DETAILED ACTION
Claims 18-20 and 22-38 are pending in the current application.
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
Applicant's arguments filed 7/8/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (Argument 1; Remarks pg. 10 lines 5-8) that the claim is not directed to an abstract idea mental process, (Argument 2; Remarks pg. 14 lines 22-26) that the office mischaracterizes the claim elements and does not perform any analysis of the claim elements under 101, (Argument 3; Remarks pg. 15 lines 22-27) that the claims address a technology problem and thus integrate the abstract idea into a practical application
With respect to applicant’s arguments examiner respectfully disagrees. As to argument 1, with respect to 101 abstract idea analysis the claim language does not state that the application software that is being analyzed includes tens of thousands of lines of code to millions of line of code, where software applications can be reasonably interpreted as including much fewer lines of code for the analysis. Also it is noted that being practically performed by the human mind does not mean idealized as a human mind could still analyze thousands of lines of code given enough time and the claim language does not include specific time period of when the determination/analysis of the software application information is performed. Thus viewed that the determining and identifying steps as claimed are still reciting abstract idea mental process which are ineligible concepts with full detail analysis seen below in the 101 abstract idea rejection of the claims. Further, based on the recited claim language it is still viewed as directed to an abstract idea including the filter out those of the plurality of external dependencies that refer to publicly listed third party software component based on analysis of a dependency tree of the first application and dependency declaration in files of the first application limitation as this filter out step is viewed as a type of analysis and collection/exclusion from collection of data information, the plurality of external dependencies, based on the provided dependency tree of the application and dependency declaration files of the first application without any specific claimed details of how this information is used in to perform this analysis and collection/filtering out of publicly listed third party software component and thus viewed as abstract idea mental process element of the claim as well tied to analysis and collection of data.
As to argument 2, examiner is unsure what applicant means by failing to perform analysis as all the elements of the claim were analyzed and categorized, in the previous Non-Final rejection, as to how they are being interpreted in light of 101 analysis, it is noted that the majority of the claim is not swept away by declaring the elements as generic functions applying the abstract idea but that the majority of the claim elements had already been analyzed and classified as abstract idea mental process elements, with the remaining and specifically cited elements being the generic function and computer components to apply the abstract idea.
As to argument 3, while a technical solution/technical improvement to a technical problem or issue can be used to show that an addition element is something that can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of show significantly more than the abstract idea this does not mean that any improvement/solution would integrate claims that recite an abstract idea into a practical application or show significantly more than the abstract idea where claims cover a particular solution to a problem as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. The claims do not address the argued improvement issues dealing with application security, code management or triage of flaws just that specific type of party development code is determined in an application and from that determine through other organization application, viewed as abstract idea mental process, and then reported, viewed as insignificant extra solution activity information akin to sending data and while reporting of this information as applicant states that this reported/communicated information may inform code management the claims, however, do not recite any specific steps when this reported information is used to manage code or triage flaws and thus still viewed as reciting an abstract idea mental process that is not integrated into a practical application and does not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. It is also noted that limitations that are viewed as abstract idea elements do not have the same analysis applied to them for showing if they are something that can integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea as an abstract idea element is not an element that can integrate an abstract idea into a practical application or show significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 7/8/25, with respect to the 103 rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
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 18-20 and 22-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 18-20 and 22-38 are claims that are directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 18, 27 and 33: The limitation of “determine occurrence of a set of second party software components among a plurality of applications of an organization,” “determine a plurality of external dependencies of a first of the plurality of applications and filter out those of the plurality of external dependencies that refer to publicly listed third party software components based on analysis of at least one of a dependency tree of the first application and dependency declarations in files of the first application,” “identify the set of second party software components of the organization wherein the instructions to identify the set of second part software components comprise instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to record identifiers of software components referred to by those of the plurality of external dependencies not filtered out”; and “based on the recorded identifiers of the set of second party software components, search source code of the others of the plurality of applications for external dependencies that refer to the set of second party software components”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. These limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea,
The claims have been identified to recite an abstract idea, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 18, 27 and 33: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the following additional element “An apparatus comprising: a processor; and a machine-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to…wherein the instructions to determine occurrence of the set of second party software components comprise instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to,” and “A non-transitory, machine-readable medium having stored thereon a program code comprising instructions to”, which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely applying the abstract idea using the generic computing components and functions, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further the claim recites the following addition element of “report extent of occurrence of the set of second party software components among the plurality of applications of the organization” which is merely the recitation of insignificant extra solution activity information akin to transmitting data and presenting data information which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claim, 18 not only recite an abstract idea but that the claims are directed to the abstract idea as the abstract idea has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 18, 27 and 33: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “An apparatus comprising: a processor; and a machine-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to…wherein the instructions to determine occurrence of the set of second party software components comprise instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to,” and “A non-transitory, machine-readable medium having stored thereon a program code comprising instructions to” amount to no more than generic computing components merely apply the abstract idea. Further, the additional element of “report extent of occurrence of the set of second party software components among the plurality of applications of the organization” is merely the recitation of insignificant extra solution activity information. . Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. receiving or transmitting data over a network and ii. presenting offers and gathering statistics where the repot extent of occurrence of the set of second party software components limitation is akin to transmission of the data for the report and presenting/reporting the gathered data for the report.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 18, 27 and 33 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 19 it recites additional elements of “wherein a second party software component is a software component developed by an entity internal to the organization and external with respect to the plurality of applications“ which is merely a field of use/technological environment which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, claim 19 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 19 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 19 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 20, 28 and 34 they recites additional abstract idea elements of “wherein the instructions to determine the plurality of external dependencies comprise instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to determine external dependencies indicated in testing results as associated with flaws“ as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. These limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea. Moreover, claims 20, 28 and 34 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 20, 28 and 34 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 20, 28 and 34 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 21 it recites additional abstract idea elements of “wherein the instructions to identify the set of second party software components comprise instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to search one or more code repositories of the organization for software components that are not third party software components and not first party software components with respect to the plurality of applications“ as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can mentally perform by observation, analysis and judgment the search data to identify/determine components that and not third party and not first party components. Moreover, claim 21 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 21 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 21 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 22 it recites additional elements of “wherein the instructions to report extent of occurrence of the set of second party software components among the plurality of applications of the organization comprise instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to report the set of second party software components, and the applications in which the set of second party software components occur “ which is merely a field of use/technological environment which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, claim 22 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 22 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 22 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 23, 29 and 35 they recites additional abstract idea elements of “wherein the instructions to determine a plurality of external dependencies of a first of the plurality of applications and filter out those of the plurality of external dependencies that refer to publicly listed third party software components based on analysis of at least one of a dependency tree of the first application comprise instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to determine which dependencies occur at a level deeper than a root node of the dependency tree and which of those dependencies refer to publicly listed third party software components“ as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. These limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea. Moreover, claims 23, 29 and 35 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 23, 29 and 35 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 23, 29 and 35 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 24, 30 and 36 they recites additional abstract idea elements of “wherein the instructions to determine a plurality of external dependencies of a first of the plurality of applications and filter out those of the plurality of external dependencies that refer to publicly listed third party software components based on analysis of dependency declarations in files of the first application comprise instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to at least one of, search the files of the first application for keywords and/or statements that indicate links or imports and examine path hierarchies of the files to determine external dependencies and determine which of those dependencies refer to publicly listed third party software components “ as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. These limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea. Moreover, claims 24, 30 and 36 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 24, 30 and 34 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 24, 30 and 36 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 25, 31 and 37 they recites additional abstract idea elements of “wherein the machine-readable medium further has stored thereon instructions to filter out those of the external dependencies that refer to third party software components that are not publicly listed“ as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. These limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea. Moreover, claims 25, 31 and 37 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 25, 31 and 37 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 25, 31 and 37 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 26, 32 and 38 they recites additional abstract idea elements of “wherein the instructions to filter out those of the external dependencies that refer to third party software components that are not publicly listed comprise instructions executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to, after filtering out those of the plurality of external dependencies that refer to publicly listed third party software components, filter out those of the remaining external dependencies that refer to software components with names that are not within one or more namespaces of the organization “ as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. These limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea. Moreover, claims 26, 32 and 38 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 26, 32 and 38 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 26, 32 and 38 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18-20 and 22-28 are objected to as being allowed over the prior art, however, remain rejected under 35 USC 101 seen above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: With respect to the amended claim language none of the prior art of record discloses the specifics of being able to determine the occurrence of second party software component by determining the plurality of external dependencies for an application and from those external dependencies filter out those that are publicly listed as third party software components based on the analysis of associated dependency tree and dependency declarations in files where this determination would still have remaining determined external dependencies to identify as second party external dependencies that can be record as used to search in the other of the application of the organization for these identified second party components. While prior art such as Lentini discloses being able to determine external program code dependencies in the software application and the prior art of Hinton discloses metadata for the source code component elements that can include for organization information and prior art of Brucker show being able to identify third party components of an applications, none of the prior art of record discloses the specifics that the determined external dependencies for one application of an organization is determined and f and then further analyzed based on dependency tree and dependency declarations in files for that application to identify specific publicly listed third party software components and filter them out from the set where there are a plurality of remaining identified external dependencies components that were not filtered out and identified as set of second party software component of the organization that have specific identifiers recorded and then used to such the other plurality of applications of the organization for those second party software components to determine the extent of occurrence of the set of the identified second party software components amount the plurality of applications of the organization.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRADFORD F WHEATON whose telephone number is (571)270-1779. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/BRADFORD F WHEATON/Examiner, Art Unit 2193