20Notice 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This Non-Final action is in reply to the application filed 4/10//2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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. Claims 1-20 are directed to a process (an act, or series of acts or steps), a machine (a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices) and a computer readable storage medium. Examiner notes that the computer readable storage medium a is directed to non-statutory subject matter. However, in an effort to analyze all of the claim limitations in accordance with the two-step framework described in Alice/Mayo and the guidance on application of 35USC 101, Examiner interprets the computer readable storage medium, of independent claim15 as a “non-transitory” computer readable storage medium. Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A-Prong 1: Representative independent claim 1 recites in part, “a processor coupled to a memory, the processor configured to: receive a request for completing one or more projects, wherein the request includes one or more features assigned for each project and one or more activities assigned for each feature; determine one or more developers for completing the one or more projects, wherein the one or more developers are determined based on an evaluation criteria; compare a performance of the one or more developers with an ideal threshold; and provide an analysis for each developer based on the comparing of the one or more developers with the ideal threshold”
The underlined limitations above demonstrate independent claim 1 is directed toward the abstract idea for receiving a request for completing a project, determining one or more developers for completing the project based on an evaluation criteria, comparing a performance of the developers and providing an analysis for each developer based on an ideal threshold in a computing environment. Applicant’s specification emphasizes that the subject matter relates to a system for tracking a progress of one or more projects (¶4-8). The specification also discusses determining one or more developers for completing the one or more projects, wherein the one or more developers are determined based on an evaluation criteria. The method further includes comparing a performance of the one or more developers upon completion of the one or more projects with an ideal threshold. In addition, the method further includes providing an analysis for each developer based on the comparing of the one or more developers with the ideal threshold (¶11)
Representative Claim 1 is considered an abstract idea because the steps for, “a processor coupled to a memory, the processor configured to: receive a request for completing one or more projects, wherein the request includes one or more features assigned for each project and one or more activities assigned for each feature; determine one or more developers for completing the one or more projects, wherein the one or more developers are determined based on an evaluation criteria; compare a performance of the one or more developers with an ideal threshold; and provide an analysis for each developer based on the comparing of the one or more developers with the ideal threshold”, pertains to certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas (i) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) since the steps are directed to receiving a request for completing a project, determining one or more developers for completing the project based on an evaluation criteria, comparing a performance of the developers and providing an analysis for each developer based on an ideal threshold. Such data input and data gathering steps pertains to (i) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Hence, the claim recites an abstract idea--see MPEP 2106.04(II). Independent claims 8 and 15 recite essentially the same abstract idea as independent claim 1, therefore, they are also abstract based on the same rationale.
Step 2A-Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements “system”, “processor” “memory” “computer readable storage medium” merely provide an abstract-idea based solution using data gathering and analysis and merely provide instructions for organizing human activity, and implementing the abstract idea recited above utilizing the “system”, “processor” “memory” “computer readable storage medium ”as tools to perform the abstract idea, and generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP 2106.05 (f-h). Further, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea—see MPEP 2106.05(g). Independent claim 1 fails to operate the recited “system”, “processor” “memory” “computer readable storage medium”, (which are merely standard computer technology and hardware/software components- see applicant’s disclosure ¶89-96 which discusses generic computing systems (i.e. computing system, storage, server, tracking system and various processors for performing the disclosed processes) in any exceptional manner, and there is no evidence in the disclosure to suggest achieving an actual improvement in the computer functionality itself, or improvement in any specific computer technology other than utilizing ordinary computational tools to automate and perform the abstract idea for receiving a request for completing a project, determining one or more developers for completing the project based on an evaluation criteria, comparing a performance of the developers and providing an analysis for each developer based on an ideal threshold in a computing environment—see MPEP 2106.05(a).
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 fail to cure the deficiencies of the above noted independent claim from which they depend and are therefore rejected under the same grounds. The dependent claims further recite the abstract idea without imposing any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 recite additional data gathering and processing steps which are still directed toward the abstract idea identified previously and are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer or with computing components. Hence is nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as their respective independent claim since they fail to impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the abstract idea fails to integrate into any practical application. Thus, under Step 2A-Prong Two the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “system”, “processor” “memory” “computer readable storage medium”,, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea).
Accordingly, even when considered as a whole, the claims do not transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention since the claim limitations do not amount to a practical application or significantly more than an abstract idea for receiving a request for completing a project, determining one or more developers for completing the project based on an evaluation criteria, comparing a performance of the developers and providing an analysis for each developer based on an ideal threshold in a computing environment. Hence, claims 1-20 are directed to non-statutory subject matter and are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 USC 101. See 2019 PEG and MPEP 2106.
Claims 15-20 recite in part, “a computer readable storage medium” and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The aforementioned claims are directed toward providing information in relation to an electronic communication device via a data signal. The USPTO is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. Se MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 USC 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Ccir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility under 35 USC 101, Aug 24, 2009; p2. The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the USPTO must reject under 35 USC 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 USC 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Applicant' s disclosure recites at ¶6: “The disclosed subject matter also relates to a computer readable storage medium having data stored therein representing software executable by a computer, the software comprising instructions that, when executed, cause the computer readable storage medium to perform receiving a request for completing one or more projects”, therefore claims 15-20 as recited can be interpreted to be embodied on abstract mediums such as carrier waves and signals, and therefore not eligible for patent protection. The term "computer-readable storage medium" may also include solid-state memories, optical and magnetic disks, and carrier wave signals. Accordingly, these claims15-20 are not eligible for patent protection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abrahamsen et al., US Patent Application Publication No US2010/0299650 A1.
With respect to claims 1, 8 and 15,
Abrahamsen discloses,
a processor coupled to a memory, the processor configured to: receive a request for completing one or more projects, wherein the request includes one or more features assigned for each project and one or more activities assigned for each feature (¶50: “A project is planned based on the number of components that needs to be developed and delivered for an application. Components are partitioned as discrete units of work, generally ranging from 16 to 60 hours of work. Each component is assigned to an individual, and the results of the work are scored based on specific criteria related to quality, cycle time, speed and reuse. The results of their performance on the deliverable are captured on their Blue Card)
determine one or more developers for completing the one or more projects, wherein the one or more developers are determined based on an evaluation criteria; compare a performance of the one or more developers with an ideal threshold; and provide an analysis for each developer based on the comparing of the one or more developers with the ideal threshold. (¶6: “individual performance being measured for the development and maintenance of application software using Blue Cards, the Blue Cards having Blue Card scores associated with the team members whether they meet predefined schedule, predefined budget or predefined quality requirements, the method comprising: collecting the Blue Card scores from the team members; aggregating the Blue Card scores collected from the team members; determining if the Blue Card scores meet predefined schedule; determining if the Blue Card scores meet predefined budget; determining if the Blue Card scores meet predefined quality requirements; and scoring the team members according to each team's Blue Card scores”; ¶50”)
With respect to claims 2, 9 and 16,
Abrahamsen discloses all of the above limitations, Abrahamsen further discloses,
wherein the request includes a project timeframe and one or more building blocks that implement the one or more features, and wherein the one or more building blocks are reusable pieces of code that implement functionalities of the one or more features assigned for each project.; (A project is planned based on the number of components that needs to be developed and delivered for an application. Components are partitioned as discrete units of work, generally ranging from 16 to 60 hours of work. Each component is assigned to an individual, and the results of the work are scored based on specific criteria related to quality, cycle time, speed and reuse. The results of their performance on the deliverable are captured on their Blue Card, Abrahamsen ¶50; development and maintenance of application software, Abstract, ¶4, ¶6, and ¶23; reuse of the item, Table 2)
With respect to claims 3, 10 and 17,
Abrahamsen discloses all of the above limitations, Abrahamsen further discloses,
wherein the evaluation criteria for determining the one or more developers is based on at least one of a location, a project importance, a project timeline, experience of the developers, and project requirements. (“A project is planned based on the number of components that needs to be developed and delivered for an application. Components are partitioned as discrete units of work, generally ranging from 16 to 60 hours of work. Each component is assigned to an individual, and the results of the work are scored based on specific criteria related to quality, cycle time, speed and reuse. The results of their performance on the deliverable are captured on their Blue Card”, Abrahamsen ¶50; development and maintenance of application software, Abstract, ¶4, ¶6, and ¶23; reuse of the item, Table 2)
With respect to claims 4, 11 and 18,
Abrahamsen discloses all of the above limitations, Abrahamsen further discloses,
wherein the ideal threshold is based on at least one of an average time taken by the developers to complete the project, project type, and a comparison in the average time taken between the one or more developers. (“ranked and rated on their aggregate scores”, Abrahamsen ¶34; top performers are identified, ¶52; FIG. 6 shows the process 600 in greater detail that begins at 602 and continues to 604 where Blue Card scores are aggregated at 605 and at 606 where it is determined whether the Blue Card scores meet schedule, budget or quality requirements. If so, the process 600 ends at 616. If not, at 608, it is determined whether the engagement leaders are setting unreasonable objectives. If so, new objectives are set at 612 and the process ends at 616. If the engagement leaders are not setting unreasonable objectives, at 610, it is determined whether the engagement or project leaders are assigning work that has not been properly defined and, if the engagement leaders are assigning work that has not been properly defined, at 614, the engagement leaders must properly define assigned work that has been properly defined and the process ends at 616, ¶60).
With respect to claims 5 and 12,
Abrahamsen discloses all of the above limitations, Abrahamsen further discloses,
wherein the processor is further configured to provide a trend based on the analysis of at least two developers working on each project. (Another key identifier may be 100% or nearly 100% transparency of team and individual performance 308. This key identifier may be characterized by all deliverables in the process are scored through self-assessment all professionals or individuals are "time-based competitors"--executing against deadline dates and established budgets for work items, all professionals or individuals generating deliverables or work items are rated and ranked shaping their "digital reputation", professionals or individuals differentiate themselves based on results achieved in the process, and communities (project teams) are ranked and rated based on the aggregate scores of their team, Abrahamsen ¶34)
With respect to claims 6, 7, 13, 14 and 20,
Abrahamsen discloses all of the above limitations, Abrahamsen further discloses,
wherein the trend comprises a score based on the analysis; wherein the score is represented as a percentage. (Another key identifier may be 100% or nearly 100% transparency of team and individual performance 308. This key identifier may be characterized by all deliverables in the process are scored through self-assessment all professionals or individuals are "time-based competitors"--executing against deadline dates and established budgets for work items, all professionals or individuals generating deliverables or work items are rated and ranked shaping their "digital reputation", professionals or individuals differentiate themselves based on results achieved in the process, and communities (project teams) are ranked and rated based on the aggregate scores of their team, Abrahamsen ¶34”)
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Anderson et al. (US Patent No. 8,856,725) Automated Source Code And Development Personnel Reputation System.
Bijani et al. (US PG Pub. 2011/0276354) Assessment of software code development
Kesiboyana (US Patent No. 11,182,154) Methods and Systems For Generating Qualitative Comparisons And Recommendations Of Contributors To Software Development Projects
Conclusion
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Kimberly L. Evans whose telephone number is 571.270.3929. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:30am-5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571.272.6782.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair <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). Any response to this action should be mailed to: Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 or faxed to 571-273-8300. Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window: Randolph Building 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.
/KIMBERLY L EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/LYNDA JASMIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629