DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed May 14, 2025.
Claims 1,3-14 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 14, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, applicant’s arguments regarding the rejections under §§101 each argue that the amendments to the claims overcome the rejection generally. As set forth in the grounds of rejection in this office action the claims remain rejected on the basis set forth in detail herein.
Specifically, Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-10 of the Remarks regarding the §101 rejections are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claim “improves the function of the computer itself” is not persuasive, because the claims as cited recite an impermissible abstract idea of a set of mathematical calculations recognized in §101 jurisprudence as a Judicial Exception under Prong 1 of step 2A of the §101 analysis. See MPEP §§2016.04(II)(A)(1). Further applicant’s argument that it “improves the functioning of the computer itself” is not persuasive, as described in the rejection, the claim does not integrate the mathematical calculations into a practical application, but instead recites the generic use of computing elements to carry out the mathematical calculations without imposing any meaningful limits. See MPEP §§2016.04(a)(2)(I); 2016.05(a)(I).
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 1-14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method for “…derivation of attributes of software engineering artifacts” reciting steps which the broadest reasonable interpretation of which includes general mathematical calculations to “calculating a distribution of the classification space… and “calculate distribution and quartiles” as well as a mental process including the classifying, mapping, defining, and adapting steps of claim 1, including a present amendment wherein the mapping includes classifying the technical requirements. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these claim limitations includes a Mathematical Calculations and Mental Processes a group of impermissible abstract ideas. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recited general purpose generic computing elements. The “computer-implemented”, “computer system” and “non-transitory executable computer program product” of claims 1, 9 and 14 respectively are generic computer elements which do not amount to a general-purpose generic computing element. Further the claims recite generically a “automated software-based process” which again recites generic computer elements used as a tool to implement the abstract idea, without imposing meaningful limits on the application of the abstract ideas. See MPEP §§2106.04(a); 2106.04(d).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer for the deducing and calculating amounts to no more than a system to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. Further the reciting generically a “automated software-based process” which again recites generic computer elements used as a tool to implement the abstract idea, without imposing meaningful limits on the application of the abstract ideas. Further, the claim amendments in the most recent amendment include using generic computing components such as “input-outpout component.” Finally the “receiving” step describes insignificant extra solution activity. Moreover, the amendments fail to change this analysis. Specifically, regarding the amended language of claim 1, the added “automatically publishing output” limitations add additional insignificant extra solution activity.See MPEP §§2106.05(a);2106.05(g).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible. Similar amendments to independent claims 9 and 14 also fail to change the claim analysis for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art of record includes prior art relevant to applicant’s disclosure in the PTO-892 form including mapping of technical requirements and boundary conditions with software and hardware components of a system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J BROPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-1642. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-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, Wei Zhen can be reached on 571-272-3708. 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.
MJB
9/24/2025
/MATTHEW J BROPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191