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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 12/29/2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and claims 1, 15, and 18 are the independent claims.
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 1-6 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per independent claim 1, it recites “1. A system for reducing work duplication in parallel and concurrent software development environments, the system comprising: a code monitoring subsystem (CMS) configured to: continuously scan a plurality of servers and subsequently identify active jobs in a production environment; determine at least one job requiring code modification; transmit control signals configured to notify a plurality of developers of the code modification requirement, wherein the plurality of developers is associated with the at least one job; and a parallel code monitoring subsystem (PCMS) operatively coupled to the CMS and is configured to: receive code changes from the plurality of developers in response to the code modification requirement; upon each save action by a developer, generate an atomic version of each code change; and display the atomic version of each code change to the plurality of developers.”
The limitations “continuously scan a plurality of servers and subsequently identify active jobs in a production environment”, and “determine at least one job requiring code modification”, as drafted, recites a function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components, and as such, as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. For example, a human may mentally/manually/with pen and paper/etc. judge/evaluate/observe/analyze/scan/etc. servers and judge/decide/identify jobs, and may mentally/with pen and paper/etc. judge/determine/decide/identify/etc. a job requires code modification. As such, with broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements “a code monitoring subsystem (CMS) configured to”, “transmit control signals configured to notify a plurality of developers of the code modification requirement, wherein the plurality of developers is associated with the at least one job”, “a parallel code monitoring subsystem (PCMS) operatively coupled to the CMS and is configured to”, “receive code changes from the plurality of developers in response to the code modification requirement”, “upon each save action by a developer, generate an atomic version of each code change”, and “display the atomic version of each code change to the plurality of developers.” The additional elements “a code monitoring subsystem (CMS) configured to” and “a parallel code monitoring subsystem (PCMS) operatively coupled to the CMS and is configured to” recite that high level computer components are used to implement/perform the abstract idea/mental process, and as such amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. The additional elements “transmit control signals configured to notify a plurality of developers of the code modification requirement, wherein the plurality of developers is associated with the at least one job”, “receive code changes from the plurality of developers in response to the code modification requirement”, “upon each save action by a developer, generate an atomic version of each code change”, and “display the atomic version of each code change to the plurality of developers” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception of merely transmitting/sending/etc. data/information/signal, gathering/obtaining/receiving data/information/code changes/etc., updating/modifying/transforming/etc. data/information/modifying/transforming code change to generate/create atomic version/etc., and displaying data/information/atomic version of code change/etc., and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05 (f), 2106.05(g), etc.).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, with broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, and insignificant extra solution activities of transmitting data, gathering data, updating data, and displaying data, and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The recitation of generic computer instruction/computer components to apply the judicial exception does not provide an inventive concept and is not significantly more, and mere insignificant extra solution activities of transmitting data, gathering data, updating data, and displaying data, do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
As per claim 2, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…a code resolution subsystem (CRS) operatively coupled to the CMS, wherein the CRS is configured to: monitor code change development initiated by the plurality of developers upon being notified of the code modification requirement for the at least one job” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/observing/monitoring/etc., and provides further clarification as to the computer components used to implement/perform the abstract idea/mental process which amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea/mental process using computer components, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. As such, claim 2 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 3, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the CRS comprises a machine learning (ML) subsystem configured to: determine past code changes that have addressed similar code modification requirements; and suggest code options to the plurality of developers during the code change development based on at least the past code changes” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/determining/suggesting/judging/opining/etc., and provides further clarification as to the computer components used to implement/perform the abstract idea/mental process which amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea/mental process using computer components, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. As such, claim 3 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 4, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the ML subsystem is further configured to: dynamically update the suggested code options based on ongoing code changes made by the plurality of developers and the past code changes” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the abstract idea/mental process/suggesting/judging/opining/etc., which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. As such, claim 4 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 5, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the CMS is further configured to prioritize notifications to the plurality of developers based on their initial code contribution to the at least one job” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to the insignificant extra solution activity/transmitting data/notification/etc. performed, and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)), and as such does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. As such, claim 5 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 6, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the CMS is further configured to: receive the code changes from the plurality of developers; and create a container for each code change” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to insignificant extra solution activities performed/gathering data/receiving data/storing data/containing data/create container for data/etc., and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)), and as such does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. As such, claim 5 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per independent claim 15, it recites a computer program product having similar limitations as the system of claim 1, and as such has the same deficiencies as claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above. Claim 15 further recites the additional elements “a computer program product for reducing work duplication in parallel and concurrent software development environments, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising code configured to cause an apparatus to”, which, with broadest reasonable interpretation, recite high level/generic computer/computer components used to implement/perform the abstract idea/mental process, and as such amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components and mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the additional elements of claim 15 does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process (see MPEP 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g), etc.). Therefore, claim 15 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claims 16 and 17, they recite computer program products having similar limitations as the systems of claims 2 and 3, respectively, and are therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claims 2 and 3, respectively, above.
As per claims 18-20, they recite methods having similar limitations as the systems of claims 1-3, respectively, and are therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claims 1-3, respectively, above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record (Freitag et al. US Patent 10,691,810 B1, Misch et al. US PG Pub. 2011/0125798 A1, Farrier US Patent 11,662,997 B2, and Schornack et al. US Patent 12,314,702 B2) teaches that software/code/application/job/etc. are executed on servers/production environment and the execution may be monitored/analyzed/scanned/evaluated/logged/etc., that changes/modifications/etc. needed to be made to the code/software/job/etc. may be determined, that developers/programmers/etc. may be assigned/notified/etc. to make the modifications/changes/etc., that changes/modifications made by developers/programmers may be received/committed/saved/etc. and a version of the code having the changes/modifications may be created when the changes/modifications are committed/saved/etc., and that the changes/modifications to/new version of code/software may be displayed/output/etc. to other/plurality/multiple/group of/etc. developers/programmers that are developing/working on/etc. the code/software.
However, the prior art of record fails to render an obviousness of a parallel code monitoring subsystem (PCMS) operatively coupled to a code monitoring system (CMS) and that is configured to: receive code changes from a plurality of developers in response to a code modification requirement, generate an atomic version of each code change upon each save action by a developer, and display the atomic version of each code change to the plurality of developers; when the CMS is configured to continuously scan a plurality of servers and subsequently identify active jobs in a production environment, determine at least one job requiring code modification, and transmit control signals configured to notify the plurality of developers of the code modification requirement, wherein the plurality of developers is associated with the at least one job; and wherein the CMS is further configured to receive the code changes from the plurality of developers, create a container for each code change, simulate a production environment, and implement a code test protocol on each container in the simulated production environment, as required by dependent claim 7, and which is also significantly more than the abstract idea recited in the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per the 101 arguments on pg. 9 par. 4-pg. 14 par. 4 of the remarks that the amended independent claims do not recite a mental process/abstract idea as a human mind cannot practically perform scanning active jobs in a production environment and determining that a job requires code modification, as a production computing environment involves live server processes, execution states, system logs, performance thresholds, and runtime conditions, as seen in the specification of this application, which are machine-level phenomena that are not observable or analyzable by a human mind/with pen and paper; and a human mind cannot practically perform determining that a job requires code modification as the determination is based on system conditions such as job failure, execution delays, resource depletion, abnormal data volume, or failure to complete within define parameters, and these parameters arise from continuous automated monitoring of computing resources and executing processes across multiple servers, as seen in the specification of this application, and a human mind cannot mentally track active jobs executing in parallel, analyze server logs in real time, or detect threshold-based execution anomalies without the aid of specialized computing resources; and the independent claims further recite generating an atomic version of each code change upon each save action by a developer and displaying that atomic version to a plurality of developers through a parallel code monitoring subsystem, which is inherently computer-centric and cannot practically be performed by a human mind and have no meaningful pen-and paper analog; and the specification reinforces that the claimed subsystems operate continuously, automatically, and at machine speed with a distributed computing architecture as the code monitoring subsystem scans servers and logs and the parallel code monitoring subsystem responds to save events and generates atomic versions, and the subsystems exchange information across networked devices, and these functions depend on processing circuitry, memory, software routines, and network interfaces, and are not reducible to human activity; and further that any recited abstract idea would be integrated into a practical application as the claims are directed to a system operating in a production development environment that monitors executing jobs on servers, detects system-level conditions requiring code modifications, and coordinates real-time technical collaboration through specialized subsystems and therefore addresses a computer-specific problem arising in parallel and concurrent software development, as the independent claims recite a code monitoring subsystem that scans active jobs in a production environment/in the context of a liver server environment and determines that a job requires code modifications based on execution conditions to trigger automated notification of developers and initiation of parallel code monitoring and as such the determination is a step in automated technical workflow that manages and stabilized production software systems, and recites a parallel code monitoring system that generates atomic versions of code in response to save actions by developers and displays those atomic versions to other developers in real time which addresses the problem of duplicated and conflicting code changes, and as such the additional claim elements/subsystems produce real time visibility into concurrent code changes across developers synchronized at the level of atomic code changes, which cannot be achieved through mental processes or generic data transmission alone and integrates any abstract idea/mental process into a practical application; and further that the claims amount to significantly more than any abstract idea/mental process as the claims define a specialized system architecture comprising a code monitoring subsystem and a parallel code monitoring subsystems cooperating in a non-conventional manner to address a technical problem unique to parallel and concurrent software development, as the code monitoring subsystem continuously monitors executing jobs in a production environment, detects execution-level conditions that require code modification, and automatically initiates a coordinated technical response including notifying developers and triggering downstream processing by the parallel code monitoring subsystem, which is not generic monitoring or raw data collection, and the parallel code monitoring subsystem further generates atomic versions of code upon save actions by developers which capture code state and associated metadata at precise moments in time and are shared in real time to prevent duplicated or conflicting work which materially alters how concurrent development systems operate which improves the functioning of a computer, and as such the additional elements/limitations integrate any abstract idea into a practical application and are significantly more than any abstract idea/mental process, and therefore the amended independent claims and their respective dependent claims are allowable under 35 USC 101, the examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
The examiner would like to point out that the actual wording/phrasing of the independent claims/independent claim 1 is “A system for reducing work duplication in parallel and concurrent software development environments, the system comprising: a code monitoring subsystem (CMS) configured to: continuously scan a plurality of servers and subsequently identify active jobs in a production environment; determine at least one job requiring code modification; transmit control signals configured to notify a plurality of developers of the code modification requirement, wherein the plurality of developers is associated with the at least one job; and a parallel code monitoring subsystem (PCMS) operatively coupled to the CMS and is configured to: receive code changes from the plurality of developers in response to the code modification requirement; upon each save action by a developer, generate an atomic version of each code change; and display the atomic version of each code change to the plurality of developers”, and as such the actual wording/phrasing of the independent claims only recites “continuously scan a plurality of servers and subsequently identify active jobs in a production environment”, “determine at least one job requiring code modification”, “upon each save action by a developer, generate an atomic version of each code change”, and “display the atomic version of each code change to the plurality of developers” and therefore, with broadest reasonable interpretation, it does not explicitly recite/clarify/require a production computing environment that involves live server processes, execution states, system logs, performance thresholds, and runtime conditions, nor does it explicitly recite/require detecting system-level conditions requiring code modifications, that the determination be based on system conditions such as job failure, execution delays, resource depletion, abnormal data volume, or failure to complete within define parameters arising from continuous automated monitoring of computing resources and executing processes across multiple servers and tracking active jobs executing in parallel, analyzing server logs in real time, detecting threshold-based execution anomalies, that the code monitoring subsystem initiates coordinated technical response/triggers the processing by the parallel code monitoring subsystem, and that any collaboration/display of atomic version/etc. occurs in real-time/coordinating real-time technical collaboration/real-time dissemination of atomic versions, etc.. Examiner would further like to point out that the generating an atomic version of each code change upon each save action by a developer and displaying that atomic version to a plurality of developers are additional/extra limitations/elements to the abstract idea/mental process, not part of the abstract idea/mental process, as seen in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 101 above, and further that the wording/phrasing of the independent claims only recites that a code monitoring subsystem and parallel code monitoring subsystem are used to perform the extra solution activities and do not provide any details/specific circuitry/specialized hardware/etc. required to be included in these subsystems, or any details as to how the subsystems interact with each other/send data to each other/trigger actions in each other/etc. but rather only recites that the parallel code monitoring subsystem is “operatively coupled” to the CMS, and as par. [0052] of the specification of this application discloses that “a subsystem may comprise both hardware and software components that work in concert to achieve the designated tasks. For example, in some embodiments, a "subsystem" may include processing circuitry, algorithms, routines, storage media, network interfaces, input/output mechanisms, and the like”, with broadest reasonable interpretation, the subsystems may be interpreted as generic hardware and software/processing circuitry and algorithms/etc., which is generic/high level computer components and not specialized/specific components that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. If applicant intended for the broadest reasonable interpretation to be limited to include these features/elements/aspects included in the remarks/arguments and specification of this application, the examiner would suggest applicant consider further clarification/amendment to include these features/elements to limit the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims and potentially overcome the 101 issues. As such, with broadest reasonable interpretation, the independent claims do recite an abstract idea/mental process and the additional elements/limitation do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, as seen in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 101, above.
Therefore, the examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive and maintains that the rejection under 35 USC 101 is proper.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS M SLACHTA whose telephone number is (571)270-0653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-4pm.
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.
/DOUGLAS M SLACHTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights