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 .
Status of Claims
Due to communications filed 7/29/26, the following is a non-final office action. Group I, claims 1-10 and 12 are elected by Applicant. Claim 14 is amended. Claims 11, 13 and 15 are withdrawn. Claims 1-10, 12, and 14 are pending in this application and are rejected as follows.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botti et al (US 20160092185 A1), and further in view of Chang et al (US 5724425 A).
As per claim 1, Botti et al disclose:
A method for generating, by an electronic device, at least one digital passport, (Abstract, “The system and methods determines and attaches metadata describing the development environment to an application, then uses that metadata to select a deployment model, and to select an operational model... associated with an application that would be deployed”);
relating to an application intended to be deployed in at least one computer entity, (Abstract: “A system and method for deploying a software application to a hosting environment that considers the development environment, and bases any decision on data about the development environment to make a selection of hosting environment and/or operational attributes”);
said digital passport comprising at least one entry comprising information relating to at least one development environment in which said application is developed, (Abstract: “The system and methods determines and attaches metadata describing the development environment to an application, then uses that metadata to select a deployment model, and to select an operational model.”; [0021] In FIG. 1A, system 10 generates a package 15 including the application 20 and the attached associated metadata (application development attributes) 17 provided by and received from the code supplier via an input 19. [0022] As shown in FIG. 1B, a first set (or sub-set) 18a of these application development environment attributes are conveyed as input to a host application deployment environment 30, and a second set (or sub-set) of the application's development environment attributes are conveyed as input to an application operational environment 40... For example, metadata attributes set 18a may be more appurtenant to application deployment issues while metadata attributes set 18b may be more appurtenant to operational support issues for the software. A processing component 35, having processing components to function as a development selection engine, receives the set 18a of the normalized data attributes and/or the single score values. Development selection processing engine 35 implements and applies one or more criterion 32 against the normalized data attributes 18a, to select one deployment environment 37 from among a plurality of deployment environments 36 for a deployment action 39 to deploy the application 20).
Botti et al does not disclose:
the method comprising generating said digital passport,
However, Chang et al discloses: (Abstract: “A software passport is then generated which includes the application writer's digital signature, the application writer's license and the binary code.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Chang et al in the systems of Botti 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.
As per claim 6, Botti et al does not disclose the following, however, Chang et al discloses:
wherein the information relating to said at least one development environment belongs to a group comprising at least:
an identifier of a version of at least one operating system for at least one hardware
component used during the development of the application, (Chang: (524) ISO three-way protocol. As noted in Section 5.3, the authentication-only version of the STS protocol is essentially the same as the three-way protocol currently proposed by ISO [1].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Chang et al in the systems of Botti 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.
As per claim 7, Botti et al does not disclose the following, however Cheng discloses:
determining a digest of the information relating to at least one development environment comprised in at least one of said entries of said digital passport, (Cheng: “The application writer's license includes identifying information such as the application writer's name as well as the application writer's public key. A compiler program executed by the first computer compiles the source code into binary code, and computes a message digest for the binary code. The first computer then encrypts the message digest using the application writer's private key, such that the encrypted message digest is defined as a digital "signature" of the application writer”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Chang et al in the systems of Botti 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.
As per claim 12, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed with respect to independent claim 1, and therefore is rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 14, this claim recites limitations similar to those disclosed with respect to independent claim 1, and therefore is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botti et al (US 20160092185 A1), and further in view of Chang et al (US 5724425 A), and in further view of Iyer et al (US 9612821 B2).
As per claim 2, Botti et al does not disclose:
obtaining said information relating to said at least one development environment from at least one monitoring entity of said at least one development environment.
However, Iyer et al discloses: ((33) The data collector 226 component of the CDSP 204 interacts with the pipeline node(s) the user specified based on the user's input into the dashboard 232. The CDSP engine 230 then communicates with the data collector 226 to monitor user specified data within pipeline nodes and environments based on the information the user entered into the dashboard 232.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Iyer et al in the systems of Botti 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.
As per claim 3, Botti et al does not disclose:
wherein said information relating to said at least one development environment is obtained in a response to transmission, by said electronic device, of a request for information relating to a development environment.
However, Iyer discloses: ((37) At 302, the user specified data (i.e., indicators) and associated pipeline nodes is received from the dashboard 232 (FIG. 2). According to at least one embodiment, the user (e.g., release manager) interacts with the dashboard 232 (FIG. 2) to indicate which pipeline nodes/steps (e.g., source control management 208 (FIG. 2)) or environments to target for data collection. Then, the user indicates what type of data the user wants to have collected from the target node(s) (e.g., source control management 208 (FIG. 2)), such as the number of code lines that have changed. After the user inputs the desired data and target pipeline node information in the dashboard 232 (FIG. 2), data and node information is sent by the dashboard 232 (FIG. 2) and received by the CDSP engine 230 (FIG. 2) at 302; (38) Next, at 304, the data collector 226 (FIG. 2) collects the specified data from the target pipeline nodes. According to at least one embodiment, the CDSP engine 230 (FIG. 2) forwards the user-specified data to be collected and target node information received from the dashboard 232 (FIG. 2) at 302 to the data collector 226 (FIG. 2).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Iyer et al in the systems of Botti 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.
As per claim 4, Botti et al discloses:
adding said information relating to said at least one development environment in
said at least one corresponding entry of the digital passport, (Abstract “The system and methods determines and attaches metadata describing the development environment to an application, then uses that metadata to select a deployment model, and to select an operational model”).
As per claim 5, Botti et al discloses:
further comprising, in response to a determination that the obtained information relating to at least one development environment corresponds to a new development environment not listed in the digital passport: creating a new entry corresponding to this new environment in said digital passport, ([0044] The processes described herein of FIGS. 2E-2F may be iterative in the sense that one deployment host model may be selected, and if decided that the risk threshold cannot be met, implement the methods of FIG. 2E to add controls and de-rate the DRI value for that host environment. Then, if determined that the de-rated DRI Value does not meet the RTV needs, then perform the method of FIG. 2F to employ another deployment host environment, and if necessary, return to further implement the methods of FIG. 2E to add additional controls for de-rating the DRI value for the application running on the new deployment host environment).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botti et al (US 20160092185 A1), and further in view of Chang et al (US 5724425 A), and further in view of FIEAU (EP 4364387 B1).
As per claim 8, Botti et al does not disclose the following, however, FIEAU discloses:
transmitting said digest to at least one node contributing to a shared register, (FIEAU: The general principle of the invention is based on the sharing of the delivery of content to a user terminal, such as a mobile terminal or a connected television, between a plurality of nodes belonging or not to the same content distribution network and on the validation, by consensus between different nodes involved in this delivery, of the conditions under which this delivery was carried out. In order to best manage this shared delivery of the content, in a particular embodiment, a shared register is set up between the different nodes involved in the delivery of the requested content to the user terminal. This shared register makes it possible to share the conditions of delivery of the content by sharing telemetry data values expected for the links established between the different nodes concerned and the user terminal according to the transmission capacities of these links and the service provision required by the user of the user terminal. The shared register also allows the validation, or acknowledgment, by consensus of the delivery of the content which can then trigger the execution of transactions for the benefit of the different nodes according to compliance with the values of the telemetry data negotiated beforehand. This allows the various parties involved in the delivery of the content to verify, at any time, the authenticity and integrity of the actions carried out in the context of the delivery of the content and, by way of fact, to ensure that the delivery has taken place in accordance with the conditions established between the user terminal and the various nodes capable of providing the requested content).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Botti et al in the systems of Botti 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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botti et al (US 20160092185 A1), and further in view of Chang et al (US 5724425 A), and further in view of FIEAU (EP 4364387 B1), and further in view of BARRY et al (US 20190238430 A1).
As per claim 9, Botti et al does not disclose the following, however, BARRY et al discloses:
wherein an indicator relating to at least one of said information relating to at least one development environment is associated with said digest prior to said transmission, (BARRY et al (US 20190238430 A1) Claim 1: “computing, by the processor, a hash over the selected subset of the invariant fields for each packet; associating, by the processor, metadata with the computed hash for each packet; and transmitting, by the observation point, the hash and associated metadata to a network analytics system.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by BARRY et al in the systems of Botti 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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botti et al (US 20160092185 A1), and further in view of Chang et al (US 5724425 A), and further in view of FIEAU (EP 4364387 B1), and further in view of BARRY et al (US 20190238430 A1), and further in view of Archer et al (US 20120204041 A1).
As per claim 10, Botti et al does not disclose the following, however, Archer et al discloses,
further comprising: determining an indicator representative of energy consumption relating to the development of the application by means of at least one of said information relating to at least one development environment, (Archer et al: Abstract: “identifying a hardware power consumption profile for the compute node, the hardware power consumption profile specifying power consumption for compute node hardware during performance of various processing operations... determining a power consumption profile for the application in dependence upon the application and the hardware power consumption profile for the compute node);
said indicator representative of energy consumption being stored in said at least one corresponding entry, (Archer et al: [0040] The power consumption profile (144) of FIG. 1 for the application (200) is a data structure that associates power consumption with particular portions of the application (200). As mentioned above, different portions of an application may utilize compute node hardware in different ways, thereby resulting in different levels of power consumption based on the application portion being executed. Power consumption for compute node hardware may be specified in units of Watts, some other units of power, or in the units of some other quantity having a known relationship to power such as, for example, energy, CPU cycles, and so on. The values used to represent power consumption in the power consumption profile (144) may be actual measured values or estimated values based on measured values; [0073] The method of FIG. 6 includes reporting (620) the power consumption profile (144) for the application (200). Reporting (620) the power consumption profile (144) for the application (200) according to the method of FIG. 6 may be carried out by rendering the power consumption profile (144) on a user interface to a system administrator, transmitting the power consumption profile (144) to a system administrator in a message, or storing the power consumption profile (144) in data storage and notifying a system administrator of the profile's data storage location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the above limitations as taught by Archer et al in the systems of Botti 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.
Prior Art Considered
The following art has been considered by Examiner, however has not been used in the current Office Action:
Thompson (US 12231460 B2)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akiba Robinson whose telephone number is 571-272-6734 and email is Akiba.Robinsonboyce@USPTO.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 6:30am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Nathan Uber can be reached on 571-270-3923. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (703) 305-3900.
September 22, 2026
/AKIBA K ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights