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 .
Detail Action
This office action is in response to the application filed on 12/14/2022.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1 recites “A computer-implemented method” corresponding to a process (Step 1)
Claim 1 further recites the limitation of “analyzing how a software application has performed across numerous dimensions”; “comparing the performance of the software application to a plurality of modernization options;; and “comparing the performance of the software application to a plurality of modernization options; identifying a modernization option that is determined to perform better than the software application in at least one of the numerous dimensions;” and “calculating a total cost to the organization for realizing the modernization option by a simulation of personnel of the organization providing services of the organization”. The analyzing, comparing, and calculating can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process. The simulation of personnel a of the organization providing services of the organization can be interpreted as replacing a salary of one staff with another and can be processed in the human mind. (Step 2A)
Claim 1 additional elements of “using historical data regarding the software application for an organization;” and “while integrating the modernization option among a suite of software applications”.
The limitation of “using historical data regarding the software application for an organization;” do nothing more than adding extra resolution activity of collecting and using data and does not transform the limitation into practical application.
The limitation of “while integrating the modernization option among a suite of software applications” appears to recite a generic computer for the calculating and does not appear to meaningfully limit the claim into practical application. For this reason, the above additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites additional limitation of “the simulation uses data regarding the services and the personnel using a plurality of computing agents reporting real-time data at a plurality of remote computing devices.”
The limitation “the simulation uses data regarding the services and the personnel” is additional mental process can be performed by a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. The limitation of “a plurality of computing agents reporting real-time data at a plurality of remote computing devices.”, is generic computer recited at a high level and does not meaningfully transform the limitation into practical application.
Claims 3-4 do not recite mental process, however, the additional elements merely recites options in generic terms and do not appear to meaningful transform the limitation into practical application as well.
Claim 5 recites the limitation of “the simulation simulates an amount of downtime caused to other software applications of the suite of software applications.”, is consider additional mental process and does not appear to be significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites additional limitation of calculating the total cost to the organization for realization the modernization option by the simulation related to dates, cost threshold and priority. The additional limitation can be mentally processed in a person’s mind and is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recited additional limitation of “scheduling executing another modernization option of another software application of the suite of software applications at date prior to the identified date”, which is considered additional mental process and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 8-14 recite corresponding limitation of claims 1-7 with additional limitation of “A system comprising: a processor; and a memory in communication with the processor, the memory containing instructions that, when executed by the processor” the additional limitation is considered generic computer and therefore is interpreted as “applying it” and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Similarly, claims 15-20 recite corresponding limitation of claims 1-7 with additional limitation of “A computer program product, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computer to cause the computer to” the additional limitation is considered generic computer and therefore is interpreted as “applying it” and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, for example, recites the limitation of “comparing the performance of the software application to a plurality of modernization options. What are compared are “performance” of the software application and “options” of the modernization options. The above “performance” and “options” appears to be in different measurement categories and cannot be reasonably compared. For example, in claim 1, “total cost” corresponds to measurement unit of the performance and “option” can refer to “purchasing” a different software application. Comparing “cost” with “purchasing a different software application” is not a reasonable comparison.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Speciation [0002], [0026], [0027] discloses the language objected in “Claim Objections” and is objected to for reason above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 2, box 204 shows similar deficiency as in objection to Specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 2008/0319809 Al) in view of Boulineau et al. (US 2008/0312980 Al)
Per claim 1,
Brown discloses
analyzing how a software application has performed across numerous dimensions using historical data regarding the software application for an organization; ([0022-0025], [0024], see performance of an application can be measured, monitor captures real-time and historical data; [0022], see across organizations, see passive resources corresponding to numerous dimensions.)
Brown does not, however Boulineau discloses
comparing the performance of the software application to a plurality of modernization options; ([0005]-[0017], discloses the costs associated with adopting, ongoing management, and maintenance of business application packages)
identifying a modernization option that is determined to perform better than the software application in at least one of the numerous dimensions; (continue, [0065], discloses evaluating and comparing alternatives) and
calculating a total cost to the organization for realizing the modernization option by a simulation of personnel of the organization providing services of the organization while integrating the modernization option among a suite of software applications. ([0006]-[0015] disclose project planning and cost methodology with various models, for example [0008] COCOMO is a model that estimates cost, effort, staffing, and schedules when planning a new software development activity. Also see [0015])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Boulineau into the teachings of Brown to include the limitation disclosed by Boulineau. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to have best choice for software implementation project as suggested by Boulineau ([0065])
Per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Brown/Boulineau discloses
wherein the simulation uses data regarding the services and the personnel using (Boulineau, example [0008] COCOMO is a model that estimates cost, effort, staffing, and schedules when planning a new software development activity.) a plurality of computing agents reporting real-time data at a plurality of remote computing devices. (Brown, [0024], see performance of an application can be measured, monitor captures real-time and historical data where monitor corresponds to agents)
Per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Brown/Boulineau discloses
wherein the modernization option includes upgrading one module of the software application. (Boulineau, [0131], ROI analysis related to parts of the IT system to develop appears corresponds to upgrading.)
Per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Brown/Boulineau discloses
wherein the modernization option includes purchasing a different software application. (Boulineau, [0131], ROI analysis related to parts of the IT system to purchase)
Per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Brown/Boulineau discloses
wherein the simulation simulates an amount of downtime caused to other software applications of the suite of software applications. (Boulineau, [0017], length of time an activity is performed [0130] discloses installing packaged software applications where while an application is being installed it cause downtime to other software applications because the installed application is not functioning.)
Per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Brown/Boulineau discloses
wherein the calculating the total cost to the organization for realizing the modernization option by the simulation includes:
executing a plurality of simulations in which the personnel of the organization providing services of the organization integrating the modernization option among the suite of software applications at a plurality of dates in the future, wherein the simulation is one of the plurality of simulations and wherein the simulation includes the modernization option being scheduled at an identified date of the plurality of dates; (Boulineau [0044], disclose scheduling projects with dependencies between tasks; [0146] discloses start date) and
identifying the total cost of the simulation as being below a cost threshold, wherein other simulations of the plurality of simulations had a cost above the cost threshold. (Boulineau [0151], discloses user selected threshold)
Per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Brown/Boulineau discloses
further comprising scheduling executing another modernization option of another software application of the suite of software applications at date prior to the identified date. (Boulineau, [0044], dependency between tasks appears to show scheduling one project prior to another.)
Per claims 8-14, see rejections of claims 1-7.
Per claims 15-20, see rejections of claims 1-5 (claims 15-19) and claims 6-7 (claim 20)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip Wang whose telephone number is 571-272-5934. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:00AM -4:00PM. Any inquiry of general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC2100 Group receptionist: 571-272-2100.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lewis Bullock, can be reached at 571-272-3759. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/PHILIP WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199