DETAILED ACTION
This non-final office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed April 25, 2025. Currently Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 12 and 15 are the independent claims.
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 - 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent Claims 1, 12 and 15, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of data management. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, data management (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to displaying, to users, first/second set of prediction results based on data objects in a branch in response to a user’s request for fork a branch (i.e. version control), wherein data management is a fundamental economic practice. See 2106.04(a). Further all of the steps of “receiving”, “storing”, “forking”, “executing”, “displaying”, “generating” and “displaying” recite functions of the data management are also directed to an abstract idea. The intended purpose of independent claims 1, 12, and 15 appears to be to display to a human user (e.g. developer), via a graphical user interface, first/second set of prediction ‘results” (data) based on data objects (e.g. code, bean, file, document, text, program, database, data store, etc.) in a system branch and a user branch.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice. The exceptions are the user (who is a person) and additional limitations of generic computer elements: system, one or more processors, memory, computer readable medium comprising instructions, application programming interfaces (APIs, software per se), graphical user interface. See 2106.04(a).
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See 2106.04(a)), the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: system, one or more processors, memory, computer readable medium comprising instructions, application programming interfaces (APIs, software per se), graphical user interface. These generic computing components are merely used to receive, store, process or display data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figure 6). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's data management in the general field of document management and/or version control and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP 2106.04(a) regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), claims 1-20 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited system, one or more processors, memory, computer readable medium comprising instructions, application programming interfaces (APIs, software per se), graphical user interface," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing and under the MPEP 2106.04(a), that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of forking a first user branch from the system branch, executing the user editorial request and generating a first/second set of prediction result all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a system, one or more processors, memory, computer readable medium comprising instructions, application programming interfaces (APIs, software per se), graphical user interface nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Claims 1-11 fail to recite, in the body of the claims who or what performs the method steps as such they read as a mental process. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the steps receiving data objects, storing data objects, receiving a user editorial request are directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The step of displaying the first user branch and system branch and displaying the first/second set of prediction result directed to insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. data output). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic system, one or more processors, memory, computer readable medium comprising instructions, application programming interfaces (APIs, software per se), graphical user interface are each recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of receiving, storing, processing or displaying data. The generic processor/computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the receiving, storing and displaying steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2-11, 13, 14 and 16-20, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of data management and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1, 12 and 15.
Claims 2, 13, and 16 further limit the abstract idea by receiving a lock command and synchronizing the first user branch (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim further limits the abstract idea by limiting data objects to immutable and dynamic data objects (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 4, 14 and 17 further limit the abstract idea by copying a subset of data objects into a cache and data objects comprise data objects edit and objects having timestamps falling in a time window (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 5 and 18 further limit the abstract idea by applying the user editorial request to the subset of data objects stored in cache (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 6 and 19 further limit the abstract idea by apply user editorial request to data objects and synchronizing stored objects with objects in cache (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 7 further limits the abstract idea by receiving a second editorial request OR stub, forking a second user branch (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 8 further limits the abstract idea by receiving a second lock command and synchronizing the second user branch (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 9 and 20 further limit the abstract idea by receiving a lock command and sending request to all user branches for locking and synchronizing the locked user branches (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claims 10 further limits the abstract idea by receiving updates from the plurality of data sources and broadcasting instructions to all user branches to discard local changes and synchronizing the first dynamic object (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 11 further limits the abstract idea by periodically generating snapshots before being locked and allowing users to branch forward/backward to any snapshot (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding claims 1-20, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a system, one or more processors, memory, computer readable medium comprising instructions, application programming interfaces (APIs, software per se), graphical user interface at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 6). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. memory, processor, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a system, one or more processors, memory, computer readable medium comprising instructions, application programming interfaces (APIs, software per se), graphical user interfaces merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 6). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bigwood et al., U.S. Patent No. 9158658 in view of Newman et al., U.S. Patent No. 10827036.
Regarding Claims 1, 12 and 15, Bigwood et al. discloses a configuration management version control (CMVC)/concurrent versioning system (CVS) system (Figures 1, 2) and method comprising:
Receiving (import, upload, etc.) through a plurality of interfaces data objects (e.g. files, document, code, program, data, datasets, text, software, variable, etc.) from a plurality of data sources (IDEs, repositories, workspaces, client, etc.; Column 1, Lines 38-68, Column 2, Li9nes 1-25; Column 3, Lines 23-43; Column 10, Lines 56-68; Column 11, Lines 1-55);
Storing the data objects into a system branch (Column 10, Lines 56-68; Column 11, Lines 1-55; Figure 1, Element 108; Figure 5);
Receiving a user editorial request (check-in, commit/submit change, update, revision, modification, pull, push, inquiry, etc.) to edit one of the data objects in the system branch OR add a new data object (Column 1, Lines 38-68, Column 2, Li9nes 1-25; Column 3, Lines 23-43; Column 8, Lines 55-68; Column 9, Lines 1-25; Column 10, Lines 56-68; Column 11, Lines 1-55; Figure 5, Elements 502, 504);
Forking (creating, generating, etc.) a first user branch (temporary branch, working copy, etc.) from the system branch (code base, mainline) and executing the user editorial request in the first user branch (Column 8, Lines 55-68; Column 9, Lines 1-25; Column 10, Lines 56-68; Column 11, Lines 1-55; Figure 4; Figure 5, Element 504);
Displaying, on a graphical user interface (IDE), the first user branch and the system branch to users, allowing users to fork additional user branches from either the system branch or the first branch (Column 3, Lines 23-40; Column 8, Lines 55-58; Column 9, Lines 1-3; Column 10, Lines 56-68; Column 11, Lines 1-30);
Generating a first set of prediction result (estimate, forecast, project, anticipate, etc. - data) based on the data objects in the system branch and a second set of prediction based on data objects in the first user branch (e.g. conflict; Column 9, Lines 63-68; Column 10, Lines 1-25, 56-68; Column 11; Column 12, Lines 1-55; Figure 5, Elements 508, 512); and
Displaying the first prediction result set and the second prediction result set on the GUI (Column 3, Lines 28-43; Column 10, Lines 43-53; Figure 5, Element 516).
While Bigwood et al. discloses a plurality of interfaces for receiving data, in particular receiving data objects, and while Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) are well-known, conventional and routine Bigwood et al. does not disclose the phrase “Application Programming Interfaces (APIs)” as claimed.
Newman et al., from the same field of endeavor of version control/management discloses a system and method comprising:
Receiving through a plurality of APIs data objects (e.g. files, document, code, program, data, datasets, text, software, etc.) from a plurality of data sources (Abstract; Column 2, Lines 10-29; Column 3, Lines 1-21, 48-68; Column 4, Lines 1-6; Figure 1);
Storing the data objects into a system branch (Column 2, Lines 10-29; Figure 1, Element 118);
Receiving a user editorial request (check-in, check-out, commit/submit change, update, revision, modification, pull, push, inquiry, etc.) to edit one of the data objects in the system branch OR add a new data object (Column 4, Lines 65-68; Column 5, Lines 1-35; Column 6, Lines 36-38; Figure 2, Element 210; Figure 3, Element 310; Figure 4, Element 410; Figure 3, Element 320);
Forking a first user branch from the system branch and executing the user editorial request in the first user branch (Abstract; Column 3, Lines 48-60; Column 4, Lines 23-64; Figure 4, Element 420)
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Bigwood et al. with its ability to receive data objects from a plurality of data sources would have benefited from the well-known use of Application Programming Interfaces to receive data objects in view of the disclosure of Newman et al., since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 2, 13, and 16 Bigwood et al. discloses a system and method further comprising:
Receiving a lock command from the first user branch (Column 10, Lines 10-52); and
Synchronizing (merging, integrating, rebuilding, combining, consolidating, reconciling, updating, etc.) the first user branch into the system branch by storing the edited data object OR the added data object into the system branch (Column 9, Lines 15-55; Column 10, Lines 43-53; Column 11, Lines 56-68; Figure 5, Elements 506, 510; Figures 3, 4).
Regarding Claim 7, Bigwood et al. discloses a system and method further comprising:
Receiving a second user editorial request to edit one of the data objects (Column 1, Lines 38-68, Column 2, Li9nes 1-25; Column 3, Lines 23-43; Column 8, Lines 55-68; Column 9, Lines 1-25; Column 10, Lines 56-68; Column 11, Lines 1-55; Figure 5, Elements 502, 504) OR sub a new data object in the first user branch (Column 12, Lines 42-55); and
Forking a second user branch from the first user branch and executing the second user editorial request in the second branch (Column 8, Lines 55-68; Column 9, Lines 1-25; Column 10, Lines 56-68; Column 11, Lines 1-55; Figure 4; Figure 5, Element 504).
Regarding Claim 8, Bigwood et al. discloses a system and method further comprising:
Receiving a second locking command from the second user branch (Column 10, Lines 10-52); and
Synchronizing the second user branch into the first user and system branch (Column 9, Lines 15-55; Column 10, Lines 43-53; Column 11, Lines 56-68; Figure 5, Elements 506, 510).
Claim 3 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bigwood et al., U.S. Patent No. 9158658 in view of Newman et al., U.S. Patent No. 10827036 as applied to the claims above and further in view of Nadeau et al., U.S. Patent No. 12596705.
Regarding Claim 3, while Bigwood et al. discloses a system and method wherein the data objects are locked (cannot be changed, immutable; Column 10, Lines 10-52) and dynamic objects comprising predictions/are subject to further changes (Column 9, Lines 63-68; Column 10, Lines 1-25, 56-68; Column 11; Column 12, Lines 1-55) Bigwood et al. does not disclose the phrase immutable as claimed.
Nadeau et al., from the same field of endeavor of software version control discloses a system and method wherein the data objects comprising immutable data objects and dynamic data objects wherein the immutable data objects are locked (cannot be changed/revised; Column 4, Lines 67-68; Column 5, Lines 35-40; Column 7, Lines 39-60; Claim 11) and the dynamic data object are subject to further changes (lock-free, editable, can be changed/modified, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Bigwood et al. and Newman et al. with its dynamic and locked data objects would have benefited from the well-known use of immutability (immutable data objects) in view of the disclosure of Nadeau et al., since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 4-6, 14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bigwood et al., U.S. Patent No. 9158658 in view of Newman et al., U.S. Patent No. 10827036 as applied to the claims above and further in view of Burukhin et al., U.S. Patent No. 12411832.
Regarding Claims 4, 14 and 17 Bigwood et al. discloses a system and method wherein the first user branch comprises: copying a subset of the data objects from the system branch into a cache are (local, memory, repository, data source, file system, file, database, etc.) corresponding to the first user branch wherein the subset of data objects edited by the user editorial request have timestamps (Column 10, Lines 1-5; Column 13, Lines 8-18) and at predetermined time intervals (Column 10, Lines 56-68; Column 11, Lines 1-10).
Bigwood et al. does not disclose that the subset of data objects has timestamps falling in a time window with a predetermined recency as claimed.
Burukhin et al., from the same field of endeavor of collaborative version control and branching management discloses at a branch includes a copy of data objects having timestamps fall in a time window with a predetermined recency (Abstract; Column 5, Lines 8-15; Column 7; Column 8, Lines 1-17; Column 9, Lines 38-54; Column 12, Lines 28-50; Figure 4).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Bigwood et al. and Newman et al. with its timestamps would have benefited from the well-known use of immutability (immutable data objects) in view of the disclosure of Burukhin et al., since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claims 5 and 18, Bigwood et al. discloses a system and method further comprising applying the editorial request to the subset of data objects stored in the cache area to reflect instant effect of the user editorial request in the first user branch (Column 12; Column 13, Lines 1-20).
Regarding Claims 6 and 19, Bigwood et al. discloses a system and method further comprising:
Creating a backend process to apply the user editorial request to corresponding data objects stored in an archive system, wherein the backend process takes longer than applying the user editorial request to corresponding objects in the cache area, wherein, upon completion of the backend process, the corresponding data objects stored in the archive system are synchronized with the corresponding objects in the cache area (e.g. continuous integration; Column 11, Lines 45-68; Column 12; Column 13, Lines 1-20; Figure 5).
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bigwood et al., U.S. Patent No. 9158658 in view of Newman et al., U.S. Patent No. 10827036 as applied to the claims above in view of Adams et al., U.S. Patent No. 7500037 and further in view of Burukhin et al., U.S. Patent No. 12411832.
Regarding Claims 9 and 20, Bigwood et al. discloses a system and method further comprising receiving a lock command in the system branch (Column 10, Lines 10-52).
Bigwood et al. does not disclose sending locking requests to all branches as claimed.
Adams et al., from the same field of endeavor of locking data objects, discloses a system and method comprising: receiving a lock request and sending a request to all user branches for locking the user branches (Column 7, Lines 50-68; Column 8, 9; Figures 4, 5).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Bigwood et al. and Newman et al. would have benefited from the sending locking request to all branches in view of the disclosure of Adams et al., since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Burukhin et al., from the same field of endeavor of data object version control, discloses a system and method further comprising synchronizing the user branches to create a snapshot of the system branch (Column 4, Lines 11-40; Column 5, Lines 56-68).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bigwood et al., U.S. Patent No. 9158658 in view of Newman et al., U.S. Patent No. 10827036 as applied to the claims above in view of Gupta et al. et al., U.S. Patent No. 11921704.
Regarding Claim 11, while generating snapshots (copies, clones, commits) of data objects as well as rolling back/forward snapshots (changes, modifications, versions, etc.) are well-known, common and routine in version control systems and methods Bigwood et al. does not disclose generating snapshots as claimed.
Gupta et al. from the same field of endeavor discloses a system and method further comprising generating branch snapshots periodically being locked (immutable), allowing users to roll the first user branch forward or backward to any snapshot (Abstract; Column 6, Lines 44-55; Figure 1, Elements 114, 115, 116).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Bigwood et al. and Newman et al. would have benefited from generating snapshots and enabling users to roll forward/backward branch snapshots in view of the disclosure of Gupta et al., since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Turner et al., U.S. Patent No. 9575764 discloses a collaborative version control system and method comprising branch synchronization, pull/pushing request (DETX 36), GUI, merge conflict detection - overlapping code (DETX 29, 37), detect missing changes, notify/message/warn to synchronize conflicts in branches/forks DETX 53, 54, 63), automatically synchronization (DETX 65, 66) and accepting pull/push requests.
Van Zijst et al., U.S. Patent No. 9430229 discloses a collaborative version control system and method comprising merge previewing, branch synchronization, display predicted merge results/preview (DETX 106, 150, 168; F9, 14) and locking (DETX 120).
Newman et al., U.S. Patent No. 10827036 discloses a version control system and method enabling multiple users/developers to collaboratively work on code/program/software including branching, forking, APIs to various data sources/data sets, and access control.
Maddila et al., U.S. Patent No. 11550758 discloses a collaborative software code/document management and version control system and method comprising determining/detecting concurrent edit for forks/branches in response to pull requests (DETX 14, 31), predict conflicting changes (DETX 20), change suggestion/scan for potential/probable conflicts (DETX 32, 71), and recommendation/notification about changes (DETX 37).
Wuensche, U.S. Patent No. 11144311 discloses a system and method comprising version control/branch management, merge conflict detection (DETX 28, 31, 37, 47; F2), detecting defects after merging code changes, and detecting overlapping calls (F5, DETX 39, 47).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights