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 .
This is a Non-Final Office Action Correspondence in response to U.S. Application No. 18/228,551 filed on 07/31/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 07/31/2023 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Comments – 35 USC § 101
The Examiner interprets the “computer readable storage medium” as recited in claim 8 to be non-transitory type of medium in view of Applicant’s specification at paragraph 0040; therefore, claim 8 and its dependent claims 9-14 are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Browning (NPL,“Managing complex project process models with a process architecture framework”) in view of Hill et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2010/0199352 A1, hereinafter “Hill”).
Regarding claim 1, Browning teaches a method comprising:
capturing, by a computing device, first information and deliverable information (Browning Fig. 1, i.e., Activity A-D and Deliverable 1-4);
setting up traceability across the first information and deliverable information to identify gaps in the first information and the deliverable information (Browning Fig. 1, i.e., current work product status e.g., “Immature”, “Moderate”, “Mature”);
analyzing and mapping the first information and the deliverable information to layers based on consumers of information (Browning Fig. 1, i.e., analyzing the current work product status and mapping of activities to deliverables).
Browning fails to explicitly teach determining objectivity in the first information and the deliverable information in each of the layers; and breaking down the deliverable information that is created during an entire development lifecycle to mapping the deliverable information to interrogative keywords for the layers.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hill teaches determining objectivity in the first information and the deliverable information in each of the layers (Hill ¶¶0060-0061, i.e., determining control points to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of objectives); and breaking down the deliverable information that is created during an entire development lifecycle to mapping the deliverable information to interrogative keywords for the layers (Hill ¶0062, i.e., documenting the control points, “Tiers may also be used to create an additional classification to relate the control points to associated metrics and/or to show their relationship to the overall process”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Browing by incorporating the teachings of Hill. The motivation would be to mitigate risk and to ensure that processes are running efficiently and to alert the organization to possible issues (Hill ¶0060).
Browning as modified by Hill also teaches consuming the first information upon the consumers of information having a discourse with a computing system (Browning page 232, right column, last paragraph, i.e., performing the activities to achieve the requirements and goals for the project).
As to claim 2, Browning as modified by Hill also teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first information is generated in various phases and comprises information about a system or an application, and the deliverable information comprises requirements, architecture, design, pseudo-code, and verification information (Browning page 232, right column, second paragraph).
As to claim 3, Browning as modified by Hill also teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the consumers of information comprise end users, maintenance teams and technical owners (Browning page 232, right column, last paragraph, i.e., the organization of people and teams that will perform the activities).
As to claim 4, Browning as modified by Hill also teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising:
storing the objectivity in the first information and the deliverable information in a referenceable way (Browning page 234, Table 2);
wherein the objectivity in the first information and the deliverable information comprises mapping against decision, alternatives considered, decision parameters, and cost-benefit ratio (Browning page 234, Table 2).
As to claim 5, Browning as modified by Hill also teaches the method of claim 2, further comprising:
mapping the first information and the analysis to the layers on an objective basis (Hill ¶¶0060-0061); and
rationalizing subjective content to bring about objective end to end traceability for interrogative queries (Hill ¶0062, i.e., documenting the control points, “Tiers may also be used to create an additional classification to relate the control points to associated metrics and/or to show their relationship to the overall process”).
As to claim 6, Browning as modified by Hill also teaches the method of claim 2, wherein discourse is held as an exchange of concerns about the application or the system to which using application programming interfaces (APIs) (Hill ¶0058, i.e., a graphical user interface based for process modeling), objective data appropriate to a query in a concern is presented back in a scientific manner (Hill ¶0075).
As to claim 7, Browning as modified by Hill also teaches the method of claim 2, wherein upon an exchange terminating with responses measured as being incomplete, the computing device pushes the exchange to stakeholders (Browning page 230, left column, last paragraph).
Claim 8 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 9 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 10 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 11 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 4 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 12 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 13 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 6 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 14 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 7 and is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 15, Browning as modified by Hill also teaches a system comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions (Hill page 237, last paragraph, i.e., a computer includes memory); and
a processor (Hill page 237, last paragraph, i.e., a computer includes processor) configured to execute the instructions to perform the same steps as recited in claim 1.
Claim 15 is similarly rejected.
Claim 16 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 17 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 18 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 4 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 19 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 20 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claims 6 and 7 and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER KHONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm 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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571)272-4085. 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.
/ALEXANDER KHONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights