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 Amendment
The Amendment, filed on 2/5/2026, has been entered and acknowledged by the Examiner. Claims 1-19 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Issue: The applicant argues that a human cannot manually and accurately track, link, and compare thousands of inter-dependent digital artifacts across different versioned baselines. The problem is one of information overload and complexity that only arises in the context of large-scale, computer-managed engineering projects. Even if a human could perform the limitation, the rejection fails because a human could not "practically" perform the invention to provide a functional result. In other words, there is no practical abstract concept covered here as there is no risk of the limitations being performed mentally. In addition, the claims provide a specific technical solution to a specific technical problem. They recites a specific architecture, a "baseline-anchored" framework, that is not a pre-existing "fundamental economic practice, certain method of organizing human activity, an idea 'of itself,' [or] a mathematical relationship or formula" (MPEP 2106.04). Instead, the claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer itself, specifically how it manages, processes, and presents complex traceability data. By structuring the analysis around discrete "baselines" and comparing the net difference between these states, the claimed process enables the computer system to operate more efficiently, accurately, and with less computational overhead than a system that tracks every single modification. This is analogous to Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 579 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2016), where claims directed to a specific type of self-referential data structure were found to be a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, not an abstract idea.
Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the Applicant argues that a human cannot manually and accurately track, link, and compare thousands of inter-dependent digital artifacts across different versioned baselines, however, when the complexity is arisen, a generic computer could assist to perform certain functions. In addition, the claim languages only recite baseline, but not the “base-anchored” framework as argued by the Applicant. Therefore, the Applicant argument is not persuasive.
Issue: The Applicants respectfully disagrees with the rejection as the cited combination fails to teach or suggest all the limitations of the claims and there is no proper motivation to combine the references. Independent claim 1 recites "providing at least one first artifact item, wherein the respective first artifact item is assigned to a first artifact information baseline and to a subsequent second artifact information baseline." Neither Graf nor Madisetti teach at least this limitation. In the rejection, the Examiner incorrectly maps this limitation to Graf at 1[0039]. Graf describes creating traceability links between development artifacts to manage dependencies, but it fails to teach or suggest the claimed "baseline" framework.
Response: The Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Graf discloses "providing at least one first artifact item, wherein the respective first artifact item is assigned to a first artifact information baseline and to a subsequent second artifact information baseline" as each traceability link comprises at least a pointer to the first and second surrogates to identify these and to allow access thereto. Traceability links may be stored as one-directional or bi-directional links between the surrogates, thereby indicating a corresponding inter-relation between the referenced original artifacts – that is includes first and second artifact information baseline (¶ 0024]). Plus, such information includes locations of data in one or more artifact storage. Separately therefrom, the surrogates are stored in a traceability management storage. Both types of storage may include any type of known physical storage devices for digital data. As such, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to one or more abstract ideas without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below.
Step 1:
The claimed method (claims 1-12) and non-transitory computer readable storage medium (claims 13-19) are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfies step 1.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Independent claims 1 and 13 recite the following limitations that can be practically performed in the mind and/or with a pen and a sheet of paper:
providing at least one first artifact item, wherein the respective first artifact item is assigned to a first artifact information baseline and to a subsequent second artifact information baseline; providing at least one second artifact item, wherein the respective second artifact item is linked with the respective first artifact item; assigning a change flag to the respective second artifact item when the respective first artifact item to which the respective second artifact item is linked has been changed from the first artifact information baseline to the second artifact information baseline;
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The additional elements are: displaying the respective second artifact item to which the change flag has been assigned to a user via an artifact information management user interface (UI).
These additional elements are using generic computer functions as a tool to perform.
Step 2B:
For Step 2B, the additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the identified judicial exception. MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)(B) identifies the list of cases in MPEP 2106. 05(d)(II) as available bases. Taking these aforementioned additional elements as an ordered combination, these additional elements add nothing that is not already present when the elements are considered separately.
As per dependent claims 3, 5-7, 9-10, 15, 17 and 19 they are fall under Step 2A, Prong One.
As per dependent claims 2, 4, 8, 11-12, 14 and 16, they are fall under Step 2A, Prong Two.
The additional elements of dependent claims are directed to generic computer functions.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Graf (EP 3113016), in view of Madisetti (US Pub. 2021/0081367).
Regarding claim 1, Graf discloses a computer-implemented method of managing artifact information, the method comprising:
providing at least one first artifact item, wherein the respective first artifact item is assigned to a first artifact information baseline and to a subsequent second artifact information baseline (¶ [0039], a traceability link between the surrogates may be created and stored, linking the two development artifacts between which a traceability dependency has been identified. Automatic creation of traceability links greatly facilitates managing of dependencies between development artifacts);
providing at least one second artifact item, wherein the respective second artifact item is linked with the respective first artifact item (¶ [0039], a traceability link between the surrogates may be created and stored, linking the two development artifacts between which a traceability dependency has been identified. Automatic creation of traceability links greatly facilitates managing of dependencies between development artifacts);
assigning a change flag to the respective second artifact item when the respective first artifact item to which the respective second artifact item is linked has been changed from the first artifact information baseline to the second artifact information baseline (¶ [0043], Within the traceability management storage, the changed artifact may then be flagged as "suspicious", i.e. potentially causing required adaptation of related artifacts); and
displaying the respective second artifact item to which the change flag has been assigned to a user via an artifact information management user interface (UI), (Fig. 9 shows a diagram as a representation of a system design of the web interface, including separate interfaces for existing users and new users).
Madisetti further discloses management user interface (UI) (FIG. 8 an exemplary interface 800 of the CatchUp platform showing dashboard home page, is described in more detail. CatchUp is packed with loads of features to enable effective collaboration within your business such as task scheduling, document management, file sharing, collaboration, real-time communications, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Madisetti into Graf to provide a platform that allows multiple Business Specific Task Structures including matters, projects, tasks and users.
Regarding claim 2, Graf in view of Madisetti discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising, with respect to the respective first artifact item which is linked with the respective second artifact item to which the change flag has been assigned: displaying information about the respective first artifact item about the change made to the respective first artifact item from the first artifact information baseline to the second artifact information baseline to the user via an artifact information management UI (M, ¶ [0083]).
Regarding claim 3, Graf in view of Madisetti discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: highlighting the displayed respective second artifact item to which the change flag has been assigned.
Regarding claim 4, Graf in view of Madisetti discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the respective second artifact item to which no change flag has been assigned is not displayed, highlighted, or displayed and highlighted to the user via the artifact information management UI (M, ¶ [0016]).
Regarding claim 5, Graf in view of Madisetti discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the respective change of the respective first artifact item from the first artifact information baseline to the second artifact information baseline does not affect the respective linked second artifact item; and removing the change flag from the respective second artifact item when the respective second artifact item is not affected by the respective change of the respective first artifact item to which the respective second artifact item is linked (G, ¶ [0078], may delete the suspicious flag for the connecting traceability link).
Regarding claim 6, Graf in view of Madisetti discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the respective second artifact item is not affected by the respective change of the respective first artifact item to which the respective second artifact item is linked when the respective change relates to an attribute or a priority of the respective first artifact item (M, ¶ [0100], based on priority).
Regarding claim 7, Graf in view of Madisetti discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5, further comprising: receiving the user's or an administrator's input corresponding to a definition of at least one change of the respective first artifact item to which the respective second artifact item is linked, whereby the respective defined change does not affect the respective second artifact (M, ¶ [0092]).
Regarding claim 8, Graf in view of Madisetti discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 5, further comprising: displaying a UI element indicating the intended removal of the change flag from the respective second artifact item to the user via the artifact information management UI (G, ¶ [0078]); capturing the user's intent to confirm or reject the intended removal of the change flag from the respective second artifact in response to user interactions with the artifact information management UI (G, ¶ [0078]); and removing the change flag from the respective second artifact item when the captured user's intent corresponds to a confirmation the intended removal of the change flag from the respective second artifact item (G, ¶ [0078]).
Regarding claim 9, Graf in view of Madisetti discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: providing a respective connector linking the respective second artifact item with the respective first artifact item assigned to the first artifact information baseline; and replacing the respective connector with a respective updated connector linking the respective second artifact item with the respective first artifact item assigned to the second artifact information baseline (¶ [0034], based on link of events).
Regarding claim 10, Graf in view of Madisetti discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the respective first artifact item, the respective second artifact item, or the respective first artifact item and the respective second artifact item relates to engineering information or lifecycle information of a physical system (M, ¶ [0069], based on lifecycle).
Regarding claim 11, Graf in view of Madisetti discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising: engineering, modeling, simulating, or analyzing the physical system using the respective first artifact item, the respective second artifact item, or the respective first artifact item and the respective second artifact item (M, ¶ [0069]).
Regarding claim 12, Graf in view of Madisetti discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising when the respective first artifact item, the respective second artifact item, or the respective first artifact item and the respective second artifact item relates to engineering information: measuring or determining the respective first artifact item, the respective second artifact item, or the respective first artifact item and the respective second artifact item relating to engineering information of the of the physical system using a sensor, computer-aided design (CAD) data, or communication data relating to the physical system (M, ¶ [0069].
Regarding claims 13-19, see discussion of claims 1-7 above for the same reason of rejection.
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 TUANKHANH D PHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3047. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, 10:00am-18:00pm.
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 on 571-270-5626. 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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 or 571-272-1000.
/TUANKHANH D PHAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights