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 the application 19/022,130 filed on 01/15/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for domestic priority to which is a CON of 18/484,599 10/11/2023 PAT 12,238,183 which is a CON of 17/868,110 07/19/2022 PAT 11,824,949 which is a CON of 16/814,271 03/10/2020 PAT 11,425,217.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/15/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Claim 20 limitations “means for generating an item node for a graph data structure”, “means for validating, through a static analysis of the graph data structure, the item node with respect to a build that exposes the service offering”, “means for determining, via the static analysis, that the build that exposes the service offering deviates from a pre-declared listing of allowed of one or more dependencies”, “means for rejecting, responsive to the determination, the deployment of the service after the deployment is inserted into the graph data structure to enforce”.
A review of the specification fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material or acts for the claimed function above indicated means for limitations (specification: [paragraph 0098] describes Herein, the phrase "coupled with" is defined to mean directly connected to or indirectly connected through one or more intermediate components….. superseding any other implied definitions hereinbefore or hereinafter unless expressly asserted by the Applicant to the contrary, to mean one or more elements selected from the group [paragraph 0114] describes computer system 100 is implementation dependent and may vary and that not all of the depicted computer devices and/or means/media of communication may be used and that other computer devices and/or means/media of communications.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
8. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim 20 recites the phrases “means” and the written description, especially, the portion (specification paragraphs [0098, 0114]) associated with the embodiments that discloses “means” fail to further define what the “means” represent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
10. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 20 limitations “means for generating an item node for a graph data structure”, “means for validating, through a static analysis of the graph data structure, the item node with respect to a build that exposes the service offering”, “means for determining, via the static analysis, that the build that exposes the service offering deviates from a pre-declared listing of allowed of one or more dependencies”, “means for rejecting, responsive to the determination, the deployment of the service after the deployment is inserted into the graph data structure to enforce” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, for example, paragraphs [0098, 0114] describe “means” but fail to define what the means are. Therefore, the claim 20 is indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Double Patenting
11. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
12. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 14-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,183 B2 of US Application no.18/484,599. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are merely obvious variations of the claims 1-10 and 14-20 in the U.S. Patent No. 12,238,183 B2 of US Application no.18/484,599, and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting which is outlined in the table below:
Instant Application # 19/022,130
U.S. Patent No. 12,238,183 B2 ( US Application no.18/484,599)
1. A computer-implemented method for validating deployment of a service, the method comprising:
generating an item node for a graph data structure, the item node associated with a service offering provided prior to generation of the item node, wherein the graph data structure associates the item node with a catalog data structure of the catalog layer associated with the previous provision of the service offering; and
validating, through a static analysis of the graph data structure, the item node with respect to a build that exposes the service offering;
determining, via the static analysis, that the build that exposes the service offering deviates from a pre-declared listing of allowed of one or more dependencies;
and rejecting, responsive to the determination, the deployment of the service after the deployment is inserted into the graph data structure to enforce, at least in part, a default security policy to deny deviations from pre-declared execution parameters.
1. A computer-implemented method for validating deployment of a service, the method comprising: assigning a catalog data structure to a catalog layer of a plurality of layers of a graph data structure, the catalog data structure including data associated with an initial tenant at an address associated with a hosted location; providing a service offering to the catalog data structure of the catalog layer;
generating an item node, associated with the service offering, for the graph data structure, wherein the graph data structure associates the item node to the catalog data structure of the catalog layer and the initial tenant; and
validating, through a static analysis of the graph data structure, the item node with respect to a build that exposes the service offering;
determining, via the static analysis, that the build that exposes the service offering deviates from a pre-declared listing of allowed of one or more dependencies;
and rejecting, responsive to the determination, the deployment of the service after the deployment is inserted into the graph data structure to enforce, at least in part, a default security policy to deny deviations from pre-declared execution parameters.
11. Non-transitory machine-readable media configured to store instructions thereon, the instructions configured to, when execute, cause a processor to:
generate an item node for a graph data structure, the item node associated with a service offering provided prior to generation of the item node, wherein the graph data structure associates the item node with a catalog data structure of the catalog layer associated with the previous provision of the service offering; and
validate, through a static analysis of the graph data structure, the item node with respect to a build that exposes the service offering; determine, via the static analysis, that the build that exposes the service offering deviates from a pre-declared listing of allowed of one or more dependencies; and
reject, responsive to the determination, the deployment of the service after the deployment is inserted into the graph data structure to enforce, at least in part, a default security policy to deny deviations from pre-declared execution parameters.
14. A product including: non-transitory machine-readable media; and instructions stored on the machine-readable media, the instructions configured to, when executed, cause a machine to: assign a catalog data structure to a catalog layer of a plurality of layers of a graph data structure, the catalog data structure including data associated with an initial tenant at an address associated with a hosted location; provide a service offering to the catalog data structure of the catalog layer;
generate an item node, associated with the service offering, for the graph data structure, wherein the graph data structure associates the item node to the catalog data structure of the catalog layer and the initial tenant; and
validate, through a static analysis of the graph data structure, the item node with respect to a build that exposes the service offering; determine, via the static analysis, that the build that exposes the service offering deviates from a pre-declared listing of allowed of one or more dependencies; and
reject, responsive to the determination, the deployment of the service after the deployment is inserted into the graph data structure to enforce, at least in part, a default security policy to deny deviations from pre-declared execution parameters.
20. A system for validating deployment of a service, the system comprising:
means for generating an item node for a graph data structure, the item node associated with a service offering provided prior to generation of the item node, wherein the graph data structure associates the item node with a catalog data structure of the catalog layer associated with the previous provision of the service offering; and
means for validating, through a static analysis of the graph data structure, the item node with respect to a build that exposes the service offering; means for determining, via the static analysis, that the build that exposes the service offering deviates from a pre-declared listing of allowed of one or more dependencies; and
means for rejecting, responsive to the determination, the deployment of the service after the deployment is inserted into the graph data structure to enforce, at least in part, a default security policy to deny deviations from pre-declared execution parameters.
10. A system for validation of a deployment of a service, the system including: memory; and a processor in data communication with the memory, the processor configured to execute: first logic stored on the memory, the first logic configured to assign a catalog data structure to a catalog layer of a plurality of layers of a graph data structure, the catalog data structure including data associated with an initial tenant at an address associated with a hosted location; second logic stored on the memory, the second logic configured to provide a service offering to the catalog data structure of the catalog layer; third logic stored on the memory,
the third logic configured to generate an item node, associated with the service offering, for the graph data structure, wherein the graph data structure associates the item node to the catalog data structure of the catalog layer and the initial tenant; and
fourth logic stored on the memory, the fourth logic configured to validate, through a static analysis of the graph data structure, the item node with respect to a build that exposes the service offering; fifth logic stored on the memory, the fifth logic configured to determine, via the static analysis, that the build that exposes the service offering deviates from a pre-declared listing of allowed of one or more dependencies; and
sixth logic stored on the memory, the sixth logic configured to reject, responsive to the determination, the deployment of the service after the deployment is inserted into the graph data structure to enforce, at least in part, a default security policy to deny deviations from pre-declared execution parameters.
Although the claims 1, 11 and 20 at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claims 1, 11 and 20 of the instant application are disclosed by the limitations of claims 1, 14 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,183 B2 US Application no.18/484,599, and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Instant Application Claims 2-9 recite substantially the same limitation as the patented claims 2-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,183 B2 US Application no.18/484,599, therefore the application claims 2-9 are anticipated by the patented claims 2-9.
Instant Application Claims 14-19 recite substantially the same limitation as the patented claims 15-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,183 B2 US Application no.18/484,599, therefore the application claims 14-19 are anticipated by the patented claims 15-20.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 14-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,183 B2 of US Application no.18/484,599. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are merely obvious variations of the claims 1-10 and 14-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,183 B2 of US Application no.18/484,599, and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
13. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 8 and 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,824,949 of US Application no.17/868,110. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are merely obvious variations of the claims 1-3, 5, 8 and 15-17 in the U.S. Patent No. 11,824,949 of US Application no.17/868,110, and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting which is outlined in the table below:
Instant Application # 19/022,130
U.S. Patent No. 11,824,949 (US Application no.17/868,110)
1. A computer-implemented method for validating deployment of a service, the method comprising:
generating an item node for a graph data structure, the item node associated with a service offering provided prior to generation of the item node, wherein the graph data structure associates the item node with a catalog data structure of the catalog layer associated with the previous provision of the service offering; and
validating, through a static analysis of the graph data structure, the item node with respect to a build that exposes the service offering;
determining, via the static analysis, that the build that exposes the service offering deviates from a pre-declared listing of allowed of one or more dependencies;
and rejecting, responsive to the determination, the deployment of the service after the deployment is inserted into the graph data structure to enforce, at least in part, a default security policy to deny deviations from pre-declared execution parameters.
Claim 1. A computer-implemented method for validating deployment of a service, the method comprising:
performing a static analysis of a graph data structure to validate an item node with respect to a build that exposes the service, wherein the performance of the static analysis begins before deployment insertion of the item node into the graph data structure and deployment of the service to any device, and wherein the static analysis continues into deployment;
determining, via the static analysis, that the build that exposes the service deviates from a pre-declared listing of allowed of one or more dependencies;
and rejecting, responsive to the determination, the deployment of the service after the deployment is inserted into the graph data structure to enforce, at least in part, a default security policy to deny deviations from pre-declared execution parameters.
11. Non-transitory machine-readable media configured to store instructions thereon, the instructions configured to, when execute, cause a processor to:
generate an item node for a graph data structure, the item node associated with a service offering provided prior to generation of the item node, wherein the graph data structure associates the item node with a catalog data structure of the catalog layer associated with the previous provision of the service offering; and
validate, through a static analysis of the graph data structure, the item node with respect to a build that exposes the service offering;
determine, via the static analysis, that the build that exposes the service offering deviates from a pre-declared listing of allowed of one or more dependencies;
and reject, responsive to the determination, the deployment of the service after the deployment is inserted into the graph data structure to enforce, at least in part, a default security policy to deny deviations from pre-declared execution parameters.
Claim 15. A product including: non-transitory machine-readable media; and instructions stored on the machine-readable media, the instructions configured to, when executed, cause a machine to:
perform a static analysis of a graph data structure to validate an item node with respect to a build that exposes a service, wherein the performance of the static analysis begins before deployment insertion of the item node into the graph data structure and deployment of the service to any device, and wherein the static analysis continues into deployment;
determine, via the static analysis, that the build that exposes the service deviates from a pre-declared whitelist of one or more dependencies;
and reject, responsive to the determination, the deployment of the service after the deployment is inserted into the graph data structure to enforce, at least in part, a default security policy to deny deviations from pre-declared execution parameters.
20. A system for validating deployment of a service, the system comprising:
means for generating an item node for a graph data structure, the item node associated with a service offering provided prior to generation of the item node, wherein the graph data structure associates the item node with a catalog data structure of the catalog layer associated with the previous provision of the service offering; and
means for validating, through a static analysis of the graph data structure, the item node with respect to a build that exposes the service offering;
means for determining, via the static analysis, that the build that exposes the service offering deviates from a pre-declared listing of allowed of one or more dependencies; and
means for rejecting, responsive to the determination, the deployment of the service after the deployment is inserted into the graph data structure to enforce, at least in part, a default security policy to deny deviations from pre-declared execution parameters.
Claim 8. A system for validation of a deployment of a service, the system including: memory; and a processor in data communication with the memory, the processor configured to execute: first logic stored on the memory,
the first logic configured to perform a static analysis of a graph data structure to validate an item node with respect to a build that exposes the service, wherein the performance of the static analysis begins before deployment insertion of the item node into the graph data structure and deployment of the service to any device, and wherein the static analysis continues into deployment;
second logic stored on the memory, the second logic configured to determine, via the static analysis, that the build that exposes the service deviates from a pre-declared whitelist of one or more dependencies;
and third logic stored on the memory, the third logic configured to reject, responsive to the determination, the deployment of the service after the deployment is inserted into the graph data structure to enforce, at least in part, a default security policy to deny deviations from pre-declared execution parameters.
Although the claims 1, 11 and 20 at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claims 1, 11 and 20 of the instant application are disclosed by the limitations of claims 1, 15 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,824,949 of US Application no.17/868,110, and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Instant Application Claims 2-3 recite substantially the same limitation as the patented claims 2-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,824,949 of US Application no.17/868,110, therefore the application claims 2-3 are anticipated by the patented claims 2-3.
Instant Application Claim 10 recites substantially the same limitation as the patented claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11,824,949 of US Application no.17/868,110, therefore the application claim 10 is anticipated by the patented claim 5.
Instant Application Claims 12-13 recite substantially the same limitation as the patented claims 16-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,824,949 of US Application no.17/868,110, therefore the application claims 12-13 are anticipated by the patented claims 16-17.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 8 and 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,824,949 of US Application no.17/868,110. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are merely obvious variations of the claims 1-3, 5, 8 and 15-17 in the U.S. Patent No. 11,824,949 of US Application no.17/868,110, and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
14. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 6-10, 13 and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 425,217 of US Application no.16/814,271. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are merely obvious variations of the claims 1, 2, 6-10, 13 and 18-19 in the U.S. Patent No. 11, 425,217 of US Application no.16/814,271, and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting which is outlined in the table below:
Instant Application # 19/022,130
U.S. Patent No. 11, 425,217 of US Application no.16/814,271
1. A computer-implemented method for validating deployment of a service, the method comprising:
generating an item node for a graph data structure, the item node associated with a service offering provided prior to generation of the item node, wherein the graph data structure associates the item node with a catalog data structure of the catalog layer associated with the previous provision of the service offering; and
validating, through a static analysis of the graph data structure, the item node with respect to a build that exposes the service offering;
determining, via the static analysis, that the build that exposes the service offering deviates from a pre-declared listing of allowed of one or more dependencies;
and rejecting, responsive to the determination, the deployment of the service after the deployment is inserted into the graph data structure to enforce, at least in part, a default security policy to deny deviations from pre-declared execution parameters.
Claim 1. A method for management of development and deployment of a service based architecture, the method comprising:
generating a graph data structure for the development and deployment of the service based architecture, the graph data structure including a plurality of layers; defining an initial tenant in a core layer of the plurality of layers of the graph data structure;
assigning a catalog data structure to a catalog layer of the plurality of layers of the graph data structure, the catalog data structure including data associated with the initial tenant at an address associated with a hosted location within the service based architecture;
providing a service offering to the catalog data structure of the catalog layer;
generating an item node, associated with the service offering, for the graph data structure,
wherein the graph data structure associates the item node to the catalog data structure of the catalog layer and the initial tenant in the core layer;
validating, through a static analysis of the graph data structure, the item node with respect to a build that exposes the service offering, wherein the static analysis begins before deployment of the service to any device and continues into deployment;
determining, via the validation, that the build that exposes the service offering deviates from a pre-declared whitelist of one or more dependencies;
and rejecting, responsive to the determination, the deployment of the service after the deployment is inserted into the graph data structure in accord with a deny-by-default security posture.
11. Non-transitory machine-readable media configured to store instructions thereon, the instructions configured to, when execute, cause a processor to:
generate an item node for a graph data structure, the item node associated with a service offering provided prior to generation of the item node, wherein the graph data structure associates the item node with a catalog data structure of the catalog layer associated with the previous provision of the service offering;
and validate, through a static analysis of the graph data structure, the item node with respect to a build that exposes the service offering;
determine, via the static analysis, that the build that exposes the service offering deviates from a pre-declared listing of allowed of one or more dependencies;
and reject, responsive to the determination, the deployment of the service after the deployment is inserted into the graph data structure to enforce, at least in part, a default security policy to deny deviations from pre-declared execution parameters.
Claim 18. A non-transitory computer readable medium including instructions that when executed cause a processor to:
generate a graph data structure for development and deployment of a service based architecture, the graph data structure including a plurality of layers; define an initial tenant in a core layer of the plurality of layers of the graph data structure;
assign a catalog data structure to a catalog layer of the plurality of layers of the graph data structure, the catalog data structure including data associated with the initial tenant at an address associated with a hosted location within the service based architecture;
provide a service offering to the catalog data structure of the catalog layer; generate an item node, associated with the service offering, for the graph data structure,
wherein the graph data structure associates the item node to the catalog data structure of the catalog layer and the initial tenant in the core layer;
and validate, through a static analysis of the graph data structure, the item node with respect to a build that exposes the service offering, wherein the static analysis begins before deployment of the service to any device and continues into deployment;
determine, via the validation, that the build that exposes the service offering deviates from a pre-declared whitelist of one or more dependencies;
and reject, responsive to the determination, the deployment of the service after the deployment is inserted into the graph data structure in accord with a deny-by-default security posture.
20. A system for validating deployment of a service, the system comprising:
means for generating an item node for a graph data structure, the item node associated with a service offering provided prior to generation of the item node, wherein the graph data structure associates the item node with a catalog data structure of the catalog layer associated with the previous provision of the service offering; and
means for validating, through a static analysis of the graph data structure, the item node with respect to a build that exposes the service offering;
means for determining, via the static analysis, that the build that exposes the service offering deviates from a pre-declared listing of allowed of one or more dependencies;
and means for rejecting, responsive to the determination, the deployment of the service after the deployment is inserted into the graph data structure to enforce, at least in part, a default security policy to deny deviations from pre-declared execution parameters.
Claim 13. An apparatus for management of development and deployment of a service based architecture, the apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code for one or more programs, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to:
generate a graph data structure for the development and deployment of the service based architecture, the graph data structure including a plurality of layers; define an initial tenant in a core layer of the plurality of layers of the graph data structure;
assign a catalog data structure to a catalog layer of the plurality of layers of the graph data structure, the catalog data structure including data associated with the initial tenant at an address associated with a hosted location within the service based architecture;
provide a service offering to the catalog data structure of the catalog layer; generate an item node, associated with the service offering, for the graph data structure,
wherein the graph data structure associates the item node to the catalog data structure of the catalog layer and the initial tenant in the core layer; associate the item node to at least one second tenant; receiving a request from an external device, wherein the request includes data indicative of the item node;
validate, using a static analysis, the item node from the request using the graph data structure for the initial tenant and the at least one second tenant, wherein the static analysis begins before deployment of the service to the external device and continues into deployment;
determine, via the validation, that the build that exposes the service offering deviates from a pre-declared whitelist of one or more dependencies;
and reject, responsive to the determination, the deployment of the service after the deployment is inserted into the graph data structure in accord with a deny-by-default security posture.
Although the claims 1, 11 and 20 at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claims 1, 11 and 20 of the instant application are disclosed by the limitations of claims 1, 18 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 425,217 of US Application no.16/814,271, and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Instant Application Claim 4 recites substantially the same limitation as the patented claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 425,217 of US Application no.16/814,271, therefore the application claim 4 is anticipated by the patented claim 2.
Instant Application Claims 5-9 recite substantially the same limitation as the patented claims 6-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 425,217 of US Application no.16/814,271, therefore the application claims 5-9 are anticipated by the patented claims 6-10.
Instant Application Claims 14 and 18-19 recite substantially the same limitation as the patented claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 425,217 of US Application no.16/814,271, therefore the application claims 14 and 18-19 are anticipated by the patented claim 19.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 6-10, 13 and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11, 425,217 of US Application no.16/814,271. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are merely obvious variations of the claims 1, 2, 6-10, 13 and 18-19 in the U.S. Patent No. 11, 425,217 of US Application no.16/814,271, and as such is unpatentable for obvious-type double patenting.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- SEKSENOV et al., US 2021/0240818 A1, Disclosed embodiments are related to information security and scripting-language technologies.
- Sullivan et al., US 2019/0294613 A1, A system and method are disclosed for private cloud computing and for the development and deployment of cloud applications in the private cloud.
- Chandrashekar et al., US 2021/0157623 A1, Methods, systems, and computer-readable media for automated management of machine images are disclosed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHULKUMAR J SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 6:05 am-3:55 pm.
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, TONIA DOLLINGER can be reached at 571-272-4170. 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.
/M.J.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2459 /TONIA L DOLLINGER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights