DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the original application filed on 04/08/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Claim Rejections - Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1)-706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,282,553 (US 12282553 B1, hereinafter “Patent”). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of the instant application are broader in every aspect than the corresponding claims of Patent (US 12282553 B1) and are therefore anticipated by claims 1-22 of Patent (US 12282553 B1).
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 1-5, 10-14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-5, 10-14, and 19, the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea of comparing data based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole. The claims disclose comparing respective components of generating build artifact model and source code model but do not recite any steps beyond the comparing of the model component data. Without steps describing further use of the comparison result, the claims only amount to the abstract idea of comparing data. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because simply describing the models and generating a result based on the comparison does not constitute adding steps or features beyond the abstract idea of comparing data. The involvement of machine with the steps is merely nominally, insignificantly, or tangentially related to the performance of the steps. Without reciting additional elements beyond the abstract idea of comparing data, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examiner suggests Applicant to consider reciting further use or details of the comparison result (such as claim 6) in order to clearly overcome the rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Zerah et al. (US 2022/0398308 A1: Methods and Systems for Securing a Build Execution Pipeline), Reissman (US 2006/0110043 A1: System and Method for Validating Graphical Components of Images by Analysis), Frenkiel (US 2014/0282403 A1: System for Generating Readable and Meaningful Descriptions of Stream Processing Source Code), Rafey (US 2022/0300280 A1: Predictive Build Quality Assessment), and McDuff (US 11055418 B2: Detection of Complier Injected Security Flaws).
In the case of amendments, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIL H. LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3408. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 9am-6pm EST.
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, Brian J. Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952. 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.
/GIL H. LEE/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights