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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This responds to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed 07/07/2026. Claims 1, 9, 11, 17 have been amended. Claims 1-24 are now pending in this Application.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The claims rejection under 35 USC § 101 is therefore maintained.
As discussed in the previous Office Action, the claims are directed to mental process, certain methods of organizing human activity or mathematical concept. The additional claim elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they are merely “receiving a build request, analyzing metadata and determining compliance and no-compliance with the validation criterion”. Furthermore, the additional elements considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 USC § 101 is therefore maintained.
Claim Interpretation
The claimed function is computer implemented. For a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the corresponding structure must include an algorithm or other sufficient structure disclosed in the specification for performing the claimed function. A general-purpose processor alone is not sufficient corresponding structure. Because the specification does not disclose an adequate algorithm linked to the claimed function, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Lee and Rosenberg do not disclose “upon determining non-compliance with the validation criterion, terminating the build request”.
In response to Applicant argument, the Examiner submits that Rosenberg discloses “Upon receiving the instruction and confirmation, the system may be configured to validate whether certain condition and rules in the policy have been satisfied to allow an action … If the system determines that the policy has not been satisfied, the system may deny and/or restrict one or more actions that a user may wish to perform on (Col 8 lines 60-67 through col 9 lines 1-6).
In combination Lee and Rosenberg disclose all independent claims.
Therefore, the examiner respectfully maintained the rejection.
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 1-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1, 9 and 17 appears to be directed to an abstract idea without reciting additional limitations that tie it to a practical application or without reciting additional limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. One can mentally generate graph with nodes for spaces in a building as well as assets that are contained within those spaces. Then one can also mentally associate and classify senor readings and generate relationships between spaces, assets and sensors. The additional limitations are receiving data. These additional limitations are mere data gathering which are insignificant extra solution activities under step 2A prong II and well understood routine and conventional under step 2B (For Berkhiemer See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) Versata.)
Step 2A, Prong One:
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 are directed to Method for Real-Time Collaboration and Code Design and Maintenance in Software Development.
Receiving a build request to build a program from one or more stored code files from a build user, the one or more stored code files being defined as build code files; retrieving the build code files from a code repository; retrieving a stored meta-file associated with the build code files; analyzing metadata content comprised by the stored meta-file to identify a validation criterion;
[0105] Referring to FIG. 28, an illustration of shadow file with parent folder, is described in more detail. The CatchUp code collaboration tools are integrated with environments that software engineers are comfortable with, such as Git, GitHub, GitLab, BitBucket, VCS, Perforce, and Visual Studio. For each code folder and file 3014, there is a shadow folder and shadow file 3000, along with optional versions merged or abstracted into the shadow file. The shadow folder and file 3000 will be linked logically 3022 (and/or physically) to the original folder and code file 3014. The CatchUp code collaboration tools (including GlassViewer for Code) open the shadow files when the original code file is clicked upon, and store any comments and notes 3008, 3010, 3012 entered by users, by timestamp and by lines of code referenced. As the code file is changed 3024, e.g. originating with a first version of the code 3016, a second version of the code 3018, and a third version of the code 3018, at least one of the new code and the entire file is appended to the shadow code file along with timestamps, such that the shadow code file will comprise a first plurality of lines of code 3002, a second plurality of lines of code 3004, and a third plurality of lines of code 3006 that each correspond to the versions of the code 3016, 3018, 3020 comprised by the code file 3014. The appending to the shadow code file can be done based on a time interval, a code size duration, upon manual triggering by the user, and by any other method or criteria condition as may be known in the art. For example, the new version of the code file 3018, 3020 could be appended to the shadow file 3004, 3006 for that code file every 7 days or 15 days, assuming certain conditions of change occur. Types of change conditions include, but are not limited to, changes to a threshold proportion of the code file, changes to a threshold number of lines of code comprised by the code file, elapsing of a length of time, creation of a new version of the code file, and combinations thereof. There may be no need to append a file that has not changed, for example. Comments are attached to certain lines in certain versions of the code file embedded in the shadow file.
determining at least one of compliance and non-compliance with the validation criterion upon determining non-compliance with the validation criterion. As such, this step can be performed mentally.
[0135] The CI integration module 4616 integrates with the CI pipeline, analyzing meta-file data during builds to ensure adherence to architectural principles and maintain code quality. The CI integration module 4616 analyzes the meta-file data during the build process, performing checks and validations based on the documented design decisions, 40 architectural guidelines, and other metadata. This includes verifying that the implemented code aligns with the specified strategic decisions, follows the defined product roadmap, and complies with performance, security, and other non-functional requirements documented in the meta-files. Such compliance may be summarized as compliance with a validation criterion. If any deviations, violations, or other indications of non-compliance with the validation criterion are detected, the CI integration module 4616 can generate alerts, fail the build, and/or trigger additional review processes, depending on specific quality assurance practices. Additionally, the CI integration module 4616 can generate reports and metrics based on the meta-file data, providing insights into design decision adherence and architectural compliance over time.
Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B
Use of processors to receive a request, retrieving file, analyzing metadata, determining compliance and non-compliance would constitute use of a generic computer used as tool to implement the abstract idea discussed above.
The step of receiving data associated with a building constitutes an insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gather, see MPEP 2106.05(g)
i. Performing clinical tests on individuals to obtain input for an equation, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 839-40; 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1827-28 (Fed. Cir. 1989);
There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they depend from independent claims 1, 9 and 17. Which is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The additional limitation of claims 2, 10, 18 “receiving a request, retrieving the requested code file, retrieving a requested meta-file, providing code content of the requested code”, claims 3, 11, 19 “identifying a user role, comparing a user access privilege associated with the user, providing the requesting user with access to the code content of the request”, claims 4, 12, 20 “generating a composite file comprising metadata content, providing the composite to the user”, claims 5, 12, 21 “providing the code content of the requested code file and metadata content… the requested meta-file for display by a user program being one of an integrated development environment and a code editor”, claims 6, 14, 22 “generating a report and a metric responsive to determining a compliance and non-compliance with the validation criterion”, claims 7, 23 providing metadata content of the store meta-file to a neural network trained to identify a validation criterion, receiving a validation criterion from the neural network”, claims 8, 16, 24 “providing generative AI software associated with the build user”, claim 15 “execute software for an AI, analyze metadata content comprised by the store meta-file , validation criterion”. The dependent claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not add significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim as a whole merely performs mental process and organizing human activity on a computer which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly claims 1-24 are found to be directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims 17-24 in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) 1-2, 4-6, 9-10, 12-14, 17-18, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (U.S. Patent No. 9,483,259), and in view of Rosenberg (U.S. Patent No. 10,541,999).
As per claim 1, Lee discloses a method of facilitating code development comprising:
receiving a build request to build a program from one or more stored code files from a build user, the one or more stored code files being defined as build code files (Col 13 lines 57-65);
retrieving the build code files from a code repository; retrieving a stored meta-file associated with the build code files (Col 6 lines 41-67, col 8 lines 53-67).
Lee discloses rule but does not explicitly disclose analyzing metadata content comprised by the stored meta-file to identify a validation criterion being at least one of a design decision, an architectural guideline, a product roadmap, a performance requirement, a security requirement, or a non-functional requirement; determining at least one of compliance and non-compliance with the validation criterion by analyzing the build code files; upon determining compliance with the validation criterion, building the program responsive to the build request; and upon determining non-compliance with the validation criterion, at least one of: transmitting an alert to the build user; terminating the build request; and triggering a review process.
However, Rosenberg discloses analyzing metadata content comprised by the stored meta-file to identify a validation criterion being at least one of a design decision, an architectural guideline, a product roadmap, a performance requirement, a security requirement, or a non-functional requirement (Col 3 lines 59-67 through col 4 lines 1-8, col 8 lines 60-67 though col 9 lines 1-10);
determining at least one of compliance and non-compliance with the validation criterion by analyzing the build code files; upon determining compliance with the validation criterion, building the program responsive to the build request; and upon determining non-compliance with the validation criterion, at least one of: transmitting an alert to the build user; terminating the build request; and triggering a review process (Col 8 lines 60-67 though col 9 lines 1-10, col 32 lines 13-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the features as disclosed in Rosenberg into the teaching of Lee in order to provide an authorized request (Col 2 lines 28-30).
As per claim 2, Lee discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: receiving a request to view a requested code file from a requesting user; retrieving the requested code file from a code repository; retrieving a requested meta-file associated with the requested code file from a metadata storage; and providing at least one of code content of the requested code file and metadata content comprised by the requested meta-file to the requesting user (Col 2 lines 29-60).
Lee does not explicitly disclose metadata. However, Rosenberg discloses metadata (Col 20 lines 59-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the features as disclosed in Rosenberg into the teaching of Lee in order to provide an authorized request (Col 2 lines 28-30).
As per claim 4, Lee discloses the method of claim 2 wherein providing at least one of the code content of the requested code file and metadata content comprised by the requested meta-file to the requesting user comprises: generating a composite file comprising metadata content comprised by the stored meta-file and the code content comprised by the requested code file; and providing the composite file to the user (Col 2 lines 29-30).
Lee does not explicitly disclose metadata. However, Rosenberg discloses metadata (Col 20 lines 59-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the features as disclosed in Rosenberg into the teaching of Lee in order to provide an authorized request (Col 2 lines 28-30).
As per claim 5, Lee discloses the method of claim 2 wherein providing at least one of the code content of the requested code file and metadata content comprised by the requested meta-file to the requesting user comprises providing metadata content comprised by the requested meta-file for display by a user program being one of an integrated development environment and a code editor (Col 3 lines 63-67 to col 4 lines 1-19).
Lee does not explicitly disclose metadata. However, Rosenberg discloses metadata (Col 20 lines 59-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the features as disclosed in Rosenberg into the teaching of Lee in order to provide an authorized request (Col 2 lines 28-30).
As per claim 6, Rosenberg discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising generating at least one of a report and at least one metric responsive to determining at least one of compliance and non-compliance with the validation criterion (Col 8 lines 60-67 though col 9 lines 1-10, col 32 lines 13-41).
As per claim 9, Lee discloses a system for facilitating code development comprising:
a code repository comprising a plurality of stored code files (Col 1 lines 38-67);
a processor configured to execute software to: receive a build request to build a program from one or more stored code files from a build user, the one or more stored code files being defined as build code files (Col 13 lines 57-65);
retrieve the build code files from the code repository; retrieve a stored meta-file associated with the build code files (Col 6 lines 41-67, col 8 lines 53-67);
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium positioned in communication with the processor and having stored thereon executable software that is executable by the processor (Col 3 lines32-38).
Lee does not explicitly disclose a metadata storage repository comprising stored metadata; analyze metadata content comprised by the stored meta-file to identify a validation criterion being at least one of a design decision, an architectural guideline, a product roadmap, a performance requirement, a security requirement, or a non-functional requirement; determine at least one of compliance and non-compliance with the validation criterion by analyzing the build code files; upon determining compliance with the validation criterion, build the program responsive to the build request; and upon determining non-compliance with the validation criterion, at least one of: transmit an alert to the build user; terminate the build request; and trigger a review process.
However, Rosenberg discloses a metadata storage repository comprising stored metadata; analyze metadata content comprised by the stored meta-file to identify a validation criterion being at least one of a design decision, an architectural guideline, a product roadmap, a performance requirement, a security requirement, or a non-functional requirement (Col 3 lines 59-67 through col 4 lines 1-8, col 8 lines 60-67 though col 9 lines 1-10);
determining at least one of compliance and non-compliance with the validation criterion by analyzing the build code files; upon determining compliance with the validation criterion, building the program responsive to the build request; and upon determining non-compliance with the validation criterion, at least one of: transmitting an alert to the build user; terminating the build request; and triggering a review process (Col 8 lines 60-67 though col 9 lines 1-10, col 32 lines 13-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the features as disclosed in Rosenberg into the teaching of Lee in order to provide an authorized request (Col 2 lines 28-30).
As per claim 10, Lee discloses the system of claim 9 further wherein the processor is further configured receive a request to view a requested code file from a requesting user; retrieve the requested code file from the code repository; retrieve a requested meta-file associated with the requested code file from the metadata storage; and provide at least one of code content of the requested code file and metadata content comprised by the requested meta-file to the requesting user (Col 2 lines 29-60).
Lee does not explicitly disclose metadata. However, Rosenberg discloses metadata (Col 20 lines 59-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the features as disclosed in Rosenberg into the teaching of Lee in order to provide an authorized request (Col 2 lines 28-30).
As per claim 12, Lee discloses the system of claim 10 wherein the processor is configured to execute software configured to provide at least one of the code content of the requested code file and metadata content comprised by the requested meta-file to the requesting user by: generating a composite file comprising metadata content comprised by the stored meta-file and the code content comprised by the requested code file; and providing the composite file to the user (Col 2 lines 29-60).
Lee does not explicitly disclose metadata. However, Rosenberg discloses metadata (Col 20 lines 59-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the features as disclosed in Rosenberg into the teaching of Lee in order to provide an authorized request (Col 2 lines 28-30).
As per claim 13, Lee discloses the system of claim 10 wherein the processor is further configured to execute code for an integrated development environment (IDE) integration module configured to provide at least one of code content of the requested code file and metadata content comprised by the requested meta-file to the requesting user by providing metadata content comprised by the requested meta-file for display by a user program being one of an integrated development environment and a code editor (Col 3 lines 63-67 to col 4 lines 1-19).
Lee does not explicitly disclose metadata. However, Rosenberg discloses metadata (Col 20 lines 59-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the features as disclosed in Rosenberg into the teaching of Lee in order to provide an authorized request (Col 2 lines 28-30).
As per claim 14, Rosenberg discloses the system of claim 9 wherein the processor is further configured to execute software configured to generate at least one of a report and at least one metric responsive to determining at least one of compliance and non-compliance with the validation criterion (Col 8 lines 60-67 though col 9 lines 1-10, col 32 lines 13-41).
As per claim 17, Lee discloses a system for facilitating code development comprising:
means for receiving a build request to build a program from one or more stored code files from a build user, the one or more stored code files being defined as build code files (Col 13 lines 57-65);
means for retrieving the build code files from a code repository; means for retrieving a stored meta-file associated with the build code files (Col 6 lines 41-67, col 8 lines 53-67).
Lee discloses rule but does not explicitly disclose means for analyzing metadata content comprised by the stored meta-file to identify a validation criterion being at least one of a design decision, an architectural guideline, a product roadmap, a performance requirement, a security requirement, or a non-functional requirement; means for determining at least one of compliance and non-compliance with the validation criterion by analyzing the build code files; means for, upon determining compliance with the validation criterion, building the program responsive to the build request; and means for, upon determining non-compliance with the validation criterion, at least one of: transmitting an alert to the build user; terminating the build request; and triggering a review process.
However, Rosenberg discloses means for analyzing metadata content comprised by the stored meta-file to identify a validation criterion being at least one of a design decision, an architectural guideline, a product roadmap, a performance requirement, a security requirement, or a non-functional requirement; means for determining at least one of compliance and non-compliance with the validation criterion by analyzing the build code files (Col 3 lines 59-67 through col 4 lines 1-8, col 8 lines 60-67 though col 9 lines 1-10);
means for, upon determining compliance with the validation criterion, building the program responsive to the build request; and means for, upon determining non-compliance with the validation criterion, at least one of: transmitting an alert to the build user; terminating the build request; and triggering a review process (Col 8 lines 60-67 though col 9 lines 1-10, col 32 lines 13-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the features as disclosed in Rosenberg into the teaching of Lee in order to provide an authorized request (Col 2 lines 28-30).
As per claim 18, Lee discloses the system of claim 17 further comprising: means for receiving a request to view a requested code file from a requesting user; means for retrieving the requested code file from a code repository; means for retrieving a requested meta-file associated with the requested code file from a metadata storage; and means for providing at least one of code content of the requested code file and metadata content comprised by the requested meta-file to the requesting user (Col 2 lines 29-60).
Lee does not explicitly disclose metadata. However, Rosenberg discloses metadata (Col 20 lines 59-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the features as disclosed in Rosenberg into the teaching of Lee in order to provide an authorized request (Col 2 lines 28-30).
As per claim 20, Lee discloses the system of claim 18 wherein means for providing at least one of the code content of the requested code file and metadata content comprised by the requested meta-file to the requesting user is further configured to: generate a composite file comprising metadata content comprised by the stored meta-file and the code content comprised by the requested code file; and provide the composite file to the user (Col 2 lines 29-60).
Lee does not explicitly disclose metadata. However, Rosenberg discloses metadata (Col 20 lines 59-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the features as disclosed in Rosenberg into the teaching of Lee in order to provide an authorized request (Col 2 lines 28-30).
As per claim 21, Lee discloses the system of claim 18 wherein the means for providing at least one of the code content of the requested code file and metadata content comprised by the requested meta-file to the requesting user is further configured to provide metadata content comprised by the requested meta-file for display by a user program being one of an integrated development environment and a code editor (Col 3 lines 63-67 to col 4 lines 1-19).
Lee does not explicitly disclose metadata. However, Rosenberg discloses metadata (Col 20 lines 59-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the features as disclosed in Rosenberg into the teaching of Lee in order to provide an authorized request (Col 2 lines 28-30).
As per claim 22, Rosenberg discloses the system of claim 17 further comprising means for generating at least one of a report and at least one metric responsive to determining at least one of compliance and non-compliance with the validation criterion (Col 8 lines 60-67 though col 9 lines 1-10, col 32 lines 13-41).
Claim(s) 3, 11, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, and Rosenberg, and further in view of Roberson (U.S. Pub No. 2005/0108526 A1).
As per claim 3, Lee and Rosenberg do not explicitly disclose the method of claim 2 wherein the stored meta-file further comprises an access privilege profile, the method further comprising: identifying a user role associated with the requesting user; comparing a user access privilege associated with the user role to the access privilege profile associated with the requested meta-file; and providing the requesting user with access to the at least one of the code content of the requested code file and metadata content comprised by the requested meta-file to the user responsive to comparing the user access privilege to the access privilege profile.
However, Roberson discloses wherein the stored meta-file further comprises an access privilege profile, the method further comprising: identifying a user role associated with the requesting user; comparing a user access privilege associated with the user role to the access privilege profile associated with the requested meta-file; and providing the requesting user with access to the at least one of the code content of the requested code file and metadata content comprised by the requested meta-file to the user responsive to comparing the user access privilege to the access privilege profile (Par [0021, 0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the feature as disclosed in Robertson into the teaching of Lee as modified by Rosenberg in order to provide access control to data source (Par [0002]).
As per claim 11, Lee and Rosenberg do not explicitly disclose the system of claim 10 wherein the processor is further configured to execute software for an access privilege profile module configured to: identify a user role associated with the requesting user; compare a user access privilege associated with the user role to the access privilege profile associated with the requested meta-file; and provide authorization for the requesting user to access at least one of the code content of the requested code file and metadata content comprised by the requested meta-file to the user responsive to comparing the user access privilege to the access privilege profile.
However, Roberson discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute software for an access privilege profile module configured to: identify a user role associated with the requesting user; compare a user access privilege associated with the user role to the access privilege profile associated with the requested meta-file; and provide authorization for the requesting user to access at least one of the code content of the requested code file and metadata content comprised by the requested meta-file to the user responsive to comparing the user access privilege to the access privilege profile (Par [0021, 0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the feature as disclosed in Robertson into the teaching of Lee as modified by Rosenberg in order to provide access control to data source (Par [0002]).
As per claim 19, Lee and Rosenberg do not explicitly disclose the system of claim 18 wherein the stored meta-file further comprises an access privilege profile, the system further comprising: means for identifying a user role associated with the requesting user; means for comparing a user access privilege associated with the user role to the access privilege profile associated with the requested meta-file; and means for providing the requesting user with access to the at least one of the code content of the requested code file and metadata content comprised by the requested meta-file to the user responsive to comparing the user access privilege to the access privilege profile.
However, Roberson discloses wherein the stored meta-file further comprises an access privilege profile, the system further comprising: means for identifying a user role associated with the requesting user; means for comparing a user access privilege associated with the user role to the access privilege profile associated with the requested meta-file; and means for providing the requesting user with access to the at least one of the code content of the requested code file and metadata content comprised by the requested meta-file to the user responsive to comparing the user access privilege to the access privilege profile (Par [0021, 0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the feature as disclosed in Robertson into the teaching of Lee as modified by Rosenberg in order to provide access control to data source (Par [0002]).
Claim(s) 7-8, 15-16, 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al, and Rosenberg, and further in view of Makkar et al (U.S. Pub No. 2019/0079752 A1).
As per claim 7, Rosenberg discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: The method of claim 1 further comprising identifying a validation criterion (Col 3 lines 59-67 through col 4 lines 1-8, col 8 lines 60-67 though col 9 lines 1-10).
Lee and Rosenberg do not explicitly disclose providing metadata content of the stored meta-file to a neural network trained to identify a validation criterion; and receiving a validation criterion from the neural network.
However, Makkar discloses providing metadata content of the stored meta-file to a neural network trained to identify a validation criterion; and receiving a validation criterion from the neural network (Par [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the feature as disclosed in Makkar into the teaching of Lee as modified by Rosenberg in order to improve system (Par [0003]).
As per claim 8, Makkar discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising providing the validation criterion to a code-generating generative artificial intelligence software associated with the build user (Par [0067]).
As per claim 15, Rosenberg discloses analyze metadata content comprised by the stored meta-file to identify the validation criterion, the validation criterion being at least one a design decision, an architectural guideline, a product roadmap, a performance requirement, a security requirement, or a non-functional requirement (Col 3 lines 59-67 through col 4 lines 1-8, col 8 lines 60-67 though col 9 lines 1-10).
Lee and Rosenberg do not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to execute software for an artificial intelligence (AI) integration module configured to analyze metadata.
However, Makkar discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute software for an artificial intelligence (AI) integration module configured to analyze metadata (Par [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the feature as disclosed in Makkar into the teaching of Lee as modified by Rosenberg in order to improve system (Par [0003]).
As per claim 16, Makkar discloses the system of claim 15 wherein the processor is further configured to execute software configured to provide the validation criterion to a code-generating generative AI software associated with the build user (Par [0067]).
As per claim 23, Rosenberg discloses the system of claim 17 further comprising means for identifying a validation criterion configured to (Col 3 lines 59-67 through col 4 lines 1-8, col 8 lines 60-67 though col 9 lines 1-10).
Lee and Rosenberg do not explicitly disclose providing metadata content of the stored meta-file to a neural network trained to identify a validation criterion; and receiving a validation criterion from the neural network.
However, Makkar discloses providing metadata content of the stored meta-file to a neural network trained to identify a validation criterion; and receiving a validation criterion from the neural network (Par [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the feature as disclosed in Makkar into the teaching of Lee as modified by Rosenberg in order to improve system (Par [0003]).
As per claim 24, Rosenberg discloses the system of claim 17 further comprising means for providing the validation criterion to a code-generating generative artificial intelligence software associated with the build user (par [0067]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THU N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-272-5626. 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.
July 29, 2026
/THU N NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights