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 communications filed on 6/16/2025.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,360,880 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
i) All of the limitations of claims 1-9 may be derived from the text of claim 1 in U.S. Patent No. 12,360,880 B2.
ii) The limitations of claims 10-19 are derivable from the text of claims 2-10 in U.S. Patent No. 12,360,880 B2.
Claims 1-9, 11-17, and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,082 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
i) All of the limitations of claims 1-9 may be derived from the text of claim 1 of US Patent No. 12,026,082 B2.
ii) The limitations of claims 11-17, and 19 may be derived from the text of claims 1-7 and 10 of US Patent No. 12,026,082 B2.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,082 B2 in view of Git ("Recording Changes to your Repository", git-scm.com, Jan 10, 2021).
Regarding claim 10, the limitations invoke, by reference, the limitations of claim 1. Claim 1 may be rejected over claim 10 of US Patent No. 12,026,082 B2.
US Patent No. 12,026,082 B2 further discloses upon receipt of data indicating successful completion of the quality assurance framework, automatically and electronically merging the changed code into the existing IaC source code (Claim 10, "following receipt of data indicating successful completion of the quality assurance framework, automatically merge the changed code into the existing IaC source code stored at the one or more IaC source code repositories");
generating a failure notification where the quality assurance framework associated with the respective one of the pull requests is not successfully passed (Claim 13, "system of claim 10 wherein: said one or more electronic storage devices comprise additional software instructions, which when executed, configure the one or more processors to, as part of the quality assurance framework, generate a failure notification where any one or more of the modules of the quality assurance framework associated with the respective one of the pull requests is not successfully passed"); and
transmitting the respective one of the failure notifications to a user device from which the respective one of the pull requests is indicated as originating, wherein each of said failure notifications comprise an indication of which portion of said quality assurance framework was not successfully passed for said respective one of said pull requests (Claim 14, "system of claim 13 wherein: said one or more electronic storage devices comprise additional software instructions, which when executed, configure the one or more processors to, where a one of the failure notifications is generated, transmit the respective one of the failure notifications to at least a respective one of the user devices associated with the respective one of the pull requests").
Claims 10 and 13-14 of US Patent No. 12,026,082 B2 do not disclose creating a new working code area within said a source code repository for temporary storage of said changed code for each of said pull requests.
Gitt discloses creating a new working code area within said a source code repository for temporary storage of said changed code for each of said pull requests ("At this point, you should have a bona fide Git repository on your local machine, and a checkout or working copy of all of its files in front of you. Typically, you’ll want to start making changes and committing snapshots of those changes into your repository each time the project reaches a state you want to record" (page 4-5, section 2.2), Fig. 1, which shows a workflow including removing the file after staging, and page 12, "Removing Files [...] simply remove the file from your working directory").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify US Patent No. 12,026,082 B2 in view of Git for creating a new working code area within said a source code repository for temporary storage of said changed code for each of said pull requests.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would enable developers to test and make modifications, if necessary, to the code prior to committing the snapshots to the repository.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,082 B2 in view of Bunciak et al. (US 20230132560 A1, hereinafter Bunciak), and further in view of Carranza et al. (US 20190324727 A1, hereinafter Carranza), Rajora ("Git Tags", toolsqa.com, July 7, 2021) and Levedahl ("git-bundle(1) - Linux man page", linux.die.net, 8/28/2016), and Levedahl ("git-bundle(1) - Linux man page", linux.die.net, 8/28/2016).
Regarding claim 18, the limitations invoke, by reference, the limitations of claim 1. Claim 1 may be rejected over claim 10 of US Patent No. 12,026,082 B2.
US Patent No. 12,026,082 B2 further discloses a branch naming standards module which compares branch names used against a database of predetermined, acceptable naming standards (Claim 11, "The system of claim 10 wherein: said naming and documentation check module comprises a branch naming standards module configured to compare branch names used against a database of predetermined, acceptable naming standards and"); and
a documentation check module which verifies that modifications have been made to a change log file (Claim 11, "a documentation check module configured to verify that modifications have been made to a change log file");
said coding standards check module comprises: a parameter syntax check module which verifies that variable types and descriptions are provided (Claim 11, "said coding standards check module comprises a parameter syntax check module configured to verify that variable types and descriptions are provided"); and
a provider syntax check module which verifies that specific provider configuration fields are provided (Claim 11, "a provider syntax check module configured to verify that specific provider configuration fields are provided");
said test case and security check module comprises: a predefined test cases module which applies a predefined test case simulating deployment or use to the changed code (Claim 11, "said test case and security check module comprises a predefined test cases module configured to apply one or more predefined test cases simulating deployment or use to the changed code"); and
a security check module which verifies that certain predetermined, recommended security configurations are utilized in the changed code (Claim 11, "a security check module configured to verify that certain predetermined, recommended security configurations are utilized in the changed code");
Claim 11 of US Patent No. 12,026,082 B2 does not disclose that the infrastructure validations module comprises a day zero infrastructure comparison module which compares the changed code against a prior version of the existing IaC source code values provided by a user; and the coding standards and compliance check module comprises: a lifecycle check module which verifies that an up-to-date tag is provided with the changed code; a parameter value check module which verifies that certain predetermined disaster recommendations are followed; and a provider syntax check module which compares the changed code against a database of acceptable syntax.
Bunciak discloses an infrastructure validations module comprises a day zero infrastructure comparison module which compares the changed code against a prior version of the existing IaC source code values provided by a user (¶[0038], "The computing device 55 inputs contents of the deployment code 32-1 PR1 into the MLM 52 that has been trained using a plurality of previously generated deployment codes 32 that identified corresponding desired deployments of corresponding computer applications, and information, such as the action results 44 and the log files 42 that identify successes or failures associated with attempted deployments of the previously generated deployment codes 32 (FIG. 3, block 2002). The computing device 55 receives an output from the MLM 52 (FIG. 3, block 2004). Based on the output from the MLM 52, the computing device 55 sends, to a destination, information indicative of a likelihood of success of deploying the deployment code").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify US Patent No. 12,026,082 B2 in view of Bunciak so that the infrastructure validations module comprises a day zero infrastructure comparison module which compares the changed code against a prior version of the existing IaC source code values provided by a user.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would prevent a failed deployment from occurring by warning the user before the deployment of the code.
The combined system of US Patent No. 12,026,082 B2 and Bunciak does not disclose the coding standards and compliance check module comprises: a lifecycle check module which verifies that an up-to-date tag is provided with the changed code; a parameter value check module which verifies that certain predetermined disaster recommendations are followed; and a provider syntax check module which compares the changed code against a database of acceptable syntax.
Carranza discloses that the coding standards and compliance check module comprises: a provider syntax check module which compares the changed code against a database of acceptable syntax (¶[0023], "the acronym “PTV” refers to a data structure (e.g., a vector, etc.) that indicates the parameters types (e.g., integer, floating point number, etc.) of the inputs of a function"; ¶[0059], "error comparator 212 determines the reconstruction error of the selected function based on the predicted PTV and the determined PTV. For example, the error comparator 212 can calculate the Euclidean distance between the predicted PTV (e.g., as determined by the PTV estimator model 210 at block 508, etc.) and the PTV determiner 208").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system of US Patent No. 12,026,082 B2 and Bunciak in view of Carranza so that the coding standards and compliance check module comprises: a provider syntax check module which compares the changed code against a database of acceptable syntax.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because a "thorough and iterative code review process can help ensure quality software" (Carranza, ¶[0003]).
The combined system of US Patent No. 12,026,082 B2, Bunciak, and Carranza does not disclose that the coding standards and compliance check module comprises: a lifecycle check module which verifies that an up-to-date tag is provided with the changed code; a parameter value check module which verifies that certain predetermined disaster recommendations are followed.
Rajora discloses that a coding standards and compliance check module comprises: a lifecycle check module configured to verify that an up-to-date tag is provided with the changed code (page 1, second paragraph, "A tag has a similar meaning in Git and GitHub. Tags help in identifying different commits that are important enough to be recognized or be noticed. For example, tagging a commit with release version 3.0 means that commit was the final commit before the launch of the 3.0 version of the software"; page 2, bullet 5, "Now you can check yourself by executing git log --oneline command that the tag creation is successful").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system of US Patent No. 12,026,082 B2, Bunciak, and Carranza in view of Rajora so that the coding standards and compliance check module comprises: a lifecycle check module configured to verify that an up-to-date tag is provided with the changed code.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because "Tags help in identifying different commits that are important enough to be recognized or be noticed" (Rajora, page 1, second paragraph).
The combined system of US Patent No. 12,026,082 B2, Bunciak, Carranza, and Rajora does not disclose that the coding standards and compliance check module comprises: a parameter value check module which verifies that certain predetermined disaster recommendations are followed.
Levedahl discloses a parameter value check module configured to verify that disaster recommendations are followed (page 1, description, "Some workflows require that one or more branches of development on one machine be replicated on another machine […] This command provides support for git fetch and git pull to operate by packaging objects and references in an archive at the originating machine, then importing those into another repository using git fetch and git pull after moving the archive by some means (e.g., by sneakernet)"; page 2, options, "verify <file> Used to check that a bundle file is valid and will apply cleanly to the current repository. This includes checks on the bundle format itself as well as checking that the prerequisite commits exist and are fully linked in the current repository. git bundle prints a list of missing commits, if any, and exits with a non-zero status" - note that using git-bundle is a recommendation for disaster recovery, see VonC et al. ("Backup a GitHub repository", stackoverflow.com, 2009, page 1, in the answer, "you could check out git bundle")).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system of US Patent No. 12,026,082 B2, Bunciak, Carranza, and Rajora in view of Levedahl so that the coding standards and compliance check module comprises: a parameter value check module configured to verify that disaster recommendations are followed.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would prevent data loss.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable by overcoming all double patenting rejections set forth above. In particular, the prior art of record fails to teach or disclose, neither singly nor in combination, the claimed limitations of “where a determination is made that said pull request is associated with the service enablement team member, electronically and automatically apply a service enablement team member specific quality assurance framework to the changed code comprising a first plurality of modules; and where the determination is made that said pull request is associated with the applications development team member, electronically and automatically apply an applications development team member specific quality assurance framework to the changed code comprising a second plurality of modules; wherein at least one of the first plurality of modules is different from all of the second plurality of modules” as recited in claim 1, and similarly stated in claim 19. These limitations, in conjunction with other limitations in the independent claim, are not specifically disclosed or remotely suggested in the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS whose telephone number is (571)272-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30AM to 6:30PM 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, Jorge L Ortiz-Criado can be reached at 571-272-7624. 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.
/BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2496
