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 facilitate a merger of changes, for example, to identify whether changes from a given user at a specific revision number or timestamp have already been merged. (Brambley et al., Column 12, lines 56-59)
Claim 9 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 Shah et al. (US 11,010,702).
With respect to Claim 9, 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: notify relevant stakeholders about updates made in the modified version of the first snapshot.
However, Shah et al. disclose:
wherein the system is further configured to: notify relevant stakeholders about updates made in the modified version of the first snapshot. (notifying one or more model stakeholders after a model has been developed/changed, Columns 11 and 12, lines 43-67 and 1-47 respectively)
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 Shah et al. into the teaching of Mendo Hernandez and Waplington et al. to include notify relevant stakeholders about updates made in the modified version of the first snapshot in order to allow model stakeholders to be perform various integration tests before releasing the model. (Shah et al., Column 12, lines 5-10)
Claim 10 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 Sanford Friedenthal (”Future Directions for MBSE with SysML v2”, 2023).
With respect to Claim 10, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Mendo Hernandez and Waplington et al. do not disclose:
wherein the text-based systems modeling language is SysML v2.
However, Sanford Friedenthal discloses:
wherein the text-based systems modeling language is SysML v2. (using SysML v2 to model aspects of a system, Page 7, 5 SysML V2: THE NEXT GENERATION SYSTEMS MODELING LANGUAGE, Paragraph 5, lines 1-6)
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 Sanford Friedenthal into the teaching of Mendo Hernandez and Waplington et al. to include wherein the text-based systems modeling language is SysML v2 in order to take advantage of the benefits of SysML v2 such as enabling precise representation of aspects of a system including its structure, behavior, requirements, analysis cases and verification cases and its ability to specify user defined views and viewpoints. (Sanford Friedenthal, 5 SysML V2: THE NEXT GENERATION SYSTEMS MODELING LANGUAGE, Paragraph 5, lines 1-6)
Claim 11 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 Best (US 2016/0170745).
With respect to Claim 11, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Mendo Hernandez and Waplington et al. do not disclose:
wherein the staging environment allows for review and validation of modifications before they are committed to the distributed version control system.
However, Best discloses:
wherein the staging environment allows for review and validation of modifications before they are committed to the distributed version control system. (see figure 2; code (modifications) is submitted to a stage area where it may be reviewed and further tested by other developers before being committed to a repository, Paragraphs 24-25)
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 Best into the teaching of Mendo Hernandez and Waplington et al. to include wherein the staging environment allows for review and validation of modifications before they are committed to the distributed version control system in order to further test and review code/modifications before it is/are committed to a repository. (Best, Paragraphs 24-25)
Claim 12 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 Kryzhanovski et al. (US 2020/0201625).
With respect to Claim 12, 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: enable multiple users to simultaneously view and edit the first snapshot across different user environments.
However, Kryzhanovski et al. disclose:
wherein the system is further configured to: enable multiple users to simultaneously view and edit the [code] across different user environments. (collaborative editing environment may enable users using different client devices to concurrently access a corresponding copy of a committed version of source code to access, review, edit, view, make changes to, prepare for execution and/or execute the corresponding copy of the committed version of source code in a respective user interface, Paragraph 32)
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 Kryzhanovski et al. to the first snapshot of Mendo Hernandez and Waplington et al. to include enabling multiple users to simultaneously view and edit the [code] across different user environments in order to provide a collaborative editing environment where conflicts can be reduced and/or avoided. (Kryzhanovski et al., Paragraph 16, lines 1-3)
Claims 13-14 and 16-17 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 Van Zijst et al. (US 9,430,229).
With respect to Claim 13, 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:
receive a merge request for the modified version of the first snapshot;
perform a comparison between the modified version of the first snapshot and a target branch in the distributed version control system;
generate a diff report highlighting differences between the modified version of the first snapshot and the target branch;
and display the diff report to the user for review.
However, Van Zijst et al. disclose:
wherein the system is further configured to:
receive a merge request for the modified version of the first [code]; (receiving a pull request which is a request to merge changes from a source branch to a destination branch, Column 5, lines 22-25; pull requests for a merge commit, Column 17, lines 32-35)
perform a comparison between the modified version of the first [code] and a target branch in the distributed version control system; (determine differences between the branches, Column 5, lines 32-35; perform an up-to-date diff in response to a pull request, Column 17, lines 33-36)
generate a diff report highlighting differences between the modified version of the first [code] and the target branch; (determine differences between the branches (diff report), Column 5, lines 32-35; generating an up-to-date diff (diff report), Column 17, lines 33-36)
and display the diff report to the user for review. (displaying the differences between the branches, Column 5, lines 32-35; a user with write access can see a visual indication (diff report) that a branch 34 in the user's clone 32 has diverged from the corresponding branch 16 in the source code 15, meaning that the user's fork is no longer the same as the source code from which the fork was copied. Visual indications may include displaying source code text in different colors, using highlights, graphical boxes, or other techniques, Column 10, lines 34-51)
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 Van Zijst et al. to the modified version of the first snapshot of Mendo Hernandez and Waplington et al. to include receiving a merge request for the modified version of the first [code], performing a comparison between the modified version of the first [code] and a target branch in the distributed version control system, generating a diff report highlighting differences between the modified version of the first [code] and the target branch and display the diff report to the user for review in order to allow developers to preview a result of a merge before actually performing the merge. (Van Zijst et al., Column 1, lines 30-32)
With respect to Claim 14, all the limitations of Claim 13 have been addressed above; and Mendo Hernandez and Waplington et al. do not disclose:
wherein the system is further configured to: identify conflicts between the modified version of the first snapshot and the target branch based on the comparison; and provide options to resolve the identified conflicts.
However, Van Zijst et al. disclose:
wherein the system is further configured to:
identify conflicts between the modified version of the first [code] and the target branch based on the comparison; (identify any merge conflicts between the merge commit and the tip of the target branch, Column 17, lines 37-41) and provide options to resolve the identified conflicts. (user selects an approach for automatically resolving the merge conflicts, Column 17, lines 37-41; offer options for the conflicting branches, Column 9, lines 47-50)
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 Van Zijst et al. to the modified version of the first snapshot of Mendo Hernandez and Waplington et al. to include identifying conflicts between the modified version of the first [code] and the target branch based on the comparison and providing options to resolve the identified conflicts in order to detect and resolve any conflicts during a pull request.
With respect to Claim 16, all the limitations of Claim 13 have been addressed above; and Mendo Hernandez and Waplington et al. do not disclose:
wherein the system is further configured to: generate a preview of a merged result combining the modified version of the first snapshot and the target branch; and allow the user to review and approve the preview before finalizing a merge.
However, Van Zijst et al. disclose:
wherein the system is further configured to: generate a preview of a merged result combining the modified version of the first [code] and the target branch; (see Figure 14; selecting the MERGE button causes user computer to invoke merge preview logic which performs a merge of the branches and stores the results in a preview partition which is displayed to a user, Column 25, lines 36-56) and allow the user to review and approve the preview before finalizing a merge. (the user may view and inspect the merge preview results and select the MERGE button when they want to perform the real merge rather than a preview, Column 25, lines 49-53)
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 Van Zijst et al. to the modified version of the first snapshot of Mendo Hernandez and Waplington et al. to include generating a preview of a merged result combining the modified version of the first [code] and the target branch and allowing the user to review and approve the preview before finalizing a merge in order to allow a user to view and inspect the results of a merge prior to performing a real merge to ensure changes are as expected.
With respect to Claim 17, all the limitations of Claim 13 have been addressed above; and Mendo Hernandez and Waplington et al. do not disclose:
wherein the system is further configured to: generate a graphical representation of the differences between the target branch and the modified version of the first snapshot; display the graphical representation in a user interface, wherein the graphical representation includes visual indicators highlighting added, deleted, or modified elements of the model.
However, Van Zijst et al. disclose:
wherein the system is further configured to: generate a graphical representation of the differences between the target branch and the modified version of the first [code]; (generating a side-by-side diff between two files (target branch and modified version), Column 28, lines 26-64) display the graphical representation in a user interface, wherein the graphical representation includes visual indicators highlighting added, deleted, or modified elements of the [code]. (listing 1704 (graphical representation) may be displayed as a side-by-side diff with respect to a corresponding file in the destination branch in which added code lines, deleted code lines, and modified code lines 1706 are indicated using distinctive color, highlighting or other visual treatment whereas unmodified code lines are not subject to special visual treatment. For example, red color may indicate deleted lines, green color may indicate added lines, and yellow color may indicate changed lines for such content-level conflicts., Column 28, lines 51-64)
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 Van Zijst et al. to the modified version of the first snapshot of Mendo Hernandez and Waplington et al. include generating a graphical representation of the differences between the target branch and the modified version of the first [code], displaying the graphical representation in a user interface, wherein the graphical representation includes visual indicators highlighting added, deleted, or modified elements of the [code] in order to assist a user in identifying conflicts. (Van Zijst et al., Column 28, lines 60-51)
Claim 15 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 Van Zijst et al. (US 9,430,229) and in further view of Tancred Lindholm (“A Three-way Merge for XML Documents”, 2004).
With respect to Claim 15, all the limitations of Claim 13 have been addressed above; and Mendo Hernandez and Waplington et al. do not disclose:
wherein the system is further configured to: apply automated merge rules to resolve non-conflicting differences between the modified version of the first snapshot and the target branch.
However, Van Zijst et al. disclose:
wherein the system is further configured to: apply automated merge [rule] to resolve non-conflicting differences between the modified version of the first [code] and the target branch. (the repository management system automatically synchronizes revisions (automated merge rule) to the banking application's source code to the user's fork of the banking application's source code because no conflicts exist between the branches of the banking application's source code and the user's fork of the banking application's source code., Column 8, lines 15-20)
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 Van Zijst et al. to the modified version of the first snapshot of Mendo Hernandez and Waplington et al. to include applying automated merge [rule] to resolve non-conflicting differences between the modified version of the first [code] and the target branch in order to automatically synchronize revisions when no conflicts exist. (Van Zijst et al., Column 8, lines 15-20)
Mendo Hernandez, Waplington et al. and Van Zijst et al. do not disclose:
automated merge rules to resolve non-conflicting differences
However, Tancred Lindholm disclose:
automated merge rules to resolve non-conflicting differences (general rules for merging, 3.1 Merge Rules, lines 1-46)
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 Tancred Lindholm to the modified version of the first snapshot of Mendo Hernandez, Waplington et al. and Van Zijst et al. to include automated merge rules to resolve non-conflicting differences for reasons of design choice of the developer and/or to perform a merge that accounts for different scenarios.
Claim 18 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 Van Zijst et al. (US 9,430,229) and in further view of Back et al. (US 2018/0189369).
With respect to Claim 18, all the limitations of Claim 17 have been addressed above; and Mendo Hernandez, Waplington et al. and Van Zijst et al. do not disclose:
wherein the system is further configured to: 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.
However, Back et al. disclose:
wherein the system is further configured to: provide interactive elements in the graphical representation that allow the user to navigate between different portions of the differences (see Figure 5; Client application interface 504d also includes navigational icons 526 and 528 to respectively skip backward to a previous edit or forward to a next edit in diff 506. In this example, edit type icons 510, 512, 514, and 516 can also operate as buttons. Selection of one of edit type icons 510, 512, 514, and 516 can alter the functionality of navigational icons 526 and 528 to respectively skip backward to a previous edit of the selected edit type and forward to a next edit of the selected edit type, Paragraph 99) and access detailed information about specific modifications. (clicking on corresponding navigational icon will skip forward or backwards between edits and the specific edit is displayed in the client application interface (access detailed information about specific modifications), Paragraphs 99-100)
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 Back et al. into the teaching of Mendo Hernandez and Van Zijst et al. to include providing 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 in order to allow quick navigation between edits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, filed June 24, 2025, with respect to the claim objections of claims 4, 6 and 16-18 and the §112(b) rejection of claims 13 and 17-18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections of claims 4, 6 and 16-18 and the §112(b) rejection of claims 13 and 17-18 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the §101 and §102/103 rejections filed June 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
While Applicant respectfully disagrees with this assessment, the independent claim 1 (taken as an example) has been amended to recite inter alia:
obtain, from a distributed version control system, a first snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system, wherein the first snapshot is in a text-based systems modeling language;
based on the first snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system, generate an intermediate data structure, wherein the intermediate data structure is configured to be loaded and manipulated by an engineering application;
store the intermediate data structure in the one or more memories; 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;
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, wherein the modified version of the first snapshot is in the text-based systems modeling language;
store the modified version of the first snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system in a staging environment;
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;
and perform a comparison of the first snapshot of the model to the modified version of the first snapshot and display differences between the first snapshot of the model and the modified version of the first snapshot. (emphasis added).
What is claimed above is not an “abstract idea” at all within the meaning of Alice. The Office Action appears to interpret the independent system claim 1 (and the counterpart independent claims 19 and 20) to make it sound as a human activity or mental process (i.e., concepts in the abstract category) with no technological innovation behind it. Applicant respectfully disagrees with this approach and points out that any claims should be assessed based solely on the precise technical limitations of the claim. In this application, at least usage of the snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system and clearly differentiates the claimed system and method from any type of human activity that may be performed by pen and paper or in human mind. Equating obtaining the snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system with any human activity is incorrect as humans cannot possibly perform obtaining of the snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system. This automated process does not constitute human activity in any shape or form. Instead, the claimed automated process goes way beyond human activity by employing the model of the complex hardware system.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that “Equating obtaining the snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system with any human activity is incorrect as humans cannot possibly perform obtaining of the snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system.” As be seen in the §101 rejection above, the Examiner has not analyzed the claim limitation of “obtain, from a distributed version control system, a first snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system” under Step 2A, Prong 1 for being part of the mental process. This limitation was analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B as being an additional element. However, this additional element is merely a recitation of insignificant data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional under Step 2B. 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 data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
Therefore, for at least the reasons set forth above, the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. §101 is proper and thus, maintained.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
The claimed method is implemented by a network-based system depicted, for example, in FIG. 1 of the instant application that is reproduced below:
As can be clearly understood from the description of the above network-based system, the system includes devices implemented on the computing nodes (i.e.,105, 115 and 120) connected over a network. The process performed by the system involves interactions, data analytics and exchanges between several entities over the network. This automated network-bound process cannot be equated to any type of human or mental activity as alleged by the Office Action using even broadest possible interpretation.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner would first like to note that the current claim language of independent claims 1, 19 and 20 do not include a “network” or “computing nodes connected over a network”. Assuming that a “network” is added to the claims and/or that “the system involves interactions, data analytics and exchanges between several entities over the network”, the “network” would be analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B as being an additional element. However, the “network” is claimed/recited at a high level of generality and 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 under Step 2A, Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
Therefore, for at least the reasons set forth above, the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. §101 is proper and thus, maintained.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Furthermore, the claimed combination extends well-beyond mental or human behavior because of the way the system “generate[s] an intermediate data structure” and performs a comparison of the first snapshot of the model to the modified version of the first snapshot and displays differences between the first snapshot of the model and the modified version of the first snapshot.
All of the steps executed by the claimed system are not a “Mental Process,” as alleged by the Examiner. For example, claim 1 recites:
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, wherein the modified version of the first snapshot is in the text-based systems modeling language;
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
perform a comparison of the first snapshot of the model to the modified version of the first snapshot and display differences between the first snapshot of the model and the modified version of the first snapshot
(emphasis added).
These actions performed by the claimed system cannot be performed by a process of mental human activity in any way possible given computer-based nature of the method steps involving computer-generated models.
Please note that it is a very difficult and non-trivial task to process and generate a modified version of the snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system on-the-fly to determine changes. This was not something conventional backend applications and databases do automatically to merely replicate human activity. Accordingly, this is not a “Mental Process.”
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in the §101 rejection above, the Examiner has not stated that all of the actions performed by the claimed system are part of the mental process. Specifically, the “store” and “display” limitations were analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B as an additional element. However, these limitations are merely recitations of insignificant data storage and output activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional under Step 2B. 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 output and store data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
As for the limitation of “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.
Further, for 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, for at least the reasons set forth above, the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. §101 is proper and thus, maintained.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
The Office Action further alleges that the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Applicant, respectfully, disagrees. The normal functionality of a computer does not include any of the steps recited in the independent claims 1, 19 and 20.
The general-purpose computer system does not have a capability of “generate[ing] an intermediate data structure” and generation of a modified version of the snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system. Furthermore, the claimed data processor is used to implement the unique modeling technology designed for a particular purpose. The claimed system for modifying a model of a complex hardware is a novel approach that changes the functionality of the computer system (e.g., node 115) by compilation and execution of the instructions provided for modifying a model of a complex hardware. The general-purpose computer does not have this functionality. Accordingly, the general-purpose computer is modified to perform novel functionality without necessarily changing the hardware configuration.
The claims clearly go beyond merely reciting the idea and some instructions to apply them. Unlike Alice, the claims recite significant and very specific algorithmic limitations performed by a physical network-based system employing modifying a model of a complex hardware implemented on the server discussed above.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in the updated §101 rejection above, the Examiner has analyzed the “generate an intermediate data structure” and “generate a modified version of the first snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system” under Step 2A, Prong 1 for being part of the mental process. Therefore, these limitations, according to MPEP 2106.05(a), cannot alone provide the improvement wherein the improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. Applicant argues that “The general-purpose computer does not have this functionality”. However, the recitations of the general-purpose computer is recited at a high level of generality and thus, 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 under Step 2A, Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
Therefore, for at least the reasons set forth above, the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. §101 is proper and thus, maintained.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Further, the present claims are similar to certain USPTO Examples. In a first USPTO Example, the claims at issue were eligible subject matter because the claimed concept was inextricably tied to computer technology and distinct from the types of concepts found by the courts to be abstract. Accordingly, the claimed steps had been determined not to recite an “abstract idea.”
In the present case, claim 1 recites:
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, wherein the modified version of the first snapshot is in the text-based systems modeling language;
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
perform a comparison of the first snapshot of the model to the modified version of the first snapshot and display differences between the first snapshot of the model and the modified version of the first snapshot
(emphasis added).
This is not an abstract idea — it is a very specific system for performing a very specific function of comparison of the first snapshot of the model to the modified version of the first snapshot and displaying differences between the first snapshot of the model and the modified version of the first snapshot.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As responded to above, the Examiner has not stated that all of the actions performed by the claimed system are part of the mental process/abstract idea. Specifically, the “store” and “display” limitations were analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B as an additional element. However, these limitations are merely recitations of insignificant data storage and output activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional under Step 2B. 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 output and store data which is Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
As for the limitation of “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.
Further, for 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, for at least the reasons set forth above, the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. §101 is proper and thus, maintained.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Similarly, in a second USPTO Example, the subject matter was eligible because the claim does not recite a mathematical algorithm; nor does it recite a fundamental economic or longstanding commercial practice. The claimed invention differs from other claims found by the courts to recite abstract ideas in that it does not “...merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet.” Instead, the claimed solution is
necessarily rooted in computer automation technology. No idea similar to those previously found by the courts to be abstract has been identified in the claim.
As in this Example, the claims do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet (or pre-network) world along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet (or a network). Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm modeling of hardware systems.
There is no similarity between what is claimed and anything similar that was previously found by the courts to be abstract.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that all of the pending claims constitute patentable subject matter and request that the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. §101 be withdrawn.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in the updated §101 rejection above, the Examiner has analyzed each and every limitation individually and as a whole, and concluded that there is no additional element that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2 and/or amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. The recitations of computer technology in the claims are recited at a high level of generality and thus, 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 under Step 2A, Prong 2 and does not amount to significantly more under Step 2B.
Therefore, for at least the reasons set forth above, the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. §101 is proper and thus, maintained.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
The Office Action alleges with respect to the independent claims 1, 19 and 20:
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) (Emphasis added).
Applicant respectfully disagrees with this assessment. The model text file of Hernandez is converted into a model file. The model file is not an intermediate data structure, rather it is a final representation of the model. Furthermore, there is no first snapshot in Hernandez. Instead, Hernandez uses one and only one representation of the model. Accordingly, Hernandez does not anticipate this claimed feature.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in the updated §103 rejection above with respect to claims 1, 19 and 20, it is the Examiner’s position that Hernandez discloses the applicant’s claimed “intermediate data structure” and “first snapshot”. Specifically, Hernandez discloses retrieving/checking out a model text file from a repository. The retrieved model text file (original version before modifications) is a text based format of a model file which defines a model of a system (see Paragraphs 4 and 62). This can be reasonably interpreted as the Applicant’s “first snapshot”. Hernandez discloses modifying this retrieved model text file to generate a new model text file (see Paragraph 78). This new model text file is a different/changed representation of the retrieved model text file and thus, can be reasonably considered the Applicant’s “second snapshot”.
Further, Applicant argues that “the model file is not an intermediate data structure”. However, as can be seen in the §103 rejection above, the Examiner has not stated that the “model file” is the “intermediate data structure” but the “converted model file” is the “intermediate data structure”. Hernandez discloses that in order to modify the retrieved model text file, it first must be converted to a “converted model file” that includes a file format configured for modifying the model text file (see Paragraphs 63-70). This “converted model file” can be reasonably interpreted as the Applicant’s “intermediate data structure” as the “converted model file” is between/intermediate to the “first snapshot” and “second snapshot” as explained above.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
The Office Action further asserts with respect to the independent claims 1, 19 and 20:
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)
(Emphasis added).
Applicant, respectfully, disagrees with this assertion. As discussed above, there is no intermediate data structure in Hernandez. Furthermore, Hernandez does not teach that the intermediate data structure is configured to be loaded and manipulated by an engineering application. Instead, Hernandez uses standard checkout procedures for the model text. Accordingly, Hernandez does not anticipate this claimed feature.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As responded to above, the Examiner relied upon the disclosure of a “converted model file” as being the Applicant’s “intermediate data structure”. Further, Hernandez discloses that the “converted model file” is modified according to user modeling needs to provide a modified model file (see Paragraph 70). This modification to the “converted model file” can be reasonably interpreted as the Applicant’s “intermediate data structure is configured to be loaded and manipulated by an engineering application”. The “converted model file” is modified (loaded and manipulated/engineered) by an application/software (engineering application). Please note that the Applicant has not provided further detail or specifics on the “engineering application” or how the “intermediate data structure” is “loaded an manipulated” in the current claim language.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
The Office Action further asserts with respect to the independent claims 1, 19 and 20:
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) (user inputs received via the engineering application) to provide a modified model file, Paragraph 70)
(Emphasis added).
Applicant respectfully, disagrees with this assertion. As discussed above, there is no intermediate data structure in Hernandez. Furthermore, Hernandez does not teach the claimed engineering application. Clearly, there are no user inputs and no intermediate data structure modified by the engineering application based on user inputs. Accordingly, Hernandez does not anticipate this claimed feature.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As responded to above, it is the Examiner’s position that Hernandez discloses an “intermediate data structure” and “an engineering application”. Further, Hernandez discloses that the “converted model file” is modified (engineered) by an application/software (engineering application) based on “user modeling needs”. These “user modeling needs” can be reasonably interpreted as the “user inputs”. The Applicant does not provide specifics on how or when the “user inputs” are received. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s position that “user modeling needs” can read on “user inputs” as the system gathered this data from the user at some time.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
The Office Action further alleges with respect to the independent claims 1, 19 and 20:
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) (emphasis added).
Applicant, respectfully, disagrees with this assertion. Hernandez does not modify a version of the intermediate data structure. As discussed above, Hernandez does not teach the intermediate data structure. The converted model file of Hernandes should not be equated with the modified version of the first snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system. Accordingly, Hernandez does not anticipate this claimed feature.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that “Hernandez does not modify a version of the intermediate data structure”. However, as can be seen in the §103 rejection above, it is the Examiner’s position that Hernandez discloses the Applicant’s claim language of “based on the modified version of the intermediate data structure, generate a modified version of the first snapshot…”. Specifically, Hernandez discloses that the “converted model file” (intermediate data structure) is modified according to user modeling needs to provide a “modified model file”. This “modified model file” generated from modifying the “converted model file” can be reasonably interpreted as the Applicant’s “modified version of the intermediate data”. The “modified model file” is then converted back to a text-based file which reads on the Applicant’s “generate a modified version of the first snapshot”.
Applicant argues that “The converted model file of Hernandes should not be equated with the modified version of the first snapshot of the model of the complex hardware system” but does not provide evidence or reasoning on why it should not be. Even so, the Examiner has not equated the “converted model file” as being the “modified version of the first snapshot” but the “modified model file” as explained above which is a modified version of the converted model file.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
The independent claims 1, 19 and 20 have been amended to recite inter alia:
perform a comparison of the first snapshot of the model to the modified version of the first snapshot and display differences between the first snapshot of the model and the modified version of the first snapshot (Emphasis added).
Hernandez does not teach or suggest these claimed features. Hernandez does not compare model’s snapshots and does not display the difference.
Accordinlgly, Hernandez does not anticipate the amended independent claims 1, 19 and 20. Withdrwal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102 of claims 1, 19 and 20 is requested.
Examiner’s Response:
As can be seen in the updated §103 rejection above, the Examiner has not relied solely on Hernandez to disclose the Applicant’s claim limitation of “perform a comparison of the first snapshot of the model to the modified version of the first snapshot and display differences between the first snapshot of the model and the modified version of the first snapshot.” The combination of Hernandez and Waplington disclose this limitation. Specifically, Hernandez discloses that “the new model text file 360 is compared to a previous version of the model text file 216 to detect changes” (see Paragraph 82). Hernandez does not explicitly disclose that these changes are “displayed”. Waplington was used to disclose that changes/differences between snapshots are “displayed” (see Paragraph 172). One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine Waplington into the teachings of Hernandez in order to allow a systems reliability engineer or software developer to easily identify which parameters have changed between relevant snapshots. (Waplington, Paragraph 176)
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
The features of claim 2 has been amended into independent claim 1. Amended claim 3 and claim 6 depend on the amended claim 1. As discussed above, claim 1 is not anticipated by Hernandez. The Office Action relies on Waplington for curing the deficiencies of Hernandez with respect to displaying the changes. While Waplington allegedly teaches displaying the changes includes applying syntax highlighting to emphasize modifications in the modified version of the file (Added, deleted, and edit parameters may also be highlighted in various ways (e.g., with special fonts, colors, or associated characters or icons - Paragraph 179), Waplington clearly fails to cure the deficiencies of Hernandez discussed above in 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejection analysis portion of this reply to the Office Action.
Accordingly, even assuming for the sake of argument that one of ordinary skill in the art were somehow motivated to combine Hernandez with Waplington as suggested in the Office Action, the proposed combination would still fail to result in each and every element recited in the claims 3 and 6. The proposed combination therefore fails to render these claims prima facie obvious.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the response to arguments above with respect to claim 1 and the §102 rejection.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Claim 4 depends on claim amended independent claim 1. While Mohanram allegedly teaches semantic analysis engine 550 that can perform real-time change analysis to determine the impact of the new contract or modification (Paragraph 206),
Mohanram fails to cure the deficiencies of Hernandez discussed above with respect to the amended independent claim 1.
Accordingly, even assuming for the sake of argument that one of ordinary skill in the art were somehow motivated to combine Hernandez with Mohanram as suggested in the Office Action, the proposed combination would still fail to result in each and every element recited in the claim 4. The proposed combination therefore fails to render this claim prima facie obvious.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the response to arguments above with respect to claim 1.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Claim 5 depends on the amended independent claim 1. While Cullen allegedly teaches calculating metrics, Cullen fails to cure the deficiencies of Hernandez discussed above with respect to the amended independent claim 1 and, consequently, with respect to claim 5.
Accordingly, even assuming for the sake of argument that one of ordinary skill in the art were somehow motivated to combine Hernandez with Cullen as suggested in the Office Action, the proposed combination would still fail to result in each and every element recited in the claim 5. The proposed combination therefore fails to render this claim prima facie obvious.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the response to arguments above with respect to claim 1.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Claims 7-8 depend on the amended independent claim 1. While Brambley allegedly teaches identifying potential conflicts using a baseline and changed version of a project (Column 10, lines 58-60), Brambley fails to cure the deficiencies of Hernandez discussed above with respect to the amended independent claim 1 and, consequently, with respect to claims 7 and 8.
Accordingly, even assuming for the sake of argument that one of ordinary skill in the art were somehow motivated to combine Hernandez with Brambley as suggested in
the Office Action, the proposed combination would still fail to result in each and every element recited in the claims 7 and 8. The proposed combination therefore fails to render these claims prima facie obvious.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the response to arguments above with respect to claim 1.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Claim 9 depends on the amended independent claim 1. While Shah allegedly teaches certain notifications, Shah fails to cure the deficiencies of Hernandez discussed above with respect to the amended independent claim 1 and, consequently, with respect to claim 9.
Accordingly, even assuming for the sake of argument that one of ordinary skill in the art were somehow motivated to combine Hernandez with Shah as suggested in the Office Action, the proposed combination would still fail to result in each and every element recited in the claim 9. The proposed combination therefore fails to render this claim prima facie obvious.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the response to arguments above with respect to claim 1.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Claim 10 depends on the amended independent claim 1. While Sanford Friedenthal teaches the use of SysML v2, Sanford Friedenthal clearly fails to cure the deficiencies of Hernandez discussed above with respect to the amended independent claim 1 and, consequently, with respect to claim 10.
Accordingly, even assuming for the sake of argument that one of ordinary skill in the art were somehow motivated to combine Hernandez with Sanford Friedenthal as suggested in the Office Action, the proposed combination would still fail to result in each and every element recited in the claim 10. The proposed combination therefore fails to render this claim prima facie obvious.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the response to arguments above with respect to claim 1.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Claim 11 depends on the amended independent claim 1. While Best allegedly teaches staging environment features, Best clearly fails to cure the deficiencies of Hernandez discussed above with respect to the amended independent claim 1 and, consequently, with respect to claim 11.
Accordingly, even assuming for the sake of argument that one of ordinary skill in the art were somehow motivated to combine Hernandez with Best as suggested in the Office Action, the proposed combination would still fail to result in each and every element recited in the claim 11. The proposed combination therefore fails to render this claim prima facie obvious.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the response to arguments above with respect to claim 1.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Claim 12 depends on the amended independent claim 1. While Kryzhanovski teaches simultaneous user views/edits, Kryzhanovski clearly fails to cure the deficiencies of Hernandez discussed above with respect to the amended independent claim 1 and, consequently, with respect to claim 12.
Accordingly, even assuming for the sake of argument that one of ordinary skill in the art were somehow motivated to combine Hernandez with Kryzhanovski as suggested in the Office Action, the proposed combination would still fail to result in each and every element recited in the claim 12. The proposed combination therefore fails to render this claim prima facie obvious.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the response to arguments above with respect to claim 1.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Claims 13-14 and 16-17 depend on the amended independent claim 1. While Van Zijst allegedly teaches some claimed elements such as a request to merge changes from a source branch to a destination branch (Column 5, lines 22-25; pull requests for a merge commit, Column 17, lines 32-35). The Office Action states that Van Zijst allegedly teaches:
generate a diff report highlighting differences between the modified version of the first [code] and the target branch; (generating an up-to-date diff (diff report), Column 17, lines 33-36).
(Emphasis added).
Applicant respectfully disagrees with this assertion. The differences of Van Zijst are not related to differences between the modified version of the first [code] and the target branch.
Van Zijst clearly fails to cure the deficiencies of Hernandez discussed above with respect to the amended independent claim 1 and, consequently, with respect to claims 13-14 and 16-17.
Accordingly, even assuming for the sake of argument that one of ordinary skill in the art were somehow motivated to combine Hernandez with Van Zijst as suggested in the Office Action, the proposed combination would still fail to result in each and every element recited in the claims 13-14 and 16-17. The proposed combination therefore fails to render these claims prima facie obvious.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that “The differences of Van Zijst are not related to differences between the modified version of the first [code] and the target branch” but does not provide detail or reasonings to why. Van Zijst was used to disclose generating a diff report that highlights differences between two versions, a modified version and a target branch. This is disclosed in Van Zijst in Column 17 and lines 33-36. Van Zijst was used to modify Hernandez’s teaching of a comparison of the modified version of the first snapshot to include a diff report highlighting feature.
Further, Applicant argues that “Van Zijst clearly fails to cure the deficiencies of Hernandez discussed above with respect to the amended independent claim 1”. Please see the response to arguments above with respect to claim 1.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Claim 15 depends on claim 13, which depends on the amended independent claim 1. However, Van Zijst and Tancred Lindholm fail to cure the deficiencies of Hernandez discussed above with respect to the amended independent claim 1 and, consequently, with respect to claim 15.
Accordingly, even assuming for the sake of argument that one of ordinary skill in the art were somehow motivated to combine Hernandez with Van Zijst and Tancred Lindholm as suggested in the Office Action, the proposed combination would still fail to
result in each and every element recited in the claim 15. The proposed combination therefore fails to render this claim prima facie obvious.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the response to arguments above with respect to claim 1.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Claim 18 depends on claim 17, which depends on claim 13 that depends on the amended independent claim 1. However, Van Zijst and Back fail to cure the deficiencies of Hernandez discussed above with respect to the amended independent claim 1 and, consequently, with respect to claim 18.
Accordingly, even assuming for the sake of argument that one of ordinary skill in the art were somehow motivated to combine Hernandez with Van Zijst and Tancred Lindholm as suggested in the Office Action, the proposed combination would still fail to result in each and every element recited in the claim 15. The proposed combination therefore fails to render this claim prima facie obvious.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the response to arguments above with respect to claim 1.
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 LANNY N UNG whose telephone number is (571)270-7708. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6am-4pm.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 571-272-3338. 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.
/LANNY N UNG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights