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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/29/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on 1/29/2026. Claims 1, 4, 10, 11, and 14 have been amended. Claims 6 and 16 have been canceled. Claims 20-22 are newly added. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13-15, and 17-22 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-8 of Remarks, filed 1/29/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13-15, and 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) & (b), as noted below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, 10, 11, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 8 recites “each original definition” which should be changed to --each original definition in the plurality of original definitions--. Line 15 further recites “at least one of the provider-agnostic type identifier” which should be changed to --at least one of the provider-agnostic type identifiers--. Claims 10 and 11 each recite similar issues that require correction as well.
Claim 8, line 2 recites “the at least one original definition” which should be changed to --the at least one original definition of the plurality of original definitions--. Line 3 recites “the original definition” which should be changed to --each of the at least one original definition of the plurality of original definitions--. Claim 18, which corresponds to claim 8, recites similar issues of claim 8 that need corrections as well.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13-15, and 17-22 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 4, 10, 11, 14, and 20-22 each recite the term “provider-agnostic type identifier” Claims 1, 10, and 11 each were amended to recite the term “a plurality of provider-agnostic type identifiers represented by the matching universal definition template” however Applicant’s Disclosure lacks any mention of “provider-agnostic type identifiers” along with any further mention of representing these identifiers by “the matching universal definition template”. While the examiner acknowledges that paragraph 17 of Applicant’s Specification recites the term “agnostic”, it does so in a non-descriptive manner (“a cloud-agnostic” and “IaC-agnostic”) with respective to the specific limitations of claims 1, 10, and 11. Therefore the examiner asserts that Applicant’s original Disclosure is not supportive of “a plurality of provider-agnostic type identifiers represented by the matching universal definition template”, and thus this limitation constitutes new matter. Further, dependent claims 4, 14, and 20-22 each recite the term “provider-agnostic type identifier” which also possess the same issue identified above, as only paragraph 17 recites the term “agnostic” but does not do so in manner which fully describes the specific subject matter recited in these respective claims.
Additionally, claims 1, 10, 11, and 21 further recite “plurality of provider-specific type identifiers” which also lacks written-description in Applicant’s Disclosure as the term “provider-specific” is not recited, nor referenced to, by Applicant within the Disclosure. Claim 22 recites “the provider-specific type identifier” which lacks written-description for the same reason as claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-11, 13-15, and 17-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the original definition" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there’s not a singular “original definition” being referenced that would provide antecedence for this limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the plurality of original definitions” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “each of the plurality of original definitions” in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 also recites the limitation “the provider-agnostic type identifier” which lacks antecedent basis as this refers to a singular identifier but claim 1 only provides the plural of such identifier.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the plurality of original definitions” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 10 and 11, corresponding to claim 1, also recite the same issues identified under lack of antecedent basis for claim 1 above.
Claims 14 and 15, corresponding to respective claims 4 and 5, also recite the same issues identified under lack of antecedent basis for claims 4 and 5.
Claims 20-22 each recite the limitation “the provider-agnostic type identifier” which lacks antecedent basis as this refers to a singular identifier but claim 1 only provides the plural of such identifier.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B POTRATZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5329. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10 A.M. - 6 P.M. CST.
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, William Korzuch can be reached on 571-272-7589. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL B POTRATZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491