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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks – Page , filed 03/11/2026, with respect to claims 1,10,19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
With regards to 101 rejection, Applicant’s amendment/arguments overcome the rejection. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
With regards to 112 2nd rejection . Applicant’s amendment overcomes the rejection. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph and Claim Objections set forth in this Office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 1,5,19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regards to claims 1,19, the claims recite “providing software risk assessment of a software tool… perform the software tool risk assessment ” The examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “ providing software tool risk assessment of a software tool… perform the software tool risk assessment ”.. for consistency.
With regards to claim 5, the claim recites “the tool type indicated associated”. The examiner believes it’s a typo. The examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “ the tool type indicator associated..”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6,9,10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regards to claims 6,15 the claims recite “ the model data is detailed to allow a third party to replicate the model training data from source systems”. This limitation raises new issue as being indefinite because it does not capture the functions by which the intended results are accomplished. There is no structure in the claim limitation that provides details of how the model data is detailed to allow a third party to replicate the model training data. Therefore, the examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim language. The examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “ wherein the tool assessment interface receives the model data to replicate the model training data from source systems”.
With regards to claim 9, the claim recites “ the interactive interface element “ It is unclear what the interactive interface element is referring to. Claim 1 which claim 9 depends on does not recite “an interactive interface element”. Therefore, the examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim language. The examiner suggests amending the claim 9 to depend on claim 8 because claim 8 recites “ an interactive interface element”.
With regards to claim 10, the claim recites “ the software tool risk assessment “ It is unclear what the software tool risk assessment is referring to. Claim 10 recites in the preamble” performing an information technology security risk assessment” Therefore, the examiner is unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim language. Examiner suggest amending the preamble of claim 10 to recite “ performing software tool risk assessment for a software tool…”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNES NAJI whose telephone number is (571)272-2659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM -5:30 PM.
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, Oscar A Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1684. 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.
/YOUNES NAJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights