DETAILED ACTION
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.
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 1/7/2025.
Claim 1 has been canceled.
Claims 2-21 are pending for consideration.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/2/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, these claims recite the limitation “obtaining risk threshold parameters”. It is unclear how these risk threshold parameters are obtained from the application management platform. They do not appear to link with the usage of the software developed in the application management platform. According to Applicant’s specification, the risk threshold parameters are obtained by runtime risk, real-time risk and threats (See paragraph 0053 and Fig. 1 (items 136 and 138)). Further clarification is required.
The dependent claims 3-11 and 13-21 are depended on the rejected base claims 2 and 12, and are rejected for the same rationales.
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 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,182,230. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications disclose the same subject matter, such as, a system for, and method of, authorizing usage of software developed in an application management platform. For example, see the table below for a claim comparison between the instant application and patent application (bolded text indicates significant similarities of major feature in each invention).
Furthermore, Examiner notes that each and every limitation of the instant claims appear to be substantially anticipated by the corresponding claims of the patent application.
Instant Application 18/965,114
Patent Application 12,182,230
Claim 2:
An automated computer-implemented method of authorizing usage of software developed in an application management platform, the method comprising:
obtaining, from the application management platform, risk qualification parameters for the software, wherein the application management platform comprises a computing environment that allows for access and development of a software product, wherein the risk quantification parameters comprise design time risk parameters, and wherein the risk quantification parameters comprise build time risk parameters;
determining a risk qualification value from the risk qualification parameters; obtaining risk threshold parameters; determining a risk threshold value from the risk threshold parameters; comparing the risk qualification value to the risk threshold value to obtain an acceptability state for usage of the software; and performing an authority to operate action based on the acceptability state, wherein the authority to operate action comprises at least one of: authorizing release of the software upon a positive acceptability state, or instructing the application management platform to send an alert upon a negative acceptability state.
Claim 1:
An automated computer-implemented method of authorizing usage of software developed in an application management platform, the method comprising:
obtaining, from the application management platform, risk qualification parameters for the software, wherein the application management platform comprises a computing environment that manages the development of a software product, wherein the application management platform allows a user to access and develop software on any of a plurality of virtual machines, wherein the risk quantification parameters comprise design time risk parameters obtained at a software security architecture/planning phase, and wherein the risk quantification parameters comprise build time risk parameters obtained at a continuous deployment pipeline phase; determining a risk qualification value from the risk qualification parameters; obtaining risk threshold parameters; determining a risk threshold value from the risk threshold parameters; comparing the risk qualification value to the risk threshold value to obtain an acceptability state for usage of the software; and performing an authority to operate action based on the acceptability state, wherein the authority to operate action comprises at least one of: authorizing release of the software upon a positive acceptability state, or instructing the application management platform to send an alert upon a negative acceptability state.
Claim 12:
A computer system for authorizing usage of software developed in an application management platform, the computer system comprising an electronic processor and a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the electronic processor, configure the electronic processor to perform actions comprising:
obtaining, from the application management platform, risk qualification parameters for the software, wherein the application management platform comprises a computing environment that allows for access and development of a software product, wherein the risk quantification parameters comprise design time risk parameters, and wherein the risk quantification parameters comprise build time risk parameters;
determining a risk qualification value from the risk qualification parameters; determining a risk qualification value from the risk qualification parameters; obtaining risk threshold parameters; determining a risk threshold value from the risk threshold parameters; comparing the risk qualification value to the risk threshold value to obtain an acceptability state for usage of the software; and performing an authority to operate action based on the acceptability state, wherein the authority to operate action comprises at least one of: authorizing release of the software upon a positive acceptability state, or instructing the application management platform to send an alert upon a negative acceptability state.
Claim 9:
A computer system for authorizing usage of software developed in an application management platform, the computer system comprising an electronic processor and a persistent non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by the electronic processor, configure the electronic processor to perform actions comprising: obtaining, from the application management platform, risk qualification parameters for the software, wherein the application management platform comprises a computing environment that manages the development of a software product, wherein the application management platform allows a user to access and develop software on any of a plurality of virtual machines, wherein the risk quantification parameters comprise design time risk parameters obtained at a software security architecture/planning phase, and wherein the risk quantification parameters comprise build time risk parameters obtained at a continuous deployment pipeline phase; determining a risk qualification value from the risk qualification parameters; determining a risk qualification value from the risk qualification parameters; obtaining risk threshold parameters; determining a risk threshold value from the risk threshold parameters; comparing the risk qualification value to the risk threshold value to obtain an acceptability state for usage of the software; and performing an authority to operate action based on the acceptability state, wherein the authority to operate action comprises at least one of: authorizing release of the software upon a positive acceptability state, or instructing the application management platform to send an alert upon a negative acceptability state.
The dependent claims of the instant application recite language similar to the dependent claims of the patent application and are covered by the patent application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and a timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As to claims 2-21, none of the art of reference, discloses, individually or in reasonable combination, the features recited in claims 2-21 as a whole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG T DOAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0740. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4 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, Lynn D Feild can be reached on (571)272-2092. 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.
/TRANG T DOAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2431
Prosecution Insights