on a mobile electronic device at a definite but convenient time for a user of such device (Helvick, [0006)).
As per claim 6, the combination of Olejarz, Watt and Helvick discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the data comprises environment lock data indicating a predetermined time window when the production environment is locked for deployment, the status of the application indicates whether a scheduled deployment time of the application is within the predetermined time window, and the application is determined not ready for deployment if scheduled deployment time of the application is within the predetermined time window (Helvick, [0026]).. The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 4 is also applied to claim 6.
Claims 14 and 16, are rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
4.4. Claims 7, 9, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olejarz and Watt as applied to claim above, and in view of US Patent No. 6202207 to Donohue et al (“Donohue”).
As per claim 7, the combination of Olejarz and Watt discloses the invention as described above. Olejarz and Watt do not explicitly disclose however, In the same field of endeavor, Donohue discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the production environment is established on a cloud-computing infrastructure, the data comprises resource usage data indicating a current availability level of infrastructure resource of the cloud-computing infrastructure, the status of the application indicates a minimum level of infrastructure resource desired for the application based on the predetermined policy, and the application is determined not ready for deployment if the current availability level of infrastructure resource does not meet the minimum level (Donohue, col. 11, lines 45-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Olejarz with the teaching of Donohue and Watt by including the feature of schedule, in order for Olejarz’s system to release code on an incremental basis such that customers receive new product features sooner and with no effort. Provided is a method and mechanism for automatic updating of computer programs and synchronising updates of computer programs and their pre-requisite programs to maintain interoperability. Conventionally, computer programs have been distributed on a recording medium for users to install on their computer systems. Each time fixes, additions and new versions for the programs were developed, a new CD or diskette was required to be delivered to users to enable them to install the update. More recently some software has been downloadable across a network, but the effort for users obtaining and installing updates and the effort for software vendors to distribute updates remains undesirable. The invention provides an updater agent which is associated with a computer program and which accesses relevant network locations and automatically downloads and installs any available updates to its associated program if those updates satisfy predefined update criteria of the updater agent. The updater agents are able to communicate with each other and the update process include the updater agent of a first computer program determining whether pre-requisite programs require updating to maintain interoperability and then requesting updates to the first program's pre-requisites programs when required. (Donohue, col.5, 40-65).
As per claim 9, the combination of Olejarz, Watt and Donohue discloses computer system of claim 1, wherein the data comprises version data indicating a current version of each one of one or more components of the application and a latest stable version of the component, the status of the application indicates a difference between the current version and the latest stable version for each one of the one or more components, and the application is determined not ready for deployment if the difference is more than a predetermined number of versions specified in the predetermined policy (Donohue, col.2, 30-65, col. 10, lines 60-65). The motivation regarding the obviousness of claim 4 is also applied to claim 9.
Claims 17 and 19, are rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
4.5. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olejarz and Watt as applied to claim above, and in view of US Patent Application No. 20170180487 to Frank et al (“Frank”).
As per claim 10, the combination of Olejarz and Watt discloses the invention as described above. Olejarz and Watt do not explicitly disclose however, In the same field of endeavor, Frank discloses the computer system of claim 1, wherein the data comprises SLO/SLI of the application and test data of the application, the status of the application indicates presence or absence of a rollback mechanism applicable to the application based on the SLO/SLI and whether the rollback mechanism has been validated based on the test data, and the application is determined not ready for deployment if the rollback mechanism is absent or if the rollback mechanism has not been validated (Frank, [0131]-[0133], [0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Olejarz with the teaching of Frank and Watt, by including the feature of SLO, in order for Olejarz’s system for maintaining system stability by reverting to previous versions when new updates introduce issues.
Claim 20, is rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
5.1. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as the prior art discloses many of the claim features (See PTO-form 892).
5.2. a). US Patent Application No. 20190243742 A1 to Natari et al., discloses a method for integrating applications into a software suite is provided. The method includes: receiving a first code set that corresponds to a first application; obtaining an approval of the first code set; compiling the first code set in order to generate a module that is executable within the software suite; determining at least one target environment within the software suite for deployment of the first application; and deploying the executable module to each of the at least one target environment. An automated testing process and an automated validation process are applicable to deployed modules.
b). US Patent Application No. 20220300265 A1 to Purohit et al., discloses a method for integrating applications into a software suite is provided. The method includes: receiving a first code set that corresponds to a first application; obtaining an approval of the first code set; compiling the first code set in order to generate a module that is executable within the software suite; determining at least one target environment within the software suite for deployment of the first application; and deploying the executable module to each of the at least one target environment. An automated testing process and an automated validation process are applicable to deployed modules.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HARUNUR RASHID whose telephone number is (571)270-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5PM.
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, Eleni A. Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-3867. 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.
HARUNUR . RASHID
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2497
/HARUNUR RASHID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights