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 a non-final, first office action on the merits.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 acronym AI system.
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, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method (process), claims 8-14 are directed to a system (machine). Thus, claims 1-14 fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Claims 15-20 Independent claim 15 recites step limitations that are not integrated with the computer readable storage medium mentioned in the preamble. 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 computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent, or open-ended. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim term “computer readable storage medium” would include signals per se. See MPEP 2111.01. Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the recited computer readable storage medium could be interpreted as a transitory propagating signal per se. As such, the claim is rejected as covering a signal per se, which is not directed towards statutory subject matter.
In order to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, a claim drawn to such a computer readable storage medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments by adding the limitation "non-transitory" in the claim to recite a “non-transitory computer readable storage medium.” Cf Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multicellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 US.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. As such, claims 16-20 are rejected under 101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-20 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract for the same reason as claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. A method for determining a cost for developing features of a software application, comprising: receiving, from a user, a description of one or more features of the software application via a chat module; determining, by a generative AI system, whether the one or more features are custom features; and determining, in a case the one or more features are determined to be custom features, a cost to develop the one or more features.
The Applicant's Specification titled " SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR DETERMINING A COST FOR DEVELOPING FEATURES OF A SOFTWARE APPLICATION" emphasizes the business need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems directed to receiving a description of one or more features to determine a cost to develop the one or more features. " (figure 37).
As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recites the abstract idea for receiving a description of one or more features to determine a cost to develop the one or more features because the bolded claim limitations pertain to (i) commercial or legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business offer of receiving a description of one or more features to determine a cost to develop the one or more features. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite for receiving a description of one or more features to determine a cost to develop the one or more features. which pertain to "agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligation; behaviors; business relations" and “a fundamental economic activity” expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments (the bolded limitations), such as
claims 2 (Similarly claims 9 and 16) wherein the cost is determined based on similarity of the one or more features to previously developed features.
claim 3 (Similarly claims 10 and 17) wherein the determination of whether the one or more features are custom features is based on historical data and input from the user.
claims 4 (Similarly claims 11 and 18) comprising generating a prototype of the one or more features, and displaying the prototype to the user.
claims 5 (Similarly claims 12 and 19) comprising determining a timeline to develop the one or more features.
claims 6 (Similarly claims 13 and 20) comprising displaying the determined cost to the user before beginning development of the software application.
claims 7 (Similarly claim 14) further comprising generating a machine-readable specification for the software application, wherein the machine-readable specification includes a marker that identifies a customizable portion corresponding to the one or more features.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-20 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1 a chat module and AI system
Claim 8 a system, a processor, memory, chat module and AI system
Claim 15 a computer readable medium, a computer, a chat module and AI system
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of a computer-readable medium, computer, a processor, a memory, a system, a processor, memory, chat module and AI system. which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2). The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, (fig. 1). Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claims 1, 8, and 15 as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The additional elements of a “AI system ”. This language merely requires execution of an algorithm that can be performed by a generic computer component and provides no detail regarding the operation of that algorithm. As such, the claim requirement amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and, therefore, is not sufficient to make the claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (determining that the claim limitations “data processing system,” “communications controller,” and “data storage unit” were generic computer components that amounted to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer); October 2019 Guidance Update at 11–12 (recitation of generic computer limitations for implementing the abstract idea “would not be sufficient to demonstrate integration of a judicial exception into a practical application”). Such a generic recitation of “AI system ” is insufficient to show a practical application of the recited abstract idea.
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for receiving a description of one or more features to determine a cost to develop the one or more features and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention receiving a description of one or more features to determine a cost to develop the one or more features. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, but, these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims. furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of the independent claims, include a computer-readable medium, computer, a processor, a memory, a system, a processor, memory, chat module and AI system. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed for receiving a description of one or more features to determine a cost to develop the one or more features.
Claims 1-20 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
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.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. US 2021/0365614 (hereinafter Sun) in view of Sheive et al. US 2014/0047413 (hereinafter Sheive).
Regarding Claim 1:
A method for determining a cost for developing features of a software application, comprising:
receiving, from a user, a description of one or more features of the software application via [[a chat module]]; (Sun [0026], a user 105 can provide input data to a design framework 160. Examples of input data include inspiration data for a design proposal such as images, audio files, keywords, an existing design, a video, a report outlining parameters or constraints for the design proposal, or the like. The design framework 160 …… Sun [0027-0028]…… also, see [0073])
determining, by a generative AI system, whether the one or more features are custom features; and (Sun [0030-0034], “A user 105, such as a designer, can interact with a creator module 305 of the design framework to provide input data 205 (shown in FIG. 2) and additional information to generate a candidate design or a set of candidate designs for a design proposal for a package design. The creator module 305 is used for design realization and modification. The creator module 305 generates new candidate designs based on the input data 205 and any constraints or conditions provided by the user 105. The candidate designs are images generated by one or more ML models 307 and are to be used in the design proposal”. Sun [0044-0050], “the ML model 307 receives a set of existing designs as basic input. The existing designs from the existing design datastore 510 are used, for example, by a generative model to learn the design space. The output of the ML model 307 is a trained model, which can output a new design space 520 for the design proposal. Sun [0031-0035 fig. 3, “ the adaptive design proposal generator 320 can update and finalize the design proposal and transmit the design proposal to the recommendation engine 317 of the design explorer module 315….The design proposal can include the recommendation as well as the additional candidate designs to present to one or more designated reviewers (e.g., users identified to participate in the design process and provide feedback and approval). Also, see [0037], “The iterative process of receiving feedback from users and updating the design proposal to include modified or replacement candidate designs can continue until approval of a candidate design or a set of candidate designs is received from the users 105”.)
determining, in a case the one or more features are determined to be custom features, a cost to develop the one or more features. ( Sun [0029], “During the design evaluation phase 215 of the design process 200, the design framework 160 generates an evaluation of the candidate designs using multi-dimensional valuation metrics. Example valuation metrics include, but are not limited to target audience relevance, design novelty, cost, proximity to competitor offerings, trendiness, and the like”. Sun [0043] & [0061], “ In some example embodiments, a design task associated with the design proposal can be a specific unit, job, or component of a design proposal. A design proposal is the overall plan for the design and production of a packaging for a product (e.g., blueprint of the packaging, which can include identification of materials, design, cost associated with production, etc.). The design proposal includes one or more proposed candidate designs that are identified as possibilities as designs for the product packaging”.)
Sun disclose the above limitations but, specifically fails to disclose receiving, from a user, … via a chat module;
However, Sheive teaches the following limitation:
receiving, from a user, a description of one or more features of the software application via a chat module; (Sheive [0245-0252], In order to facilitate collaboration within the community of developers, our framework will feature its own chat, or instant messaging, system. … Each application will have a chat room in which users can discuss the application and how to best modify it, or seek help from other users in creating media or modifying code for that application. … Our framework can also include a market for help with developing applications. Users could post a task they want another user to ac complish for them, or help them with, and a price. Also, see [0016], and [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sun, to include the feature of the user communication functions chat module, as taught by Sheive, in order to receive a user input via a chat module so a continuous framework is provided with which users can interact, on one or more platforms that conform to web standards, and which supports (a) the hosting of applications and (b) the creation and direct editing of files, including server-side files that embody the applications and are run inside an application container (Sheive [0005]). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Sun and Sheive, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 3:
Sun in view of Sheive disclose the method of claim 1,
Sun further teach wherein the determination of whether the one or more features are custom features is based on historical data and input from the user. (Sun [0030-0034], “A user 105, such as a designer, can interact with a creator module 305 of the design framework to provide input data 205 (shown in FIG. 2) and additional information to generate a candidate design or a set of candidate designs for a design proposal for a package design. The creator module 305 is used for design realization and modification. The creator module 305 generates new candidate designs based on the input data 205 and any constraints or conditions provided by the user 105. The candidate designs are images generated by one or more ML models 307 and are to be used in the design proposal”. Sun [0044-0050], “the ML model 307 receives a set of existing designs as basic input. The existing designs from the existing design datastore 510 are used, for example, by a generative model to learn the design space. The output of the ML model 307 is a trained model, which can output a new design space 520 for the design proposal”. Also, see [0064])
Regarding Claim 4:
Sun in view of Sheive disclose the method of claim 1,
Sun further teach comprising generating a prototype of the one or more features, and displaying the prototype to the user. (Sun [0037], “The final design 170 (shown in FIG. 1) can include a finalized package design. In some examples, the adaptive design proposal generator 320 can produce a plan for production that includes at least one of a vendor, a price list, and/or a timeline for production of the final design 170. In some examples, the adaptive design proposal generator 320 can generate a report that includes an image of the final design 170 as well as any metrics or valuations used to designate the final design”).
Regarding Claim 5:
Sun in view of Sheive disclose the method of claim 1,
Sun further teach comprising determining a timeline to develop the one or more features. (Sun [0061] and [0043] In some examples, the adaptive design proposal generator 320 can produce a plan for production that includes at least one of a vendor, a price list, and a timeline for production of the final design. In some examples, the adaptive design proposal generator 320 can generate a report that includes an image of the final design as well as any metrics or valuations used to designate the final design. ).
Regarding Claim 6:
Sun in view of Sheive disclose the method of claim 1,
Sun further teach comprising displaying the determined cost to the user before beginning development of the software application. (Sun [0027], “input data to a design framework … for a design proposed …. Cost constraining ….the design proposal can be presented to the user … upon receiving approval from the user … the final design is generated”. Also, see [0066])
Regarding Claim 8:
Claim 8 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 8 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 10:
Claim 10 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 3 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 10 is rejected under the same rational as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 11:
Claim 11 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 4 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected under the same rational as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 12:
Claim 12 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 5 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected under the same rational as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 13:
Claim 13 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 6 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected under the same rational as claim 6.
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim 15 is the computer readable storage medium claim corresponding to the method claim 1 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 17:
Claim 17 is the computer readable storage medium claim corresponding to the method claim 3 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected under the same rational as claim 3.
Regarding Claim 18:
Claim 18 is the computer readable storage medium claim corresponding to the method claim 4 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected under the same rational as claim 4.
Regarding Claim 19:
Claim 19 is the computer readable storage medium claim corresponding to the method claim 5 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 19 is rejected under the same rational as claim 5.
Regarding Claim 20:
Claim 20 is the computer readable storage medium claim corresponding to the method claim 6 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 20 is rejected under the same rational as claim 6.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. US 2021/0365614 (hereinafter Sun) in view of Sheive et al. US 2014/0047413 (hereinafter Sheive) in view of Stelmar Netto et al. US 2020/0169465 (hereinafter Stelmar Netto).
Regarding Claim 2:
Sun in view of Sheive disclose the method of claim 1 but, does not specifically teach or disclose, however, Stelmar, in the same field of endeavor teaches , wherein the cost is determined based on similarity of the one or more features to previously developed features. (See Stelmar Netto [0073], “Based on past project data, classifier module 506 optionally can identify which decisions required with respect to the current project are major decisions. Specifically, project classifier module 506 can identify decisions that are equivalent to past project decisions that affected a project's outcome, such as a decision that affected whether a project was completed within a specified time, whether the project was completed without cost overruns, or whether when completed, yielded a performance that met required specifications. Any decision that affects the project's implementation time, cost of implementation, or profitability thus can be a major decision”. Also, see [0075], [0076], [0078], [0085], [0087], “determine a cost”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sun, to include the feature of the determining a cost, as taught by Stelmar Netto, in order to determine the cost of the one or more features based on similarity of a previous feature implemented (Stelmar Netto [0073]). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Sun and Sheive, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 9:
Claim 9 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 2 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 9 is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Regarding Claim 16:
Claim 16 is the computer readable storage medium claim corresponding to the method claim 2 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected under the same rational as claim 2.
Claims 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. US 2021/0365614 (hereinafter Sun) in view of Sheive et al. US 2014/0047413 (hereinafter Sheive) in view of Qian, Paul WO2023/070162 (hereinafter Qian).
Regarding Claim 7:
Sun in view of Sheive disclose the method of claim 1 but, does not specifically teach or disclose, however, Qian, in the same field of endeavor teaches, further comprising generating a machine-readable specification for the software application, wherein the machine-readable specification includes a marker that identifies a customizable portion corresponding to the one or more features. (Qian [0059] and [0087], “these features of the customized software products …. Markers and overlays … customized markers … and marker table. The markers can be selected to, … called to render the markers and overlays …. A feature of the customized software products outputted”. Also, see [0132])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Sun, to include the feature of the a feature marker, as taught by Qian, in order to generate a marker that identifies a customizable portion corresponding to the one or more features (Qian [0059] & [0087]). Further, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements in a similar field of endeavor and, in the combination, each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that, given the existing technical ability to combine the elements as evidenced by Sun and Sheive, the results of the combination were predictable (see MPEP 2143 A).
Regarding Claim 14:
Claim 14 is the system claim corresponding to the method claim 7 rejected above. Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected under the same rational as claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Thüm, Thomas, et al. "FeatureIDE: An extensible framework for feature-oriented software development." Science of Computer Programming 79 (2014): 70-85.
Duggal et al. US 2021/0096826: Application development involving instant prototyping.
Alurralde Iturri et al. US 2021/0034336: Executing a process-based software application in a first computing environment and a second computing environment.
Clemm et al. US 2011/0093371: Token licensing mapping costs to enabled software tool features.
Saxton WO 2009/097241: A method and system for assessing deployment and un-deployment of software in-stellations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 anm-5 pm 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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624