DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to the application filed April 20, 2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/21/2025, 4/20/2023 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 4/20/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP §2106. The claim(s) recite(s) “determining a first pre-defined parameter associated with the user story by applying a first set of pre-defined rules wherein the first pre-defined parameter represents persona of the user associated with the user story data;” as well as similar limitations for second through seventh pre-defined parameters and subsequently recites and further recites “output in the form of a Requirement Completeness Index (RCI) for the user story data, the RCI is generated based on a cumulative computation of percentage weighted score for each of the pre-defined parameters.”
These limitations, but for the recitation of generic computer components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, the performance of the limitations in the human mind including reading and applying pre-defined interpretation rules while reading the natural language user stories and calculating a weighted score based on the seven variables. That is, other than reciting “a requirements analysis engine executed by the processor” and other generic computer components nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the human mind.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04. The additional elements included in the claim recite generic component components (“a memory storing program instructions; a processor executing instructions stored in the memory; a requirements analysis engine executed by the processor and configured to”, as well as “an output and correction unit configured to render an output…”), data gathering steps (“process fetched user story data from a database”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“corrective actions are automatically carried out on the user story data based on the generated RCI.”). The process to fetch user story data is an insignificant data gathering step, while the “corrective actions…” limitations amounts to a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea. This claim, therefore, is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05. As discussed above, outside of the abstract idea, the claim recites generic component components (“a memory storing program instructions; a processor executing instructions stored in the memory; a requirements analysis engine executed by the processor and configured to”, as well as “an output and correction unit configured to render an output…”), data gathering steps (“process fetched user story data from a database”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“corrective actions are automatically carried out on the user story data based on the generated RCI.”) The process to fetch user story data is an insignificant data gathering step, while the “corrective actions…” limitations amounts to a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). These additional limitations do not amount to significantly more, thus the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
The dependent claims 2-19 fail to recite limitations which would amount to more than a claim of the same abstract idea discussed above. Specifically, Claim 2 recites additional details regarding the extra-solution activity of data gathering described with respect to claim 1. Claims 2-7,9-11 recite various additional details involve the claimed process, which under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover the reading of natural language user stories and application of interpretation rules thereto. Claims 8,12-16 recite additional computer elements (data or ML Model, APIs, management tools) but again recite further details of the mental process of interpreting the natural language user stories based on interpretation rules or lists to be compared, where the computer elemements are use as tools to carry out the mental process. Cf. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)III.C.3. Finally Claims 17-19 recite additional elements of the mental process related to comparing the length of the user story to a known length standard. As such, none of these dependent claims recite limitations which would impact the analysis set forth with respect to claim 1 above, and these claims are interpreted as directed to an abstract idea.
Independent claims 20 and 32 recited similar limitations to claim 1 in their method and computer-program product claims respectively. They are rejected on the same basis as claim 1. The claims recite “determining a first pre-defined parameter associated with the user story by applying a first set of pre-defined rules wherein the first pre-defined parameter represents persona of the user associated with the user story data;” as well as similar limitations for second through seventh pre-defined parameters and subsequently recites and further recites “output in the form of a Requirement Completeness Index (RCI) for the user story data, the RCI is generated based on a cumulative computation of percentage weighted score for each of the pre-defined parameters.” The claims 20 and 32 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05. As discussed above, outside of the abstract idea, the claim recites generic component components, data gathering steps (“process fetched user story data from a database”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“corrective actions are automatically carried out on the user story data based on the generated RCI.”) The process to fetch user story data is an insignificant data gathering step, while the “corrective actions…” limitations amounts to a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). These additional limitations do not amount to significantly more, thus the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims 20 and 32 also does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05. As discussed above, outside of the abstract idea, the claim recites generic component components (“a memory storing program instructions; a processor executing instructions stored in the memory; a requirements analysis engine executed by the processor and configured to”, as well as “an output and correction unit configured to render an output…”), data gathering steps (“process fetched user story data from a database”) and insignificant extra-solution activity (“corrective actions are automatically carried out on the user story data based on the generated RCI.”) The process to fetch user story data is an insignificant data gathering step, while the “corrective actions…” limitations amounts to a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(f). These additional limitations do not amount to significantly more, thus the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea.
Finally, dependent claims 21-31 fail to recite limitations which would amount to more than a claim of the same abstract idea discussed above. Claims 21-25,27-28 recite various additional details involve the claimed process, which under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover the reading of natural language user stories and application of interpretation rules thereto. Claims 26, 28-29 recite additional computer elements (e.g. ML Model, APIs, management tools) but again recite further details of the mental process of interpreting the natural language user stories based on interpretation rules or lists to be compared, where the computer elements are use as tools to carry out the mental process. Cf. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)III.C.3. Finally Claims 30-31 recite additional elements of the mental process the reading of natural language user stories and application of interpretation rules thereto. As such, none of these dependent claims recite limitations which would impact the analysis set forth with respect to claim 21 above, and these claims are interpreted as directed to an abstract idea.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited in the attached PTO-892 form includes prior art relevant to applicant’s disclosures related to the analysis and correction of user stories and development requirements. For example, “Arora” (US PG Pub 2024/0168862) teaches a system for managing user stories, “Pereira da Silva” (US PG Pub 2023/0153072) teaches a user story handling system for analysis and modification of user stories.
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 at 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
2/19/2026
/MATTHEW J BROPHY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191