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 . Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined on the merits set forth below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/29/2022 and 1/23/2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are directed to a method, system, and computer program product. Thus, all the claims are within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process, a machine and an article of manufacture, respectively), satisfying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) test.
As per Prong One of Step 2A of the §101 eligibility analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the Examiner notes that the claims recite mental processes certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims are directed to analyzing project data and matching an optimal pair of developers with the project. More specifically, independent claim recite:
determining a project intent; [observation/evaluation]
identifying programming requirements needed to fulfill the project intent; [observation/evaluation]
reducing the programming requirements into lower dimensions; [evaluation]
clustering the reduced programming requirements into clusters; [evaluation]
identifying a common theme in each of the clusters; [evaluation]
selecting from at least one of the clusters having a common theme corresponding to the programming requirements, feasible pairs of developers; [evaluation] and
identifying at least one optimal pair of developers among the feasible pairs using an optimization algorithm that optimizes the project intent. [evaluation]
The claims recite data analysis steps to match projects to an optimal pair of developers. This relates to commercial interactions as well as managing personal behavior which are Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. In addition, the observations and evaluation are Mental Processes that can practically be performed in the mind or with pen and paper.
The nominal recitation of computer elements does not necessarily preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea as evidenced by the analysis at Prong 2 of Step 2A.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, a claim reciting an abstract idea must be analyzed to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
In this case, the independent claims do not include limitations that meet the criteria listed above, thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 1 recites a system comprising at least one processor, a memory coupled to the processor, the processor configured to implement the abstract idea identified above. This amounts to using a computer as a tool and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claim 8 recites a computer-implemented method. This amounts to using a computer as a tool and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claim 15 recites a computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions readable by a device to cause the device to implement the abstract idea. This amounts to instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea and some recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 recite recommend the optimal pair of developers. This is abstract as it relates to commercial interactions as well as managing personal behavior which are examples Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Any computer implementation amounts to instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 recite receive feedback associated with optimal pair of developers. This is abstract as it relates to commercial interactions as well as managing personal behavior which are examples Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Any computer implementation amounts to instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 4, 11 and 18 recite repeating the method of independent claims until an optimal pair of developers is indicated as accepted. This is abstract as it relates to commercial interactions as well as managing personal behavior which are examples Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Any computer implementation amounts to instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 recite recommend a prior identified pair based on determining cosine similarity of requirements. This is abstract as it relates to commercial interactions as well as managing personal behavior which are examples Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Determining cosine similarity is a mathematical concept which is abstract. Any computer implementation amounts to instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 recite reduce requirements into lower dimensions using one of principal component analysis and t-stochastic neighborhood embedding. Both concepts are mathematical in nature which is abstract. Any computer implementation amounts to instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claims 7 and 14 recite cluster requirements using one of K-clustering and Gaussian mixture model clustering. Both concepts are mathematical in nature which is abstract. Any computer implementation amounts to instructions to perform the abstract idea on a computer and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When considered individually and in combination, the system and software claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. The invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense.
Lastly and in accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tiwari et al, US 20230245011.
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
For purposes of examination, the system, method and computer program product claims have been grouped together. Tiwari et al discloses the system and computer program product in at least [0017-0025].
As per claims, 1, 8 and 15, Tiwari et al discloses
determining a project intent; ([0048-0049] – gather incident information and requirement details of the incident – for examination purposes the incident is the “project” to which a team is recommended [0063])
identifying programming requirements needed to fulfill the project intent; ([0048, 0049, 0063] - gather incident information and requirement details of the incident – for examination purposes the incident is the “project” to which a team is recommended)
reducing the programming requirements into lower dimensions; ([0049] – principal component analysis used to reduce the number of dimensions based on incident description)
clustering the reduced programming requirements into clusters; ([0048] – clustering/gaussian mixture model based on incident requirements and skill set match)
identifying a common theme in each of the clusters; ([0049] – team members matched to incidents based on matching process using clustering)
selecting from at least one of the clusters having a common theme corresponding to the programming requirements, feasible pairs of developers; ([0064] – optimized team member identification and recommendation) and
identifying at least one optimal pair of developers among the feasible pairs using an optimization algorithm that optimizes the project intent. ([0064] – optimized team member identification and recommendation)
As per claims 2, 9 and 16, Tiwari et al discloses recommending the at least one optimal pair of developers ([0064] – optimized team member identification and recommendation).
As per claims 3, 10 and 17, Tiwari et al discloses further including receiving a feedback associated with the identified at least one optimal pair of developers.
As per claims 4, 11 and 18, Tiwari et al discloses further including repeating the reducing, clustering, identifying, selecting and identifying, until the at least one optimal pair of developers is indicated as acceptable ([0049] – if unavailable process continues until a team member is identified).
As per claims 5, 12 and 19, Tiwari et al discloses further including recommending to a new requestor a prior identified optimal pair of developers based on determining cosine similarity of the programming requirements between the new requestor and a prior requestor ([0042, 0049, 0062, 0063] – cosine similarity is used to identify optimal team based on past incidents).
As per claims 6, 13 and 20, Tiwari et al discloses wherein the reducing the programming requirements into lower dimensions includes using at least one of: principal component analysis (PCA) and t- stochastic neighbourhood embedding (T-SNE) ([0003, 0049, 0062, 0063] – PCA, a reduction technique used to generate a match recommendation.
As per claims 7 and 14, Tiwari et al discloses wherein the clustering the reduced programming requirements includes using at least one of: K-clustering and Gaussian mixture model clustering ([0048, 0062; 0063] – clustering/gaussian mixture model used to match team member to incident requirements).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All pertinent prior art is listed in the attached PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNA LOFTIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 571-270-5389. 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.
JOHNNA LOFTIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625