DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This Office Action is in response to amendments filed on June 24, 2025.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 13 and 16-20 have been amended.
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 states “displaying the changes…” in lines 1-2. In the interest of consistency, it is recommended that this limitation be amended to state “displaying the differences…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 3-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1 and 3-18 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of machines; Claim 19 is directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of processes; and Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 19 and 20: The limitation “based on the first snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system, generate an intermediate data structure”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate a first snapshot of a model of a complex hardware system and mentally generate, with or without the use of pen and paper, an intermediate data structure based on the first snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system. The limitation “access a modified version of the intermediate data structure”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate a modified version of an intermediate data structure and mentally access, with or without the use of pen and paper, the modified version of the intermediate data structure.
The limitation “based on the modified version of the intermediate data structure, generate a modified version of the first snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate a modified version of the intermediate data structure and mentally generate, with or without the use of pen and paper, a modified version of the first snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system based on the modified version of the intermediate data structure. The limitation of “perform a comparison of the first snapshot of the model to the modified version of the first snapshot” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a first snapshot and a modified version of the first snapshot, just as in the independent claims above, mentally perform, with or without the use of pen and paper, a comparison of the first snapshot of the model to the modified version of the first snapshot.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 19 and 20 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 19 and 20: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements –“ one or more memories configured to store computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-executable instructions, wherein the system is configured to:”, “A computer-implemented method…”, “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computer system, cause the computer system to perform…”, “wherein the intermediate data structure is configured to be loaded and manipulated by an engineering application” and “wherein the modified version of the intermediate data structure is modified by the engineering application” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claims 1, 19 and 20 recite the following additional elements – “obtain, from a distributed version control system, a first snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system”, “user inputs received via the engineering application”, “store the intermediate data structure in the one or more memories”, “store the modified version of the first snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system in a staging environment”, “in response to a commit input from a user, store, in the distributed version control system, the modified version of the first snapshot of the complex hardware system as a second snapshot of the first snapshot of the complex hardware system” and “display changes between the first snapshot of the model and the modified version of the first snapshot” which are merely recitations of insignificant data gathering, storage and output activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and will also be addressed below in Step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further still, claims 1, 19 and 20 recite “wherein the first snapshot is in a text-based systems modeling language” and “wherein the modified version of the first snapshot is in the text-based systems modeling language” which are merely recitations of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 19 and 20 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 19 and 20: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components, mere instructions to apply an exception and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, the recitations of insignificant data gathering, storage and output activities as also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data and iv. Storing and retrieving information from memory”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive/transmit, store and/or output data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1, 19 and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 3, it recites additional element of “wherein displaying the changes includes applying syntax highlighting to emphasize modifications in the modified version of the first snapshot” which is merely an insignificant data output activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further, claim 3 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 3 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 4, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “perform a semantic analysis to determine significance of changes between the first snapshot and the modified version of the first snapshot in context of an overall model of the complex hardware system” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate changes between a first snapshot and a modified version of the first snapshot, just as in the independent claims above, mentally perform, with or without the use of pen and paper, a semantic analysis to determine significance of the changes between the first snapshot and the modified version of the first snapshot in context of an overall model of the complex hardware system. Further, claim 4 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 4 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 5, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “calculate metrics for the first snapshot and the modified version of the first snapshot, wherein the metrics include at least one of: number of changes, complexity of changes, or adherence to predefined modeling standards” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a first snapshot and a modified version of the first snapshot, just as in the independent claims above, mentally calculate, with or without the use of pen and paper, metrics for the first snapshot and the modified version of the first snapshot, wherein the metrics include at least one of: number of changes, complexity of changes, or adherence to predefined modeling standards. Further, claim 5 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 5 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 6, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “generate a graphical representation of changes between the first snapshot and the modified version of the first snapshot” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate changes between a first snapshot and a modified version of the first snapshot, just as in the independent claims above, mentally generate, with or without the use of pen and paper, a graphical representation of changes between the first snapshot and the modified version of the first snapshot. Further, claim 6 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 6 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 7, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “identify potential conflicts or inconsistencies introduced by changes between the first snapshot and the modified version of the first snapshot” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate changes between a first snapshot and a modified version of the first snapshot, just as in the independent claims above, mentally identify, with or without the use of pen and paper, potential conflicts or inconsistencies introduced by the changes between the first snapshot and the modified version of the first snapshot. Further, claim 7 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 7 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 8, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “create an audit trail of analyses performed on the first snapshot and the modified version of the first snapshot, including timestamps and user information” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a first snapshot and a modified version of the first snapshot, just as in the independent claims above, mentally create, with or without the use of pen and paper, an audit trail of analyses performed on the first snapshot and the modified version of the first snapshot, including timestamps and user information. Further, claim 8 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 8 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 9, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “notify relevant stakeholders about updates made in the modified version of the first snapshot” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate updates made to a modified version of a first snapshot, just as in the independent claims above, mentally notify, with or without the use of pen and paper, relevant stakeholders about updates made in the modified version of the first snapshot. Further, claim 9 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 9 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 10, it recites additional element of “wherein the text-based systems modeling language is SysML v2” which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further, claim 10 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 10 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 11, it recites additional element of “wherein the staging environment allows for review and validation of modifications before they are committed to the distributed version control system” which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further, claim 11 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 11 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 12, it recites additional element of “enable multiple users to simultaneously view and edit the first snapshot across different user environments” which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further, claim 12 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 12 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 13, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “perform a comparison between the modified version of the first snapshot and a target branch in the distributed version control system” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a modified version of a first snapshot and a target branch just as in the independent claims above, mentally perform, with or without the use of pen and paper, comparison between the modified version of the first snapshot and a target branch. Further, claim 13 recites additional abstract idea recitation of “generate a diff report highlighting differences between the modified version of the first snapshot and the target branch” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate differences between the modified version of the first snapshot and the target branch just as in the independent claims above, mentally generate, with or without the use of pen and paper, a diff report highlighting differences between the modified version of the first snapshot and the target branch. Further still, claim 13 recites additional element of “receive a merge request for the modified version of the first snapshot” and “display the diff report to the user for review’ which are merely insignificant data gathering and output activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further still, claim 13 recites additional abstract idea recitation of “the distributed version control system” which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further still, claim 13 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 13 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 13 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 14, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “identify conflicts between the modified version of the first snapshot and the target branch based on the comparison” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a modified version of a first snapshot and a target branch just as in the independent claims above, mentally identify, with or without the use of pen and paper, conflicts between the modified version of the first snapshot and the target branch based on a comparison. Further, claim 14 recites additional abstract idea recitation of “provide options to resolve the identified conflicts” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate conflicts just as in the independent claims above, mentally provide, with or without the use of pen and paper, options to resolve the identified conflicts. Further still, claim 14 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 14 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 14 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 15, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “apply merge rules to resolve non-conflicting differences between the modified version of the first snapshot and the target branch” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate merge rules just as in the independent claims above, mentally apply, with or without the use of pen and paper, the merge rules to resolve non-conflicting differences between a modified version of the first snapshot and a target branch. Further, claim 15 recites additional element of “automated merge rules” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further still, claim 15 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 15 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 15 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 16, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “generate a preview of a merged result combining the modified version of the first snapshot and the target branch” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a merge result just as in the independent claims above, mentally generate, with or without the use of pen and paper, a preview of the merged result combining the modified version of the first snapshot and the target branch. Further, claim 16 recites additional abstract idea recitation of “allow the user to review and approve the preview before finalizing a merge” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate a merge just as in the independent claims above, mentally allow, with or without the use of pen and paper, a user to review and approve a preview before finalizing the merge. Further still, claim 16 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 16 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 16 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 17, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “generate a graphical representation of the differences between the target branch and the modified version of the first snapshot” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate changes between a target branch and a modified version of the first snapshot, just as in the independent claims above, mentally generate, with or without the use of pen and paper, a graphical representation of the differences between the target branch and the modified version of the first snapshot. Further, claim 17 recites additional element of “display the graphical representation in a user interface, wherein the graphical representation includes visual indicators highlighting added, deleted, or modified elements of the model” which is merely an insignificant data output activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. That is, in the instant claims these limitations merely receive or transmit/provide data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional. Further still, claim 17 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 17 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 17 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 18, it recites additional element of “provide interactive elements in the graphical representation that allow the user to navigate between different portions of the differences and access detailed information about specific modifications” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and does not amount to significantly more. Further, claim 18 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 18 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 18 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, Claims 1 and 3-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3, 6 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendo Hernandez (US 2020/0379956) in view of Waplington et al. (US 2024/0193051).
With respect to Claim 1, Mendo Hernandez disclose:
one or more memories configured to store computer-executable instructions; (a system for controlling versions of a model file includes a processor and a memory associated with the processor, Paragraph 5)
and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-executable instructions, wherein the system is configured to: (a system for controlling versions of a model file includes a processor and a memory associated with the processor, Paragraph 5)
obtain, from a distributed version control system, a first snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system, (see Figure 3; In block 308, a model text file, such as model text file 216, (a first snapshot) and associated metadata 618 (FIG. 6A) are retrieved or checked-out from a repository (distributed version control system), Paragraph 62; model text file is a text-based file that corresponds to a structure and parameterization (SSP) file which is a model of a system, for example a system of an aircraft, automobile or other complex apparatus, Paragraphs 41 and 48) wherein the first snapshot is in a text-based systems modeling language; (see Figure 1; the model text file is a text-based version/format (text-based systems modeling language) of the SSP model file, Paragraph 48)
based on the first snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system, generate an intermediate data structure, (the model text file is converted to a converted model file (intermediate data structure), Paragraph 63) wherein the intermediate data structure is configured to be loaded and manipulated by an engineering application; (converted model file (intermediate data structure) is modified (loaded and manipulated) according to user modeling needs to provide a modified model file, Paragraph 70; The check-out procedure 606 is used to check-out a model text file 216 and edit the corresponding SSP model file 106 including SSP elements 108 and SSP sub-elements 114, (loaded and manipulated by an engineering application) some of which are in a non-text (binary) format., Paragraph 87)
store the intermediate data structure in the one or more memories; (The converted model file 312 (intermediate data structure) is edited (e.g., converted SSP model file-edit 312′, converted FMU model file-edit 646, etc.) in a working directory 648 of the workstation 642 (store the intermediate data structure in one or more memories), Paragraph 87)
access a modified version of the intermediate data structure, wherein the modified version of the intermediate data structure is modified by the engineering application based on user inputs received via the engineering application; (converted model file is modified (access a modified version) according to user modeling needs (user inputs received via the engineering application) to provide a modified model file, Paragraph 70)
based on the modified version of the intermediate data structure, generate a modified version of the first snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system, (The converted model file is edited in a working directory of the workstation to create the modified model file wherein the modified model file is then converted back to a text-based file (new model text file) (modified version of the first snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system) using the cleanSSP process and cleanFMU process, Paragraph 87) wherein the modified version of the first snapshot is in the text-based systems modeling language; (the modified model file is converted back to a text-based file/format (text-based systems modeling language), Paragraph 87)
store the modified version of the first snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system in a staging environment; (see Figure 6B; staging area where a clean model file (modified version of the first snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system) is stored before being committed to the local repository; a new model text file (modified version of the first snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system) Is stored in the local repository (staging environment) by performing a commit procedure, Paragraph 83)
and in response to a commit input from a user, store, in the distributed version control system, the modified version of the first snapshot of the complex hardware system as a second snapshot of the first snapshot of the complex hardware system; (in response to a commit to the local repository, push and store the new model text file corresponding to modified model file (second snapshot of the first snapshot of the complex hardware system) and metadata associated with the modified model file on remote repository (distributed version control system), Paragraphs 83-84)
and perform a comparison of the first snapshot of the model to the modified version of the first snapshot (the new model text file 360 is compared to a previous version of the model text file 216 to detect changes and permit version control, Paragraph 82) and [determine] differences between the first snapshot of the model and the modified version of the first snapshot. (the new model text file 360 is compared to a previous version of the model text file 216 to detect changes (determine changes) and permit version control, Paragraph 82)
Mendo Hernandez does not disclose:
display differences
However, Waplington et al. disclose:
display differences (see Figure 7D; display changes between two selected snapshots, Paragraph 172)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Waplington et al. into the teaching of Mendo Hernandez to include displaying differences in order to allow a systems reliability engineer or software developer to easily identify which parameters have changed between relevant snapshots. (Waplington et al., Paragraph 176)
With respect to Claim 3, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Mendo Hernandez do not disclose:
wherein displaying the changes includes applying syntax highlighting to emphasize modifications in the modified version of the first snapshot.
However, Waplington et al. disclose:
wherein displaying the changes includes applying syntax highlighting to emphasize modifications in the modified version of the [file]. (Added, deleted, and edited parameters may also be highlighted in various ways (e.g., with special fonts, colors, or associated characters or icons) so that they draw the user's attention., Paragraph 179)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Waplington et al. to the first snapshot of Mendo Hernandez to include wherein displaying the changes includes applying syntax highlighting to emphasize modifications in the modified version of the [file] in order to draw a user’s attention to an added, deleted and edited parameters. (Waplington et al., Paragraph 179)
With respect to Claim 6, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Mendo Hernandez further disclose:
wherein the system is further configured to: [determine] changes between the first snapshot and the modified version of the first snapshot. (the new model text file 360 is compared to a previous version of the model text file 216 to detect changes (determine changes) and permit version control, Paragraph 82)
Mendo Hernandez does not disclose:
generate a graphical representation of changes.
However, Waplington et al. disclose:
generate a graphical representation of changes. (see Figure 7D; display changes between two selected snapshots (graphical representation of the changes), Paragraph 172)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Waplington et al. into the teaching of Mendo Hernandez to include generating a graphical representation of the changes in order to allow a systems reliability engineer or software developer to easily identify which parameters have changed between relevant snapshots. (Waplington et al., Paragraph 176)
Claim 19 is a method claim corresponding to the system claim above (Claim 1) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 20 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim corresponding to the system claim above (Claim 1) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendo Hernandez (US 2020/0379956) in view of Waplington et al. (US 2024/0193051) and in further view of Mohanram et al. (US 2018/0351819).
With respect to Claim 4, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Mendo Hernandez and Waplington et al. do not disclose:
wherein the system is further configured to: perform a semantic analysis to determine significance of changes between the first snapshot and the modified version of the first snapshot in context of an overall model of the complex hardware system.
However, Mohanram et al. disclose:
wherein the system is further configured to: perform a semantic analysis to determine significance of changes between the first snapshot and the modified version of the first snapshot in context of an overall model of the complex hardware system. (semantic analysis engine 550 can perform real-time change analysis to determine the impact of the new contract or modification (significance of changes between models), Paragraph 206)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Mohanram et al. into the teaching of Mendo Hernandez and Waplington et al. to include performing a semantic analysis to determine significance of changes between the first snapshot and the modified version of the first snapshot in context of an overall model of the complex hardware system in order to identify modifications that are potentially redundant and/or not necessary and/or identify to a user the impact of a modification on a system before modifications are committed to ensure the modification/impact is intended. (Mohanram et al., Paragraph 206)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendo Hernandez (US 2020/0379956) in view of Waplington et al. (US 2024/0193051) and in further view of Cullen et al. (US 9,116,899).
With respect to Claim 5, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Mendo Hernandez and Waplington et al. do not disclose:
wherein the system is further configured to: calculate metrics for the first snapshot and the modified version of the first snapshot, wherein the metrics include at least one of: number of changes, complexity of changes, or adherence to predefined modeling standards.
However, Cullen et al. disclose:
wherein the system is further configured to: calculate metrics for the first [file] and the modified version of the first [file], wherein the metrics include at least one of: number of changes, complexity of changes, or adherence to predefined modeling standards. (Changed section determiner 340 is also operable to determine further data regarding the changes (e.g., size of the changes, complexity of the changes, Column 4, lines 19-38)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Cullen et al. to the first snapshot and the modified version of the first snapshot of Mendo Hernandez and Waplington et al. to include calculating metrics for the first [file] and the modified version of the first [file], wherein the metrics include at least one of: number of changes, complexity of changes, or adherence to predefined modeling standards in order to help manage changes to one or more files. (Cullen et al., Column 1, lines 7-11)
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendo Hernandez (US 2020/0379956) in view of Waplington et al. (US 2024/0193051) and in further view of Brambley et al. (US 8,453,112).
With respect to Claim 7, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Mendo Hernandez and Waplington et al. further disclose:
identify changes between the first snapshot and the modified version of the first snapshot. (Mendo Hernandez, the new model text file 360 is compared to a previous version of the model text file 216 (snapshots) to detect changes (identify changes) and permit version control, Paragraph 82)
Mendo Hernandez and Waplington et al. do not disclose:
identify potential conflicts or inconsistencies introduced by changes
However, Brambley et al. disclose:
identify potential conflicts or inconsistencies introduced by changes (identifying potential conflicts using a baseline and changed version of a project, Column 10, lines 58-60)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Brambley et al. into the teaching of Mendo Hernandez and Waplington et al. to include identify potential conflicts or inconsistencies introduced by changes in order to allow a developer or another user to address conflicts and other versioning issues that may results from collaborators making changes concurrently. (Brambley et al., Abstract, lines 9-11)
With respect to Claim 8, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Mendo Hernandez and Waplington et al. do not disclose:
wherein the system is further configured to: create an audit trail of analyses performed on the first snapshot and the modified version of the first snapshot, including timestamps and user information.
However, Brambley et al. disclose:
wherein the system is further configured to: create an audit trail of analyses performed on the first [file] and the modified version of the first [file], including timestamps and user information. (a baseline may provide a simple timestamp or timestamps for all of the files that can be used to access a version of the project associated with one or more specific prior periods of time. Such prior versions can be used to identify changes, (audit trail) Column 11, lines 10-19; Certain embodiments also use unique identifiers that are included in a version of a project to identify users and track the editing history of individual files of a multi-file project. (audit trail) For example, if a single file version of a project is opened by a designer and then passed back and forth between the designer and a second designer who make edits at different times, a system may be able to discern the identity of the user who made each particular edit or group of edits using unique identifiers embedded in metadata associated with the project. Among other things, this type of information may be used to facilitate the merger of changes, for example, to identify whether changes from a given user at a specific revision number or timestamp have already been merged, Column 12, lines 47-62)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Brambley et al. to the first snapshot and the modified version of the first snapshot of Mendo Hernandez and Waplington et al. to include creating an audit trail of analyses performed on the first [file] and the modified version of the first [file], including timestamps and user information in order to