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 is the initial office action based on the application filed on January 31st, 2024, which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined below, of which, claims 1, 8, and 15 are presented in independent form.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 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.
Internet E-mail
A written authorization by Applicant is required for the Examiner to respond via
internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the
confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U3.0. 122, such as proposed Examiner’s
Amendments or interview agenda items (MPEP 502.03; See Internet Usage Policy, 64
PR 33056 (June 21, 1999)). To authorize e-mail communications from the Examiner
(e.g. proposed Examiner’s Amendments), the Applicant must place a written
authorization in the record. Applicant may authorize electronic and email communication
by the Examiner via PTO Automated Interview Request web service. To schedule an
interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request
(AER) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/298036, filed on June 4th, 2024.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16, line 3, “readable storage medium” should be deleted.
Claims 3, 11, and 18, “a” before “feature” (line 1) and “description” (line 2), replace “a” with --the--, respectively.
Claims 4, 12, and 19 depend on the objected claims and inherit the same issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. 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 1-8 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; Claims 9-15 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category of machines; and Claims 16-20 are directed to computer readable storage medium and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
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.
Claims 1, 9, and 16: recite the limitations of “
receiving, from a user, a request to generate a software application;
generating one or more prompts that are configured to produce a response, from the user, that refines a description of the software application; and
determining one or more features of the software application based on one or more responses to the one or more prompts”
Step 2A Prong 1:
Steps (a) and (c) as drafted, can be done in human mind with the aid of pen and paper (mental process).
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis:
Claims 1, 9, and 16: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements – step (b), “training data,” “software application,” “previous software application projects,” “prototype,”” “display an image,” “request,” “response,” “computer system,” “a processor,” “a memory,” and “a computer readable storage medium having data stored therein,” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely applying the abstract idea using (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception 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 claims 1, 9, and 16 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
Claims 1, 9, and 16: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Steps (b) and (c) are recited at high level of generality and amount to no more than generic computing components merely applying the abstract idea and field of use/technological environment.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 9, and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 17, they recite additional element recitations of “determining a feature template based on the software application” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 2, 10, and 17 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 2, 10, and 17 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 2, 10, and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 3, 11, and 18, they recite additional element recitations of “wherein determining a feature template comprises matching a pre-existing feature template to a description of the software application” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 3, 11, and 18 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 3, 11, and 18 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 3, 11, and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 19, they recite additional element recitations of “wherein determining the feature template is performed at least once after the description is refined based on the one or more prompts” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 4, 12, and 19 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 4, 12, and 19 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 4, 12, and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, they recite additional element recitations of “wherein each of the one or more prompts are generated based on training data for previous software application projects” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 5 and 13 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 5 and 13 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 5 and 13 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 6, 14, and 20, they recite additional element recitations of “wherein each prompt is generated based on a most likely response from the previous software application projects” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 6, 14, and 20 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 6, 14, and 20 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 6, 14, and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 7, 15, and 20, they recite additional element recitations of “generating a prototype of a feature of the software application based on a response to a prompt; and demonstrating the prototype to the user” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 7, 15, and 20 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 7, 15, and 20 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 7, 15, and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 8, it recites additional element recitations of “wherein the demonstrating comprises displaying an image based on the response to the prompt” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 8 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 8 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 15-20 are directed to a computer readable storage medium. However, it is noted that the specification does not provide an explicit definition of what constitutes a computer readable storage medium. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable storage medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of a recordable medium, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP § 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 US.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2. Therefore, the claimed computer readable storage medium is ineligible subject matter under §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-4, 7-12, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Delpech de Frayssinet et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0276842 – hereinafter, Frayssinet).
Regarding claim 1:
Frayssinet discloses a method for generating a software application, the method comprising:
receiving, from a user, a request to generate a software application (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “GUI module 152 provides a GUI with which a user can interact for communicating with application generator 102, such as by submitting a request to perform a task (e.g., generate, revise, or update) associated with an application” (See paras [0035] and [0041]). FIG. 3 and associated text, such as, “With reference to FIG. 3, flowchart 300 shows an example method of generating a customized software application that fulfills a set of OGGs. At block 302, a request is received from a remote user to generate a software application on a platform based on an identified OGG set” (See para [0072]));
generating one or more prompts that are configured to produce a response, from the user, that refines a description of the software application (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “GUI module 152 provides a GUI with which a user can interact for communicating with application generator 102, such as by submitting a request to perform a task (e.g., generate, revise, or update) associated with an application, receiving solicitations for information related to the task, submitting responses to the solicitation, and/or receiving the application after performance of the task.” (Emphasis added – See para [0035]). FIGS. 1-2 and associated text, such as, “Request handler 206 handles requests received from user device 104. The request can be generated via GUI module 152 based on user input to the GUI and provided to the application generator via transmission 161. The request can be, for example, to generate, revise, or update an application. Request handler 206 handles the request by determining which of the L1 template modules 201, L2 template modules 251, and libraries 124 to use. Request handler 206 can include handler business rules module 208 that apply rules to solicit information from the user for determining which L1 template modules 201 or L2 templates modules 251 to use by sending prompts at transmission 163 to user device 104 and to invoke the appropriate template modules for fulfilling the request” (Emphasis added – See paras [0041], [0043], [0052])); and
determining one or more features of the software application based on one or more responses to the one or more prompts (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “The request identifies the task to be performed. When the task is to generate a new software application, a user will be prompted by application generator 102 via the GUI to select an OGG set to be used (if more than one OGG set is available) and request a platform upon which the software application should be executable. The platform requested can be selected from a plurality of available platforms, including device or application platforms, such as a mobile platform, a desktop platform, a web platform, a server platform, and a cloud platform. The user will then be prompted to provide parameter information for parameters of templates selected by application generator 102 to generate the application. The templates and candidate parameter information is selected based on the selected OGG set and platforms.” (Emphasis added – See para [0036])).
Regarding claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Frayssinet further comprising determining a feature template based on the software application (“The user will then be prompted to provide parameter information for parameters of templates selected by application generator 102 to generate the application. The templates and candidate parameter information is selected based on the selected OGG set and platforms.” (Emphasis added – See para [0036]). FIG. 2 and associated text, such as, “The user will then be prompted to provide parameter information for parameters of templates selected by application generator 102 to generate the application. The templates and candidate parameter information is selected based on the selected OGG set and platforms.” (Emphasis added – See para [0036])” (Emphasis added – See para [0041])).
Regarding claim 3:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, Frayssinet further discloses wherein determining a feature template comprises matching a pre-existing feature template to a description of the software application (FIG 1 and associated text, such as, “For example, a collection of libraries can be accessed, such as libraries 124 shown in FIG. 1The libraries can store parameter information for the templates includes with the template modules, such as in widgets library 142 or styles library 144 shown in FIG. 1. The libraries can be configured by the operator after deployment. Candidate parameter information can be selected from the libraries in accordance with the identified OGGs. The user can be prompted via the GUI to select from presented candidate parameter information.” (See para [0075])).
Regarding claim 4:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated, Frayssinet further discloses wherein determining the feature template is performed at least once after the description is refined based on the one or more prompts (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “For example, a collection of libraries can be accessed, such as libraries 124 shown in FIG. 1The libraries can store parameter information for the templates includes with the template modules, such as in widgets library 142 or styles library 144 shown in FIG. 1. The libraries can be configured by the operator after deployment. Candidate parameter information can be selected from the libraries in accordance with the identified OGGs. The user can be prompted via the GUI to select from presented candidate parameter information. The user can also enter freehand parameter information, such as by entering text or uploading data (e.g., photographs, graphics, videos). The user's selections are provided as a response to the prompts can be used for insertion into the parameter fields and/or application to the templates.” (See para [0075])).
Regarding claim 7:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Frayssinet further comprising
generating a prototype of a feature of the software application based on a response to a prompt (“The method further includes selecting a group of one or more template modules from a plurality of template modules based on the identified OGG set and the identified at least one platform. Each template module is dedicated to configuring a different aspect of the software application. The respective template modules each have an associated collection of templates and business rules, wherein the templates of the collections of templates and the business rules associated with the plurality of template modules are each configurable by an operator. For each template module of the selected group of one or more template modules, templates are selected from the associated collection of templates based on the identified OGG set and business rules of the template module. For each selected template, user input is solicited via the GUI for the selected template's template parameters. Solicitation of the user input is based on the identified OGG set and the business rules of the corresponding template module. The method further includes completing the selected templates based on the solicited user input, generating a file for each of the completed templates, wherein the files are generated to be executable by the at least one platform identified, and outputting an application folder structure in response to the request, wherein the application folder structure includes the files” (Emphasis added – See para [0005])); and
demonstrating the prototype to the user (“The user device, upon receiving the folder structure, can execute the software modules, unilaterally modify the software modules using line commands, request the application generator to add software modules to the software application, and/or upgrade the software modules based on revisions to the libraries or templates used to create the software module. The application generator can provide options to a user for generating software applications, such as choices of templates or libraries to use and/or choices of platforms on which the application can be used or components to be included” (See para [0030])).
Regarding claim 8:
The rejection of claim 7 is incorporated, Frayssinet further discloses wherein the demonstrating comprises displaying an image based on the response to the prompt (“In one or more embodiments, the template parameters can include application name, layout type, page names for one or more displayable pages to be generated upon execution of the corresponding file based on the corresponding template, and properties for each of the one or more displayable pages.” (See para [0007])).
Regarding claim 9:
This is a computer system (see Fig. 6) version of the rejected method claim 1 above, wherein all the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 10:
The rejection of base claim 9 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 11:
The rejection of base claim 9 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 3, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 12:
The rejection of base claim 9 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15:
The rejection of base claim 9 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 7, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 16:
This is a computer readable storage medium (see para [0092]) version of the rejected method claim 1 above, wherein all the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17:
The rejection of base claim 16 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18:
The rejection of base claim 16 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 3, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 19:
The rejection of base claim 16 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C § 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.
Claims 5-6, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Frayssinet in view of Stelmar Netto et al. (Pub. No.: US 2020/0169465 – hereinafter, Netto).
Regarding claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Frayssinet does not explicitly teach:
wherein each of the one or more prompts are generated based on training data for previous software application projects.
However, Netto discloses:
wherein each of the one or more prompts are generated based on training data for previous software application projects (“In response to the creation of the multi-node collaboration network by network creator 502, data comparator 504 can search the collaboration server 410 for data corresponding to identical or sufficiently similar projects undertaken in the past. Project classifier module 506 can utilize machine learning tools to classify past projects based on selected features. Data based on past projects provides a corpus of training data that is used by project classifier module 506 to construct a classifier model. In response to system input specifying features of a current project, the system uses the model to classify the current project and thus identify similar past projects as ones similarly classified. Features can vary depending on the nature and specific aspects of a particular project… In classifying a current project, features and attributes are identified and compared with features and attributes related to past projects. Based on the comparison, similarity between a current project and past projects can be determined by the classifier model constructed using machine learning. In a typical scenario, such a project can begin with a request for proposal (RFP)… Project classifier module 506 extracts from the input data all data that is relevant to the project based on a comparison of data from past projects determined to be similar. The current project having been categorized, project classifier module 506 additionally can identify decisions that must be made as the current project develops, specifically identifying those decisions that are the same or similar to decisions made in connection with one or more past projects. Based on past project data, classifier module 506 optionally can identify which decisions required with respect to the current project are major decisions.” (Emphasis added – See paras [0072] – [0073])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Netto into the teachings of Frayssinet because that would have allowed for the identification of potential issues that may arise but that would otherwise have been overlooked save for the fact that the issues were recognized by project classifier module based on the data comparison effected with data comparator. In this respect, system yields a better project in that the system autonomously injects an aspect into decision making by using data culled from past projects about which current team decision makers would otherwise not have known about or had access to. As such, system facilitates improved quality of result in the implementation of the project. Functionally, the system reduces the risk of mistakes (e.g., cost overruns, implementation delays, and sub-performance of a completed project) by identifying potential problems in advance and without human supervision. Relatedly, the system on average improves project completion times because problems that would otherwise have slowed project completion until corrected are avoided altogether. This is the result of the system's advance identification of current potential problems based on the system's analysis of past projects that the system determines to be sufficiently similar to the current one as suggested by Netto (See para [0074]).
Regarding claim 6:
The rejection of claim 5 is incorporated, but Frayssinet does not explicitly teach:
wherein each prompt is generated based on a most likely response from the previous software application projects.
However, Netto discloses:
wherein each prompt is generated based on a most likely response from the previous software application projects (“Data based on past projects provides a corpus of training data that is used by project classifier module 506 to construct a classifier model. In response to system input specifying features of a current project, the system uses the model to classify the current project and thus identify similar past projects as ones similarly classified. Features can vary depending on the nature and specific aspects of a particular project… In classifying a current project, features and attributes are identified and compared with features and attributes related to past projects. Based on the comparison, similarity between a current project and past projects can be determined by the classifier model constructed using machine learning. In a typical scenario, such a project can begin with a request for proposal (RFP)… Project classifier module 506 extracts from the input data all data that is relevant to the project based on a comparison of data from past projects determined to be similar. The current project having been categorized, project classifier module 506 additionally can identify decisions that must be made as the current project develops, specifically identifying those decisions that are the same or similar to decisions made in connection with one or more past projects. Based on past project data, classifier module 506 optionally can identify which decisions required with respect to the current project are major decisions.” (Emphasis added – See paras [0072] – [0073])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Netto into the teachings of Frayssinet because that would have allowed for the identification of potential issues that may arise but that would otherwise have been overlooked save for the fact that the issues were recognized by project classifier module based on the data comparison effected with data comparator. In this respect, system yields a better project in that the system autonomously injects an aspect into decision making by using data culled from past projects about which current team decision makers would otherwise not have known about or had access to. As such, system facilitates improved quality of result in the implementation of the project. Functionally, the system reduces the risk of mistakes (e.g., cost overruns, implementation delays, and sub-performance of a completed project) by identifying potential problems in advance and without human supervision. Relatedly, the system on average improves project completion times because problems that would otherwise have slowed project completion until corrected are avoided altogether. This is the result of the system's advance identification of current potential problems based on the system's analysis of past projects that the system determines to be sufficiently similar to the current one as suggested by Netto (See para [0074]).
Regarding claim 13:
The rejection of base claim 9 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 14:
The rejection of base claim 9 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20:
The rejection of base claim 16 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claims 5, 6 and 7, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH THI MINH BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7-3.
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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/HANH THI-MINH BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192 December 23rd, 2025