DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-9 are pending and examined.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, mathematical relationship or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Statutory Category: Claim 1 recites A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing an information processing program for causing a computer to execute processing comprising:
acquiring use information that is use information for a database that includes incompatibility information that indicates a rewrite method in which source code dependent on first software is made compatible with second software and registrant information that indicates a registrant of the incompatibility information, and indicates a user of the incompatibility information and a use result of the incompatibility information; identifying a type of the use result indicated by the use information; and calculating an evaluation value to be given to at least one of the user indicated by the use information and the registrant indicated by the registrant information according to the identified type based on evaluation reference information that indicates a correspondence relationship between a plurality of types of use results and a plurality of evaluation values, wherein the calculating of an evaluation value includes calculating a first evaluation value to be given to the user and a second evaluation value to be given to the registrant in a case where the identified type is use success of the incompatibility information for a pair of the first software and the second software.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Claim 1 recites: identifying a type of the use result indicated by the use information (mental steps of identification); calculating an evaluation value to be given to at least one of the user indicated by the use information and the registrant indicated by the registrant information according to the identified type based on evaluation reference information that indicates a correspondence relationship between a plurality of types of use results and a plurality of evaluation values; (a mental step of calculation); wherein the calculating of an evaluation value includes calculating a first evaluation value to be given to the user and a second evaluation value to be given to the registrant in a case where the identified type is use success of the incompatibility information for a pair of the first software and the second software (a mental step of calculation). These limitations as drafted, is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers an abstract idea of performance of the limitation in the mind or manually. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under step 2A prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as “acquiring use information that is use information for a database that includes incompatibility information that indicates a rewrite method in which source code dependent on first software is made compatible with second software and registrant information that indicates a registrant of the incompatibility information, and indicates a user of the incompatibility information and a use result of the incompatibility information”. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, these elements amount to mere data gathering for the mental process, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing an information processing program”. The additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than generic hardware component with instructions to apply the exception, which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-7 do 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, the additional element of dependent claims 2-7 recite more steps of a mental process (calculating) which can be performed mentally or using pen and paper. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 8 (a method claim that performs the steps recited in claim 1) is rejected under the similar rational as claim 1.
Independent claim 9 (a system with a processor and memory to perform the steps of claim 1) is rejected under the similar rational as claim 1. The additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than generic hardware component with instructions to apply the exception, which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Relevant Prior Art
Per claim 1, Tsantilis (USPUB 2005/0132346) suggests a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing an information processing program for causing a computer to execute processing comprising: (claim 28); acquiring use information that is use information that includes incompatibility information that indicates a method in which source code dependent on first software is made compatible with second software and registrant information that indicates a registrant of the incompatibility information, and indicates a user of the incompatibility information and a use result of the incompatibility information (claims 1-6, 16, paragraph [0033][0035][0040]; acquire a snapshot of a baseline software interface (first software), and a snapshot of an updated version of the software interface (second software); the updated version contains the backward-incompatible software modifications (i.e. making the software compatible); compare the two snapshots to detect differences (use information); an alert of the detected differences is sent to a user (registrant)); identifying a type of the use result indicated by the use information; and calculating an evaluation value to be given to at least one of the user indicated by the use information and the registrant indicated by the registrant information according to the identified type based on evaluation reference information that indicates a correspondence relationship between a plurality of types of use results and a plurality of evaluation values (claims 1-6, 16, paragraph [0033][0035][0040][0043][0044]; the process records any detected differences, considers each type of difference separately; an overall backward compatibility value (evaluation value) is determined based on the individual ratings (a plurality of evaluation values) of each detected difference between the two snapshots; an alert containing the compatibility value is sent to a user (registrant)).
However, the discovered prior art do not teach wherein the calculating of an evaluation value includes calculating a first evaluation value to be given to the user and a second evaluation value to be given to the registrant in a case where the identified type is use success of the incompatibility information for a pair of the first software and the second software under the context from the rest of claim 1 limitations.
Independent claims 8 and 9 recite similar limitations as claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
Liu et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0049741) disclose a method for detection of API compatibility across software versions, operations may include executing a set of operations including one or more pattern searching operations on the extracted set of data to generate a compatibility result, then to display assistive information which informs about a compatibility of the one or more APIs or the functions used in the source code of the software application with respect to the second version of the software.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANG PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7667. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 PM.
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.
/HANG PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193