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 .
Response to Arguments
2. The Amendment filed on September 12, 2025, has been entered. The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 6, and 11.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: applicant argues, that the session-wise recording of data related to tracked user actions when a user is engaged in an activity, [ ] the activity at different instances may be associated different applications and if the application supports application/software development, the activity may be coding, testing and so on, and the actions may be the user opening a coding/testing interface, compiling codes, executing codes, verifying results, switching between different interfaces and so on, provides for an improvement to computing technology, (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(l) and 2106.05(a)), with the capability of adding efficient state changes to the user efficiency matrix if number of states in the determined state change is less than or equal to number of states in the reference state change… and generates efficiency matrices.
Examiner acknowledges the potential benefits of tracking user actions and improving the scoring for the user, but does not see an improvement to computing technology, as the invention appears to be a method of user performance evaluation. Certainly, the steps cited provide an evaluation means and feedback mechanisms, but any improvement resulting from this appears to be a by-product of training potentially realized at a later date. The invention as described and amended, continues to describe a detailed process, executed on a computer, for evaluating aspects of user skills. It represents what seems to be a solid software process applied and implemented on a computer. In this case, the invention appears to include instructions to implement the abstract idea of user performance evaluation on a computer, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f); with the resulting evaluation provided to a human for additional action. As compared to USPTO Example 47, where the results of identifying a threat to a computer network are acted upon by isolating and neutralizing the threat, along with blocking future intrusions, the invention in this case only notifies a human and relies on the human to apply the knowledge gleaned.
In view of this, the request for reconsideration is denied, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 will not be withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Claims, 1-2, 6-7, and 11-12, 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.
Claims 1, 6, and 7 (amended) state, “wherein the plurality of attributes includes smart contract, lines of code, domains, functions, validations, worldstate, and the like.” In these claims, the amended language stating attributes, includes “and the like,” which adds an indefinite definition of attributes. The attributes can be whatever the reader interprets to be “like” the other attributes, thus Claims 1, 6, and 11 are indefinite.
Since claims 1, 6, and 11 fail 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, and has been determined to be indefinite, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Since claims 2, 7, and 12, are dependent upon independent claims 1, 6, and 11, they are also rejected because of their dependency.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims, 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea) without providing significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility analysis per MPEP § 2106.03, required the claims to be a process, machine, manufacture or a composition of matter. Claims 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, are directed to a process (method), machine (system), which are statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A-Prong 1
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas, which can be summarized as being directed to a method, the abstract idea, of evaluating the performance of a user engaged in software development activities.
Claim 1 discloses a method of user performance evaluation, comprising:
Tracking a plurality of user actions when a user is engaged in an activity, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
wherein the plurality of user actions comprise navigation
within an application in which the activity is being performed, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and execution of one or
more functions of the application, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), wherein the plurality of actions are by recording keystrokes, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), wherein the activity at
different instances is associated with different applications, wherein while the user is
engaged in the activity, a time between starting and ending of the activity at a stretch is
considered as a session and data is recorded session-wise; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
determining, a state change representing a sequence of traversal of the plurality of user actions, wherein the state change is identified when the plurality of user actions is executed by the user; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
determining, the extent of deviation of the determined state change in comparison with a reference state change of the application, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), comprising:
comparing the sequence of traversal of the plurality of user actions
corresponding to the determined state change with a reference sequence of traversal
of user actions corresponding to the reference state change; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
generating a user efficiency matrix, wherein the user efficiency matrix
represents a percentage similarity of the sequence of traversal of the plurality of
user actions corresponding to the determined state change with the reference
sequence of traversal of the user actions corresponding to the reference state
change, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), wherein the determined state change is identified as an efficient state
change if number of states in the determined state change is less than or equal to
number of states in the reference state change, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), wherein efficient actions includes a)
an exact match of the sequence of traversal of the plurality of user actions
corresponding to the determined state change with the reference sequence of
traversal of the user actions corresponding to the reference state change, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and b) the
sequence of traversal of the plurality of user actions corresponding to the
determined state change having less number of states than in the reference sequence
of traversal of the user actions, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and corresponding efficient state changes are added
to the user efficiency matrix; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and
generating a user inefficiency matrix, wherein the user inefficiency matrix
represents a) a percentage dissimilarity of the sequence of traversal of the plurality
of user actions corresponding to the determined state change with the reference
sequence of traversal of the user actions corresponding to the reference state
change, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and b) instances of the user activity resulting in a failure condition, wherein
the determined state change is identified as an inefficient state change if number of
states in the determined state change is exceeding number of states in the reference
state change, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),and wherein the failure condition refers to at least one of a compilation failure, a security vulnerability issue, and one or more issues associated with build, deployment, and unit testing phase; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
calculating, a user performance score as a function of the user efficiency matrix and the user inefficiency matrix, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), wherein a score
for the plurality of actions in the user efficiency matrix is calculated as:
2 + (total number of state changes/number of state changes in the user efficiency
matrix), (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations),
wherein a score for the plurality of actions m the user inefficiency matrix 1s
calculated as:
2 - (total number of state changes/number of state changes in the user inefficiency
matrix), (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations), and
wherein the user performance score is calculated as an average of the score
calculated from the user efficiency matrix and the user inefficiency matrix, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion, mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations),
wherein assigning a better score for the state changes in the user efficiency matrix,
and a lower score for the state changes in the user inefficiency matrix, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and wherein when the user completes the activity in less number of states, then the user is efficient in comparison with an another user who followed a pre-defined sequence, and the user is assigned with the better score; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
determining, a performance level of the user, based on the calculated user performance score, wherein the performance level comprises one of Novice, Expert and Master, wherein mapping between different values of the user performance score and corresponding performance level is stored as a reference data in a database, and wherein the performance level of the user is determined using the reference data and the determined user performance score; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and generating, a data model using information on the determined performance level as training data, wherein the data model is used for triggering one or more corrective actions, for comparing performance of a plurality of users in terms of a plurality of attributes, and for resource and project planning, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion), and wherein triggering the one or more corrective actions include enabling nudges to alert the user; (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion),
providing a comparison of performance of different users in terms of the plurality of attributes, wherein comparing includes generating a graphical representation of the determined performance level of the user in comparison with performance level of one or more peers in terms of the plurality of attributes and displaying, wherein the plurality of attributes includes smart contract, lines of code, domains, functions, validations, worldstate, and the like, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Additional limitations employ the method where the result of each user action associated with a state change represents a state, (following rules or instructions, observation, evaluation, judgement- claim 2),
Each of these claimed limitations employ: organizing human activity in the form of following rules or instructions, performing mental processes including, observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion; and applying mathematical concepts using mathematical formulas, equations, or calculations.
Claims 6, 7, 11 and 12 recite similar abstract ideas as those identified with respect to claims 1-2.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, and 12 recite abstract ideas.
Step 2A-Prong 2
As per MPEP § 2106.04, while the claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, and 12 recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements such as one or more hardware processors, a communication interface, a memory storing instructions, displaying on a suitable interface, one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums, mouse pointer tracking and recording keystrokes, and a suitable interface to compare performance, a coding or testing interface, compiling codes, executing codes, verifying results, and switching between different interfaces, and one or more non-transitory machine-readable information storage mediums, these limitations are not sufficient to qualify as a practical application being recited in the claims along with the abstract ideas since these elements are invoked as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract ideas in a specific technological environment. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological field do not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.05 (f) & (h)).
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. Evaluating the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
The claims do not amount to a “practical application” of the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, and 12 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, and 12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination.
For the reasons provided in the analysis in Step 2A, Prong 1, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 11, and 12 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure or directed to the state of the art is listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BOROWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-1822. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4:30.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached on (571) 272-6787. 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.
/MB/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/MEHMET YESILDAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624