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 .
Status of Claims
The office action is being examined in response to the amendment filed by the applicant on December 4, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 12, 14, 16-17, and 20 are currently amended.
This action is made FINAL.
Amendments to independent claims 1,9, and 16, as well as dependent claims 2, 5-8, 10, 12, 14, and 20 are respectfully accepted.
Statement acknowledging the interview is respectfully accepted.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. § 101 Arguments –Abstract Idea.
Applicant’s Remarks, see pages 11-16, filed 12/04/2025, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101, on page 11, that the claims, as amended are patent eligible under this statute. On pages 11-13, the Applicant argues with respect to Step 2A Prong 1, asserting that claim 1, as amended, does not recite an abstract idea in the category of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" for managing personal behaviors and relationships or interactions between people, or any other enumerated subgrouping of "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” such that the claims expand beyond the enumerated subgrouping imposed by the Examiner.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are examined under the broadest reasonable interpretation. While there are general purpose computing structures and, as amended, an artificial intelligence algorithm, are recited at a high level of generality. Both are merely tools utilized to perform the instructions to implement the abstract idea with, i.e. on a computer, or utilizing an algorithm. The claims continue to recite abstract ideas, where the additional limitations are also merely an abstract idea of analyzing new data as compared to old data to find conflicting data, i.e. a form of deduping, and basing the data update on an output that satisfies a threshold and according to resource utilization. Neither addition incorporates specificity, such that the claims continue merely performing generic business functions that attempt to cover any solution to the problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanisms for accomplishing the result. Therefore, the claims continue to recite an abstract idea, the best fitting category is "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" as the tasks that are performed are historically human tasks, in the subcategory of managing human/personal behavior or relationships and the interactions, behaviors and relationships between people. The claims recite limitations that were historically performed solely by humans in a collaborative project management and software development arena, such that the claims merely automate the tasks i.e. project management and teamwork/collaboration in software development.
Example 46 discloses a situation akin to project management where the system is merely automating the management of a process. Examples 36 and 47, similarly automate processes, however, the specificity of the claim language led these examples to have allowable claims. According to the analysis, the allowable claims require the additional elements to be integral to the function of the limitations, establishing additional elements that are indicative of integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application. The rejected claims fail because, but for the inclusion of the additional elements, the limitations recite abstract ideas, i.e. the claims are mere instructions to implement abstract ideas using the additional elements as tools, e.g. “apply it.” The difference, the allowed claims from examples 36 and 47, require the additional elements to be integral in performing the functions. For the rejected claims [Ex 36] “the combination of elements is no more than the sum of their parts, and provides nothing more than mere automation” of steps formerly performed by a human in business processes. In the instant application, similarly, the additional elements do nothing more than provide tools to automate the processes, and under the legal assessment “but for the tools,” the limitations still function if the tools are removed, therefore the tools are merely adding the words “apply it” with the abstract idea.
On pages 13-15, the Applicant argues with regards to Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B. The Applicant asserts that MPEP 2016.04(d)(1) states “if the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application…the claim is eligible,” and further “an improvement to other technology or technical field” is “indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application. The Applicant asserts that the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application of automatically reducing conflicts in a set of requirements for a software development process. The Applicant further asserts that claim 1 as a whole is integrated into a practical application because it is directed to improvements in the technical field of software development.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) includes verbiage in this section about additional elements, i.e. the additional elements must be identified in the claims and must be separate from the identified abstract ideas. The Additional Elements are what integrates the claim as a whole, when either viewed individually or as an ordered pair, into a practical application. Further, the same Additional Elements are analyzed again to ascertain if they are enough to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. While an improvement to a technical field might be tied to integrating the exception into a practical application, it is these Additional Elements that must be indicative of integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, in turn, showing improvement to a technical field. In this claim 1, specifically, the Additional Elements are the general-purpose computing structures and the artificial intelligence algorithm, neither of which are distinct elements, i.e. these Elements are performing generic business functions. The recitations attempt to cover any solution to the problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result beyond generic Elements recited in the claims and disclosed in the specification at a high level of generality. These elements do not show improvements to any of the general-purpose computing structures or AI algorithms. They are generally linked to the claim functions and the field of use or particular technological environment, in addition to adding the words “apply it” for these additional elements. Since these elements are generally linked to the particular technological environment, the claim as a whole is merely a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, evaluating the claim under both Prong 2A Step 2 and Prong 2B, the Additional Elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and similarly, they are not enough to amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea, when analyzed both individually or as an ordered pair/grouping, while looking at the claim as a whole. This analysis is mirrored through all of the independent and dependent claims as amended.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is maintained. Please find an updated rejection for 35 U.S.C. § 101 below, reflecting the amendments.
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 15, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. § 103, necessitated by the amendment. Please find the new 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection for claims 16 and 17 below, reflecting the amended claim language.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 16-17, filed 12/04/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. § 103 necessitated by the amendment.
On pages 16-17, the Applicant argues that Majd in view of McGinty fails to disclose the analyze new parameter for conflict with set of parameters and the update the new software development project item based on the new data limitations of the amended claims 1 and 9, which make these amended claims and the claims that depend on them patentable over the cited sections of Majd in view of McGinty.
The Examiner respectfully agrees. Since the amendment changes the claim language, please find the new 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection below reflecting the amended claim language, not previously considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims:
Regarding Claim 1: The claim recites the following functions: receive parameters to drive program code generation for project via first interface, generate new development item for project, store item via first system/second interface, generate monitored communication channel on second system for project, provision client device access to project communications on second system, receive commands with data from communications, identify new parameters within data, analyze new data for conflicts with set of data, update project item new parameter with output based on satisfying a threshold and based on a projected resource utilization, and provide data associated with updating project item, which are abstract ideas in the category of “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People.” which is in the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" category of abstract ideas. The claim utilizes the functions above to manage the behaviors and relationships of people in a software development process control system, i.e. project management, team collaboration, and software development project version control, because it replaces person to person interaction in coding development projects and project management with computer-based and algorithm based functions that manage the same process controls , thereby altering the behaviors, relationships, or interactions of the users in developing these new software projects (MPEP 2105.04(a)(2)(II)). Further, the recited processes are historically performed by humans, such that the limitations recited in the claims and disclosed in the specification are merely automating historically human processes of project management. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim also recites claim limitations that are all merely characterizations of data or groups of data that are non-functional descriptive information limitations. These characterized data limitations are not abstract ideas, nor limitations that carry patentable weight in the claim, and therefore, they are not limitations that can be relied upon to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not positively recite any additional functions that limit the claim or the structures of the claim.
Insofar as the claim recites the following additional computing elements, A system for process control, the system comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, a first interface, a first system, a second interface, a monitored communications channel, a second system, a set of client devices, both the claim and the specification recite or disclose generic general-purpose computing structures performing generic business functions that attempt to cover any solution to the problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Further, the claim recites an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm at a high level of generality for performing business functions, similarly, attempting to cover any solution without restriction on how the result is accomplished or description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, i.e. the algorithm receives data and returns data with no details or restrictions on how it performs or the mechanisms of performance. These additional elements and the claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These recitations amount to “apply it,” mere instructions to apply the Judicial Exceptions in a technical field of project management, team collaboration, software development with project version control using the generic computing structures and/or an AI algorithm as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites receive information, generate a project item, store information, generate a monitored communication channel, provision (send) access, receive command data, update (send) the item, and provide (send) information, which are receiving, sending, generating, storing, manipulating, and updating data, as well as creating and manipulating communication channels for each user of the project to communicate through, which amount to collecting, transmitting, parsing, filtering, and manipulating data. These are data manipulations that are commonplace business method actions applied using general-purpose computing structures, where the claim recites an idea of outcome without detailing the manner in which the claim reaches the solution. The specification does not disclose advancements to sending, collecting, transmitting, parsing, filtering, and manipulating data, nor to generating communications channels or provisioning the channels to users. As disclosed, above, this claim adds the words “apply it,” using a general purpose computer to perform the abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, therefore, the claim does not recite limitations that are indicative of an improvement to either, and therefore does not recite an improvement to the function of a computer, to a technology, or to a field of use beyond applying the abstract idea using automation of manual processes that are commonplace business methods, implemented on general purpose computing structures (MPEP 2016.05(a)). These functions are recited at a high level of generality, where the claim focuses on the nature of the data being manipulated – i.e., the descriptive nature of the data without detailing an inventive concept. Generally linking the Judicial Exception to the technological field of software development process controls, i.e. project management, team collaboration, and software development project version control, is not indicative of a practical application of these additional elements (MPEP 2016.05(h)). Therefore, claim as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The analysis above for Step 2A is commensurate with the analysis for this Step 2B, such that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more when taken individually and in combination. The claimed elements do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 9: The claim recites the following functions: provide a user interface, receive sets of values for sets of fields via interface, generate new data item including values, store item via first system data structure, generate communication channel on second system for new data item, provision client device access to communications on second system, receive information identifying commands from communications, parse to identify value change within commands, analyze new data for conflicts with set of data, transmit update notification of new data based on an output satisfying a threshold and based on a changed projected resource utilization, transmit update confirmation to second system indicating updated value in new data item in first system and in communication channel with new parameter, which are abstract ideas in the category of “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People.” which is in the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" category of abstract ideas. The claim utilizes the functions above to manage the behaviors and relationships of people in a software development process control system, i.e. project management, team collaboration, and software development project version control, because it replaces person to person interaction in coding development projects with computer-based functions, tasks historically performed by humans, that merely automate these process controls, thereby altering the behaviors, relationships, or interactions between the users in developing these new software projects and the associated project management (MPEP 2105.04(a)(2)(II)). The claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim also recites claim limitations that are all mere characterizations of data or groups of data that are non-functional descriptive information limitations. These characterized data limitations are not abstract ideas, nor limitations that carry patentable weight in the claim, and therefore, they are not limitations that can be relied upon to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not positively recite any additional functions that limit the claim or the structures of the claim.
Insofar as the claim recites the following additional computing elements, A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors of a system, cause the system to, a client device ,a user interface, a set of fields, a data structure, a first system, a second system, a communications channel, and a set of client devices, the claim and the specification recite or disclose generic general-purpose computing structures performing generic business functions that attempt to cover any solution to the problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Further, the claim recites an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm at a high level of generality for performing business functions, similarly, attempting to cover any solution without restriction on how the result is accomplished or description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, i.e. the algorithm receives data and returns data with no details or restrictions on how it performs or the mechanisms of performance. These additional elements and the claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These recitations amount to “apply it,” mere instructions to apply the Judicial Exceptions in a technical field of project management, team collaboration, software development with project version control using the generic computing structures and/or an AI algorithm as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites receive information, provide (send), receive values, generate a new data item, store information in a data structure, generate a communication channel, provision (send) access, receive command data, parse commands, and transmit (send) update notification, and transmit an update confirmation, which are receiving, sending, generating, storing, manipulating, and updating data, as well as creating and manipulating communication channels for each user of the project to communicate through, which amount to collecting, transmitting, parsing, filtering, generating, and manipulating data. These are data manipulations that are commonplace business method actions applied using general-purpose computing structures, where the claim recites an idea of outcome without detailing the manner in which the claim reaches the solution. The specification does not disclose advancements to sending, collecting, transmitting, parsing, filtering, and manipulating data, nor to generating communications channels or providing a user interface to users. As disclosed, above, this claim adds the words “apply it,” using a general purpose computer to perform the abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, therefore, the claim does not recite limitations that are indicative of an improvement to the function of a computer, to a technology, or to a field of use beyond applying the abstract idea using automation of manual processes that are commonplace business methods, implemented on general purpose computing structures (MPEP 2016.05(a)). These functions are recited at a high level of generality, where the claim focuses on the nature of the data being manipulated – i.e., the descriptive nature of the data without detailing an inventive concept. Generally linking the Judicial Exception to the technological field of software development process controls, i.e. project management, team collaboration, and software development project version control, is not indicative of a practical application of these additional elements (MPEP 2016.05(h)). Therefore, claim as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The analysis above for Step 2A is commensurate with the analysis for this Step 2B, such that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more when taken individually and in combination. The claimed elements do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 16: The claim recites the following functions: receive requirements via a form to drive code generation via device, generate program code item by the device, store generated code item via the device and the first system, receive new requirements information for the item through the device, obtain approval by the device based on an output satisfying a threshold and based on a changed projected resource utilization, and based on whether the new requirement conflicts with another requirement from the set, if new requirement and if approval of new requirement: generate updated program code by the device, and store the updated program code to the item in the first system by the device, which are abstract ideas in the category of “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People.” which is in the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" category of abstract ideas. The claim utilizes the functions above to manage the behaviors and relationships of people in a software development process control system, i.e. project management, team collaboration, and software development project version control, because it replaces person to person interaction in coding development projects with computer-based functions, tasks historically performed by humans, merely automating these process controls, thereby altering the behaviors, relationships, or interactions between the users in developing these new software projects (MPEP 2105.04(a)(2)(II)). The claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim also recites claim limitations that are all mere characterizations of data or groups of data that are non-functional descriptive information limitations. These characterized data limitations are not abstract ideas, nor limitations that carry patentable weight in the claim, and therefore, they are not limitations that can be relied upon to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not positively recite any additional functions that limit the claim or the structures of the claim.
Insofar as the claim recites the following additional computing elements, a device and a first system, the claim and the specification recite or disclose generic general-purpose computing structures performing generic business functions that attempt to cover any solution to the problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result. Further, the claim recites an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm at a high level of generality for performing business functions, similarly, attempting to cover any solution without restriction on how the result is accomplished or description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, i.e. the algorithm receives data and returns data with no details or restrictions on how it performs or the mechanisms of performance. These additional elements and the claim limitations are recited at a high level of generality. These recitations amount to “apply it,” mere instructions to apply the Judicial Exceptions in a technical field of project management, team collaboration, software development with project version control using the generic computing structures and/or an AI algorithm as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites receive information, receive data, generate program code item, store (send) the code item, generate program code, receive information, obtain (receive) approval, generate updated code, and store (send) updated code, which amount to collecting, transmitting, parsing, generating, filtering, and manipulating data. These are data manipulations that are commonplace business method actions applied using general-purpose computing structures, where the claim recites an idea of outcome without detailing the manner in which the claim reaches the solution. The specification does not disclose advancements to sending, collecting, transmitting, parsing, filtering, and manipulating data, nor to generating communications channels or provisioning the channels to users. As disclosed, above, this claim adds the words “apply it,” using a general purpose computer to perform the abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, therefore, the claim does not recite limitations that are indicative of an improvement to the function of a computer, to a technology, or to a field of use beyond applying the abstract idea using automation of manual processes that are commonplace business methods, implemented on general purpose computing structures (MPEP 2016.05(a)).functions are recited at a high level of generality, where the claim focuses on the nature of the data being manipulated – i.e., the descriptive nature of the data without detailing an inventive concept. Generally linking the Judicial Exception to the technological field of software development process controls, i.e. project management, team collaboration, and software development project version control, is not indicative of a practical application of these additional elements (MPEP 2016.05(h)). Therefore, claim as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The analysis above for Step 2A is commensurate with the analysis for this Step 2B, such that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more when taken individually and in combination. The claimed elements do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent Claims:
Regarding Claim 2: The claim recites further elements related to the project management, team collaboration, and software development project version control while adding limitations that further recite the same abstract idea including generate a first program code based on parameters, provide the first code, generate a second program code that is different, and provide second program code, all based on parameters received within the software development project for the new project item. These further recite the abstract idea because the functions further automate human project management and version control tasks, to drive human behavior and interactions in the project management collaboration and version control environment. The additional data limitations, which are characterizations of data that carry no patentable weight, are the first program code, set of parameters, the new software development project item, the different second program code, the new parameter, and information. The additional computing element are the processors, recited at a high level of generality, such that they are general purpose computing structures that are merely applied as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Further, the claim generally links the abstract idea to the field of use in project management, team collaboration, and software development project version control. Lastly, the claim recites an idea of outcome without detailing the manner in which the claim reaches the solution. As disclosed, above, this claim adds the words “apply it,” using a general purpose computer to perform the abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, therefore, the claim does not recite limitations that are indicative of an improvement to the function of a computer, to a technology, or to a field of use beyond applying the abstract idea using automation of manual processes that are commonplace business methods, implemented on general purpose computing structures (MPEP 2016.05(a)). These functions are recited at a high level of generality, where the claim focuses on the nature of the data being manipulated – i.e., the descriptive nature of the data without detailing an inventive concept. Generally linking the Judicial Exception to the technological field of software development process controls, i.e. project management, team collaboration, and software development project version control, is not indicative of a practical application of these additional elements (MPEP 2016.05(h)). Therefore, claim as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and for the same reasons, does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 3-8 and 20: The claims recite further elements related to the project management, team collaboration, and software development project version control while adding limitations that further recite the same abstract idea including:
Claim 3: provide intake information via the interface and receive parameters including values by processors;
Claim 4: identify client devices and transmit calendar information to client devices;
Claim 5: transmit update information to client devices, receive approval from client devices, and update project based on approval of update;
Claim 6: divide project into tasks, transmit task information to client devices, receive completion information from client devices, and update the project with task completion;
Claim 7: generate test script for project item, execute scripts on program code, and provide result information via communication channel;
Claim 8: Receive deployment command and configure third system to deploy project on third system.
Claim 20: perform operations to resolve conflicting instructions received at communications channel;
These limitations further recite the abstract idea because the functions further automate human project management and version control tasks, to drive human behavior and interactions in the project management collaboration and version control environment. The claims recite additional data limitations, which are characterizations of data that carry no patentable weight. The additional computing element are all recited at a high level of generality, such that they are general purpose computing structures that are merely applied as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Claim 20 recites additional elements of the chatbot functionality supported by the artificial intelligence algorithm, recited at a high level of generality performing generic business functions that attempt to cover any solution to the problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, i.e. the chatbot functionality via the algorithm receives data from the monitored communications channel and performs operations to resolves confliction instruction, e.g. and returns resolved data. These recitations amount to “apply it,” mere instructions to apply the Judicial Exceptions in a technical field of project management, team collaboration, and software development with project version control using the generic chatbot functionality supported by an AI algorithm as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, these claims generally link the abstract idea to the field of use in project management, team collaboration, and software development project version control. Lastly, the claims recite an idea of outcome without detailing the manner in which the claim reaches the solution. As disclosed, above, these claims add the words “apply it,” using a general purpose computer to perform the abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, therefore, each claim does not recite limitations that are indicative of an improvement to the function of a computer, to a technology, or to a field of use beyond applying the abstract idea using automation of manual processes that are commonplace business methods, implemented on general purpose computing structures. These functions are recited at a high level of generality, where the claim focuses on the nature of the data being manipulated – i.e., the descriptive nature of the data without detailing an inventive concept. Generally linking the Judicial Exception to the technological field of software development process controls, i.e. project management, team collaboration, and software development project version control, is not indicative of a practical application of these additional elements. Therefore, each claim as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and for the same reasons, do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 10-15: The claims recite further elements related to the project management, team collaboration, and software development project version control while adding limitations that further recite the same abstract idea including:
Claim 10: select template based on values, generate populated item template using values, and store the new item;
Claim 11: replace template placeholder values with values;
Claim 12: call programming interface to store new item;
Claim 13: provide serverless web application user interface and receive values via user interactions with serverless web;
Claim 14: execute a test on program code of new data item, detect and error with executing test, and update data item error information;
Claim 15: transmit error notifications from second system to client devices.
These limitations further recite the abstract idea because the functions further automate human project management and version control tasks, to drive human behavior and interactions in the project management collaboration and version control environment. The claims recite additional data limitations, which are characterizations of data that carry no patentable weight. The additional computing element are all recited at a high level of generality, such that they are general purpose computing structures that are merely applied as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Further, the claims generally link the abstract idea to the field of use in project management, team collaboration, and software development project version control. Lastly, the claims recite an idea of outcome without detailing the manner in which the claim reaches the solution. As disclosed, above, these claims add the words “apply it,” using a general purpose computer to perform the abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, therefore, each claim does not recite limitations that are indicative of an improvement to the function of a computer, to a technology, or to a field of use beyond applying the abstract idea using automation of manual processes that are commonplace business methods, implemented on general purpose computing structures. These functions are recited at a high level of generality, where the claim focuses on the nature of the data being manipulated – i.e., the descriptive nature of the data without detailing an inventive concept. Generally linking the Judicial Exception to the technological field of software development process controls, i.e. project management, team collaboration, and software development project version control, is not indicative of a practical application of these additional elements. Therefore, each claim as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and for the same reasons, do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claims 17-19: The claims recite further elements related to the project management, team collaboration, and software development project version control while adding limitations that further recite the same abstract idea including:
Claim 17: provide intake information and receive parameter requirements values via input to a user interface;
Claim 18: identify client devices and transmit calendar information to client devices;
Claim 19: transmit update information to client devices, receive approval from client devices;
These limitations further recite the abstract idea because the functions further automate human project management and version control tasks, to drive human behavior and interactions in the project management collaboration and version control environment. The claims recite additional data limitations, which are characterizations of data that carry no patentable weight. The additional computing element are all recited at a high level of generality, such that they are general purpose computing structures that are merely applied as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Further, the claims generally link the abstract idea to the field of use in project management, team collaboration, and software development project version control. Lastly, the claims recite an idea of outcome without detailing the manner in which the claim reaches the solution. As disclosed, above, these claims add the words “apply it,” using a general purpose computer to perform the abstract idea, and generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, therefore, each claim does not recite limitations that are indicative of an improvement to the function of a computer, to a technology, or to a field of use beyond applying the abstract idea using automation of manual processes that are commonplace business methods, implemented on general purpose computing structures. These functions are recited at a high level of generality, where the claim focuses on the nature of the data being manipulated – i.e., the descriptive nature of the data without detailing an inventive concept. Generally linking the Judicial Exception to the technological field of software development process controls, i.e. project management, team collaboration, and software development project version control, is not indicative of a practical application of these additional elements. Therefore, each claim as a whole, while looking at additional elements individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and for the same reasons, do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over by Majd, US20080021757A1 in view of McGinty, US20230246869A1, and in further view of Walker, US20240289261A1.
Regarding Claim 1: Majd discloses and McGinty and Walker teach:
Majd discloses: A system for process control, the system comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories configured to: [0027-0032] (a system comprised of a plurality of memory devices coupled to the computer system comprising processors configured to)
receive, via a first interface, a set of parameters for a software development project associated with generating program code; [Abstract] “managing a task of a project in an integrated development environment…receiving a set of data from a project management tool, the set of data including an identifier corresponding to the task,” [0027] (a plurality of interfaces);
generate a new software development project item for the software development project based on the set of parameters; [0043] (create a new task for project based on data);
store, via a first system associated with a second interface, the new software development project item; [0034] “the set of data is stored in the data files 112,” [0027] (a plurality of interfaces);
a monitored communication channel, operating on a second system, for the new software development project; [0033] the event monitoring program 132 are configured to assist a project manager in managing his/her project … are configured to alert the developer,” [0040] “determining whether event listeners have been activated and determining whether access to the appropriate data structures has been opened.”
receive, based on a set of commands, information identifying a new parameter for the software development project; [0041] “a determination is made as to whether the identifier indicates a beginning of an event;”
update, the new software development project item in the first system based on the new parameter; and [0045] (allow project manager to update the project);
provide information associated with updating the new software development project item. [0045] (project management tool is updated with stored data);
Where Majd does not disclose: generate a monitored communication channel, operating on a second system, for the new software development project; provision, on the second system, access to the monitored communication channel to a set of client devices associated with the software development project; receive, based on a set of commands in the monitored communication channel,
McGinty teaches: [Abstract] (generate and provision a communication channel on a separate system for data objects, i.e. for each project and/or project item), [0059] (monitored communication channel that transmits and receives data objects);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to replace the base implementation of a task and project communication for listeners, project managers, and developers, through the project management monitoring program from Majd, with the improved multi-tenant generated and provisioned communication channels in McGinty, where communication channels are generated and provisioned per data item and project. The combination of these prior art disclosures is compelled by the motivation of McGinty’s specification ¶ [0017] “Aspects of the present disclosure may provide for improved cross-platform functionality between a data management platform and a communication platform. In particular, techniques of the present disclosure provide for an automatic system to create a communication channel from a record page of a data management platform, thus improving the user experience.” The combination of Majd and McGinty disclose the limitations of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Where Majd does not disclose and McGinty does not teach, Walker teaches:
analyze, using an artificial intelligence algorithm, whether the new parameter conflicts with the set of parameters; [0047] (monitor, analyze, and identify conflicts between changed/new output data and existing data), [0070-0071] (analyze data changes via an artificial intelligence algorithm using of pattern recognition, storing changed/new data, existing data, and/or data sets);
based on an output of the artificial intelligence algorithm satisfying a threshold and based on a projected resource utilization associated with the new parameter, [0047] (monitor, analyze, and identify conflicts between changed/new output data and existing data, to satisfy metrics and/or performance threshold and performance metric), [0070-0071] (analyze data changes via an artificial intelligence algorithm using of pattern recognition, storing changed/new data, existing data, and/or data sets), [0031] (infrastructure services determine management and control of the resources and their utilization), [Abstract] (change to a configuration of the deployment pipeline itself, i.e. resources are changed in association with running a “plurality of test applications on the deployment pipeline to test the deployment pipeline with respect to the software change may be invoked, and the plurality of test applications may be run with the software change, e.g. projected resource utilization is tested based on changes to values);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the base implementations of Project Management from Majd and McGinty, with the analysis of conflicting data using an artificial intelligence algorithm, and transmitting updates based on an output of the algorithm satisfying a threshold and based on a projected resource utilization associated with the change to the value, as improvements from Walker. Each prior art would have combined the elements as claimed by methods known in the art of software development and project management process controllers. Each element performs the same function in the individual disclosures as performed when combined, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination are predictable to disclose the limitations of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 2: Majd discloses and McGinty and Walker teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
Majd discloses: generate first program code for the new software development project item based on the set of parameters of the new software development project item; [0032] (develop first code) [abstract] (receive parameters from project management tool) [0033] (receive parameter data for each task in project and develop first program code);
provide the first program code based on generating the first program code; and [0032] (provide code output);
generate second program code, that is different from the first program code, based on the new parameter; and [0033] (receive parameter data and develop edited program code, i.e. edited code is second program code, edited to be different according to received parameters), [0035] (the disclosure implicitly discloses later tasks, i.e. second code, are dependent on initial task such that the dependency discloses different code for the dependent task);
wherein the one or more processors, to provide the information associated with updating the new software development project item, are to: provide the second program code. [0033] “The editor 114 may be any type of editor adapted to output the source code and to display prompts on the output device”
Regarding Claim 3: Majd discloses & McGinty and Walker teach: The system of claim 1,
Majd discloses: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: provide, via the first interface, intake information associated with identifying the set of parameters for which a set of values are to be provided; and [0033] (provide prompts to receive input data for project or task),
wherein the one or more processors, to receive the set of parameters, are to: receive, via input to the first interface, the set of values for the set of parameters. [0034] (data is received, where the input data include values for parameters);
Regarding Claim 4: Majd discloses & McGinty and Walker teach: The system of claim 1,
Majd discloses: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: identify, based on the set of parameters, the set of client devices associated with the software development project; and [claim 1] “monitoring a respective user activity related to each of a plurality of events related to the task,” [0033] the event monitoring program 132 are configured to assist a project manager in managing his/her project … are configured to alert the developer,” [0040] “determining whether event listeners have been activated and determining whether access to the appropriate data structures has been opened.”
Where Majd does not disclose and Walker does not teach, McGinty teaches: transmit, to the set of client devices and based on identifying the set of client devices, information identifying one or more calendar items associated with the software development project. [0071] (calendar and timeline including start date and end date), [0058-0059] and [Claim 16] (sends data to team regarding status and events).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to replace the base implementation of a task and project communication for listeners, project managers, and developers, through the project management monitoring program from Majd, with the improved multi-tenant generated and provisioned communication channels in McGinty, where communication channels are generated and provisioned per data item and project. The combination of these prior art disclosures is compelled by the motivation of McGinty’s specification ¶ [0017] “Aspects of the present disclosure may provide for improved cross-platform functionality between a data management platform and a communication platform. In particular, techniques of the present disclosure provide for an automatic system to create a communication channel from a record page of a data management platform, thus improving the user experience.” The combination of Majd and McGinty disclose the limitations of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 5: Majd discloses, McGinty and Walker teach: The system of claim 1,
Where Majd does not disclose and Walker does not teach, McGinty teaches: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: transmit information identifying the update to a subset of client devices of the set of client devices; and [0071] (calendar and timeline including start date and end date), [0058-0059] and [Claim 16] (sends data to team regarding status and events).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to replace the base implementation of a task and project communication for listeners, project managers, and developers, through the project management monitoring program from Majd, with the improved multi-tenant generated and provisioned communication channels in McGinty, where communication channels are generated and provisioned per data item and project. The combination of these prior art disclosures is compelled by the motivation of McGinty’s specification ¶ [0017] “Aspects of the present disclosure may provide for improved cross-platform functionality between a data management platform and a communication platform. In particular, techniques of the present disclosure provide for an automatic system to create a communication channel from a record page of a data management platform, thus improving the user experience.” The combination of Majd and McGinty disclose the limitations of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Where Majd does not disclose and McGinty does not teach, Walker teaches:
receive, from the subset of client devices, approval of the update; and [0061] (approval of update),
wherein the one or more processors, to update the new software development project item, are to: update the new software development project item based on receiving approval of the approval of the update. [0061] (approval of update), ;
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the base implementations of Project Management from Majd and McGinty, with the approval of update, as an improvement from Walker. Each prior art would have combined the elements as claimed by methods known in the art of software development and project management process controllers. Each element performs the same function in the individual disclosures as performed when combined, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination are predictable to disclose the limitations of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 6: Majd discloses & McGinty and Walker teach: The system of claim 1,
Majd discloses: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: divide the new software development project item into a set of tasks based on the set of parameters; [0006] “Most projects in the IDE could be viewed as broken down into tasks;”
transmit, to the set of client devices, information identifying the set of tasks; [0021] “invention alerts a developer of tasks;”
receive, from the set of client devices, information identifying completion of the set of tasks; and [0037] (receive completion validation);
update the new software development project item based on the information identifying the completion of the set of tasks. [0037] (update project with task completion).
Regarding Claim 7: Majd discloses and McGinty and Walker teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
Where Majd does not disclose and McGinty does not teach, Walker teaches:
generate a set of test scripts for the new software development project item; [0039-0041] (generate and execute scripts),
execute the set of test scripts on program code; [0039-0041] (generate and execute scripts),
provide, via the monitored communication channel of the second system, information identifying a set of results, [0047] “may notify the developers of pertinent log data, test results.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the base implementations of Project Management from Majd and McGinty, with the generation, execution and provision of script testing and results, as an improvement from Walker. Each prior art would have combined the elements as claimed by methods known in the art of software development and project management process controllers. Each element performs the same function in the individual disclosures as performed when combined, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination are predictable to disclose the limitations of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 8: Majd discloses and McGinty and Walker teach: The system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
Where Majd does not disclose and McGinty does not teach, Walker teaches:
receive a deployment command associated with the new software development project; and configure a third system to deploy the new software development project on the third system. [0023] (configure production computing service deployment on a distributed system that could be a cloud computing system, serverless system, client devices, or any other plurality of systems or devices), [0039] “the software may be pushed to production with the production stage 255.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the base implementations of Project Management from Majd and McGinty, with the deployment command and device configuration, as an improvement from Walker. Each prior art would have combined the elements as claimed by methods known in the art of software development and project management process controllers. Each element performs the same function in the individual disclosures as performed when combined, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination are predictable to disclose the limitations of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 9: Majd discloses and McGinty and Walker teach:
Majd discloses: A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a system cause the system to: [0010] (a storage medium storing instructions) [0027-0032] (a system comprised of a plurality of memory devices coupled to the computer system comprising processors configured to execute the instructions that cause the system to):
provide, to a client device, the user interface including a set of fields for receiving data; [0033] “display prompts received from the project management tool 150 to inquire certain inputs;”
receive, via a user interface, a set of values for the set of fields; [0034] (data values are received in prompt fields of the project management tool 150);
generate a new data item including the set of values for the set of fields; [0043] (create a new task for project based on data);
store, via a data structure of a first system, the new data item; [0034] “the set of data is stored in the data files 112,” [0027] (a plurality of interfaces), [0046] “The data structure 500 includes a series of fields;”
for the new data item and in connection with a second system, a communication channel; [0033] the event monitoring program 132 are configured to assist a project manager in managing his/her project … are configured to alert the developer,” [0040] “determining whether event listeners have been activated and determining whether access to the appropriate data structures has been opened.”
receive, via the communication channel of the second system, information identifying a set of commands; [0041] “a determination is made as to whether the identifier indicates a beginning of an event;”
parse the set of commands to determine a change to a value of the set of values; [0039-0043] (event monitoring monitors events to identify changes for tasks, where the monitor determines changes to values in each data item), [0045] (updated data);
transmit, an update notification to the first system to update the value in the new data item; and [0045] “the project management tool 150 are updated with the updated data.”
transmit an update confirmation to the second system, for inclusion in the communication channel, indicating the update of the value of the new data item. [0033] (event monitoring is configured to assist a project manager in managing his/her project and to notify user of changes to data items), [0041] (updates are transmitted via communication channel);
Where Majd does not disclose, McGinty teaches: generate a communication channel; provision, for a set of client devices, access to the monitored communication channel on the second system;
[Abstract] (generate and provision a communication channel on a separate system for data objects, i.e. for each project and/or project item), [0059] (monitored communication channel that transmits and receives data objects);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to replace the base implementation of a task and project communication for listeners, project managers, and developers, through the project management monitoring program from Majd, with the improved multi-tenant generated and provisioned communication channels in McGinty, where communication channels are generated and provisioned per data item and project. The combination of these prior art disclosures is compelled by the motivation of McGinty’s specification ¶ [0017] “Aspects of the present disclosure may provide for improved cross-platform functionality between a data management platform and a communication platform. In particular, techniques of the present disclosure provide for an automatic system to create a communication channel from a record page of a data management platform, thus improving the user experience.” The combination of Majd and McGinty disclose the limitations of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Where Majd does not disclose and McGinty does not teach, Walker teaches:
analyze, using an artificial intelligence algorithm, whether the change to the value conflicts with another value of the set of values; [0047] (monitor, analyze, and identify conflicts between changed/new output data and existing data), [0070-0071] (analyze data changes via an artificial intelligence algorithm using of pattern recognition, storing changed/new data, existing data, and/or data sets);
based on an output of the artificial intelligence algorithm satisfying a threshold and based on a projected resource utilization associated with the change to the value; [0047] (monitor, analyze, and identify conflicts between changed/new output data and existing data, to satisfy metrics and/or performance threshold and performance metric), [0070-0071] (analyze data changes via an artificial intelligence algorithm using of pattern recognition, storing changed/new data, existing data, and/or data sets), [0031] (infrastructure services determine management and control of the resources and their utilization), [Abstract] (change to a configuration of the deployment pipeline itself, i.e. resources are changed in association with running a “plurality of test applications on the deployment pipeline to test the deployment pipeline with respect to the software change may be invoked, and the plurality of test applications may be run with the software change, e.g. projected resource utilization is tested based on changes to values);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the base implementations of Project Management from Majd and McGinty, with the approval of updates, as an improvement from Walker. Each prior art would have combined the elements as claimed by methods known in the art of software development and project management process controllers. Each element performs the same function in the individual disclosures as performed when combined, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination are predictable to disclose the limitations of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 10: Majd discloses and McGinty and Walker teach: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9,
Where Majd does not disclose and McGinty does not teach, Walker teaches: wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the system to generate the new data item, cause the system to: select, based on the set of values, an item template from a set of possible item templates; and [0038] “may be a custom pipeline that allows for creation of a template corresponding to a software build and then using of the template across potentially hundreds of apps or more, reusing the automation,” [0043] “The pipeline 202 may use different templates,”
populate the set of values into the item template to generate a populated item template; and [0053] “developer makes a change to the pipeline template file,”
wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the system to store the new data item, cause the system to: store the populated item template. [0053] “pipeline template file may be pushed up to a software repository system 103 (e.g., with a commit operation with respect to the software repository system 103).”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the base implementations of Project Management from Majd and McGinty, with the software template feature, as an improvement from Walker. Each prior art would have combined the elements as claimed by methods known in the art of software development and project management process controllers. Each element performs the same function in the individual disclosures as performed when combined, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination are predictable to disclose the limitations of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 11: Majd discloses and McGinty and Walker teach: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10,
Where Majd does not disclose and McGinty does not teach, Walker teaches: wherein the item template includes a set of placeholder values that are replaced with the set of values. [0008] “may include using a dummy application with its variables and associated configurations stored in a template.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the base implementations of Project Management from Majd and McGinty, with the software template dummy variables, as an improvement from Walker. Each prior art would have combined the elements as claimed by methods known in the art of software development and project management process controllers. Each element performs the same function in the individual disclosures as performed when combined, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination are predictable to disclose the limitations of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 12: Majd discloses and McGinty and Walker teach: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9,
Where Majd does not disclose and McGinty does not teach, Walker teaches: wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the system to store the new data item, cause the system to: call an application programming interface of the first system to store the data item. [0057] (API call performs all functions, i.e.) “may receive pipeline input 302 by way of one or a combination of API calls, push operations, pull operations, polling operations, listening to one or more communication buses, and/or the like.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the base implementations of Project Management from Majd and McGinty, with the API call storage function, as an improvement from Walker. Each prior art would have combined the elements as claimed by methods known in the art of software development and project management process controllers. Each element performs the same function in the individual disclosures as performed when combined, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination are predictable to disclose the limitations of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 13: Majd discloses and McGinty and Walker teach: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9,
Where Majd does not disclose and McGinty does not teach, Walker teaches: wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the system to provide the user interface, further cause the system to: provide the user interface via a serverless web application; and
wherein the one or more instructions, cause the system to: receive the set of values via one or more user interactions with the serverless web application.
Walker teaches: [0037] (deploy and build all functions via serverless functions, which implicitly include a user interface in the prior art); [0025] Disclosed embodiments may transmit and receive data, including video content, via the networks 120 using any suitable protocol(s),” and [0037] (pipeline system to facilitate pipeline services including receiving values, which all may be implemented on via serverless web application, which implicitly include a user interface in the prior art including), [0023] (client web applications via web browser) and [Figure 2] (pipeline system with input at 305).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the base implementations of Project Management from Majd and McGinty, with the serverless implementation of software development via an interface, as an improvement from Walker. Each prior art would have combined the elements as claimed by methods known in the art of software development and project management process controllers. Each element performs the same function in the individual disclosures as performed when combined, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination are predictable to disclose the limitations of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 14: Majd discloses and McGinty and Walker teach: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the one or more instructions further cause the system to:
Where Majd does not disclose and McGinty does not teach, Walker teaches: execute a test on program code of the new data item; detect an error associated with executing the test; and update the data item with information identifying the error. [0047] (execute test on program code, detect error, rollback the program code executables to a prior version and/or stage, and notify developers with log files).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the base implementations of Project Management from Majd and McGinty, with the software development test, error detection, and error information update, as an improvement from Walker. Each prior art would have combined the elements as claimed by methods known in the art of software development and project management process controllers. Each element performs the same function in the individual disclosures as performed when combined, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination are predictable to disclose the limitations of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 15: Majd discloses and McGinty and Walker teach: The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 14, wherein the one or more instructions further cause the system to:
Where Majd does not disclose and McGinty does not teach, Walker teaches: transmit, to the set of client devices and via the second system, a set of notifications associated with the error.
Walker teaches: [0047] “notify the developers of pertinent log data, test results, reports, and/or the like regarding the unsuccessful testing and/or validations.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the base implementations of Project Management from Majd and McGinty, with the software development test error reporting, as an improvement from Walker. Each prior art would have combined the elements as claimed by methods known in the art of software development and project management process controllers. Each element performs the same function in the individual disclosures as performed when combined, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination are predictable to disclose the limitations of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 16: Majd discloses and McGinty and Walker teach:
Majd discloses: A method comprising: [0010] (A method);
receiving, by a device, via a form, a set of requirements associated with generation of program code; [0033] “display prompts received from the project management tool 150 to inquire certain inputs,” (where display prompts are form prompts [0034] (data values are received in prompt fields of the project management tool 150), [0046] “The data structure 500 includes a series of fields;”
generating, by the device, a program code generation item based on the set of requirements; [0043] (create a new task for project based on data);
storing, by the device and via a first system, the program code generation item; [0034] “the set of data is stored in the data files 112,” [0027] (a plurality of interfaces), [0046] “The data structure 500 includes a series of fields;”
generating, by the device, program code for the program code generation item based on the set of requirements; [0032] (develop first code) [abstract] (receive parameters from project management tool) [0033] (receive parameter data for each task in project and develop first program code);
receiving, by the device, information identifying a new requirement for the program code generation item; [0041] “a determination is made as to whether the identifier indicates a beginning of an event;”
obtaining, by the device, an approval of the new requirement; [0037] “the developer responds affirmatively,” (Examiner note: while the disclosure describes approval of completion of a task, this also implies that the completion was due to approval of the requirement since the task is complete);
generating, by the device, updated program code for the program code generation item based on the new requirement and based on obtaining the approval; and [0033] (receive parameter data and develop edited program code, i.e. edited code is updated program code, edited to be different according to received parameters), [0035] (the disclosure implicitly discloses later tasks, i.e. second code, are dependent on initial task such that the dependency discloses different code for the dependent task);
storing, by the device, the updated program code in the first system in connection with the program code generation item. [0046] “[0033] (receive parameter data and develop edited program code, i.e. edited code is second program code, edited to be different according to received parameters), [0035] (the disclosure implicitly discloses later tasks, i.e. second code, are dependent on initial task such that the dependency discloses different code for the dependent task);
Where Majd does not disclose and McGinty does not teach, Walker teaches:
based on an output of an artificial intelligence algorithm satisfying a threshold and based on a projected resource utilization associated with the new requirement, an approval of the new requirement, wherein the approval of the new requirement is based on whether the new requirement conflicts with another requirement of the set of requirements; [0047] (monitor, analyze, and identify change/new output data and existing data to satisfy metrics and/or performance threshold and performance metric as well as identifying conflicts between new/changed data and other data of the set of parameters), [0070-0071] (analyze data changes via an artificial intelligence algorithm using of pattern recognition, storing changed/new data, existing data, and/or data sets), [0031] (infrastructure services determine management and control of the resources and their utilization), [Abstract] (change to a configuration of the deployment pipeline itself, i.e. resources are changed in association with running a “plurality of test applications on the deployment pipeline to test the deployment pipeline with respect to the software change may be invoked, and the plurality of test applications may be run with the software change, e.g. projected resource utilization is tested based on changes to values), [0061] (approval of update);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the base implementations of Project Management from Majd and McGinty, with the with the analysis of conflicting data using an artificial intelligence algorithm, updates based on an output of the algorithm satisfying a threshold and based on a projected resource utilization associated with the change to the value, and approval of updates based on the conflict, threshold and projection requirements, as an improvement from Walker. Each prior art would have combined the elements as claimed by methods known in the art of software development and project management process controllers. Each element performs the same function in the individual disclosures as performed when combined, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination are predictable to disclose the limitations of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 17: Majd discloses, McGinty and Walker teach: The method of claim 16,
Majd discloses: further comprising: providing intake information associated with identifying a set of parameters for which a set of values are to be provided; and [0033] (provide prompts to receive input data for project or task),
wherein receiving the set of requirements comprises: receiving, via input to a user interface, the set of values for the set of parameters. [0034] (data is received, where the input data include values for parameters).
Regarding Claim 18: Majd discloses and McGinty and Walker teach: The method of claim 17, further comprising:
Majd discloses: identifying, based on the set of parameters, a set of client devices associated with the program code generation item; and [claim 1] “monitoring a respective user activity related to each of a plurality of events related to the task,” [0033] the event monitoring program 132 are configured to assist a project manager in managing his/her project … are configured to alert the developer,” [0040] “determining whether event listeners have been activated and determining whether access to the appropriate data structures has been opened”
Where Majd does not disclose, and Walker does not teach, McGinty teaches: transmitting, to the set of client devices and based on identifying the set of client devices, information identifying one or more calendar items associated with the program code generation item. [0071] (calendar and timeline including start date and end date), [0058-0059] and [Claim 16] (sends data to team regarding status and events).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to replace the base implementation of a task and project communication for listeners, project managers, and developers, through the project management monitoring program from Majd, with the improved multi-tenant generated and provisioned communication channels in McGinty, where communication channels are generated and provisioned per data item and project. The combination of these prior art disclosures is compelled by the motivation of McGinty’s specification ¶ [0017] “Aspects of the present disclosure may provide for improved cross-platform functionality between a data management platform and a communication platform. In particular, techniques of the present disclosure provide for an automatic system to create a communication channel from a record page of a data management platform, thus improving the user experience.” The combination of Majd and McGinty disclose the limitations of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 19: Majd discloses and McGinty and Walker teach: The method of claim 18, further comprising:
Majd discloses: transmitting information associated with the updated program code to a subset of client devices of the set of client devices; and [0071] (calendar and timeline including start date and end date), [0058-0059] and [Claim 16] (sends data to team regarding status and events).
Where Majd does not discloses and McGinty does not teach, Walker teaches: wherein obtaining the approval of the new requirement comprises: receiving, from the subset of client devices, the approval of the new requirement. [0061] (approval of update);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the base implementations of Project Management from the combination of Majd and McGinty, with the update approval, as an improvement from Walker. Each prior art would have combined the elements as claimed by methods known in the art of software development and project management process controllers. Each element performs the same function in the individual disclosures as performed when combined, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination are predictable to disclose the limitations of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over by Majd, US20080021757A1 in view of McGinty, US20230246869A1, in further view of Walker, US20240289261A1, and in further view of Apte, US20200272435A1.
Regarding Claim 20: Majd discloses & McGinty and Walker teach: The system of claim 1,
Where Majd does not disclose, and Walker does not teach, McGinty teaches: wherein a chat performs one or more operations to resolve instructions received via a message in the monitored communication channel. [0035] (chat function for business functionality, sends and receives messages via chat the monitored communication channel that are intertwined with the data management platform, where operations are performed, via chat, to reconfigure or interact with data records), [0037-0039, and 0059] (while this application does not explicitly disclose an AI Algorithm based chatbot in the monitored communication channel, the system includes a communication channel component with at least an input identification component, an option identifying components, an instruction generation component, and an association component that monitors, receives, transmits, and deciphers/recognizes text to generate instruction operations, which is implicitly a model that performs operations to resolve instructions based on at least one of or a plurality of data objects, i.e. an algorithm that drives a chatbot function to perform operations to generate instructions, under broadest reasonable interpretation, an ai algorithm based chatbot) [0078] (may effectuate control of the functional elements of the application server to perform the described functions, or perform aspects of the described functions);
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to replace the base implementation of a task and project communication for listeners, project managers, and developers, through the project management monitoring program from Majd, with the improved multi-tenant generated and provisioned communication channels, including chat features, in McGinty, where communication channels are generated and provisioned per data item and project. The combination of these prior art disclosures is compelled by the motivation of McGinty’s specification ¶ [0017] “Aspects of the present disclosure may provide for improved cross-platform functionality between a data management platform and a communication platform. In particular, techniques of the present disclosure provide for an automatic system to create a communication channel from a record page of a data management platform, thus improving the user experience.” The combination of Majd and McGinty disclose the limitations of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Where Majd does not disclose and McGinty does not teach, Walker teaches: operations to resolve conflicting instructions; [0047] (monitor, analyze, and identify conflicts between changed/new output data and existing data, to satisfy metrics and/or performance threshold and performance metric), [0070-0071] (analyze data changes via an artificial intelligence algorithm using of pattern recognition, storing changed/new data, existing data, and/or data sets).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the base implementations of Project Management from Majd and additional chat features to resolve instructions, of McGinty, with the with the analysis of conflicting data using an artificial intelligence algorithm, to resolve conflicting instructions, as an improvement from Walker. Each prior art would have combined the elements as claimed by methods known in the art of software development and project management process controllers. Each element performs the same function in the individual disclosures as performed when combined, and one of ordinary skill would have recognized the results of the combination are predictable to disclose the limitations of the instant application with a reasonable expectation of success.
Where Majd does not disclose and McGinty and Walker do not teach, Apte teaches:
A chatbot functionality, supported by the artificial intelligence algorithm, performs one or more operations to resolve conflicting instructions received via a message in the monitored communication channel. [0068] (chat configured to receive chat messages in the communications channel), [0130-0149] (the AI algorithm performs operations to resolve conflicting instructions).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to replace the base implementation of a task and project communication for listeners, project managers, and developers, through the project management monitoring program from Majd, with the improved multi-tenant generated and provisioned communication channels, including chat features, in McGinty, along with the instruction conflict resolution of Walker, with the AI Algorithm Chatbot features of Apte. While the prior art of Majd, McGinty, and Walker appear to disclose and teach the features implicitly, Apte clearly and explicitly incorporates a chatbot feature that fully embodies the AI algorithmic training, retraining and full code resolution processes using natural language processing in software development. When added to the base devices of the previous disclosures using known techniques, applicable to the base disclosures, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved disclosure.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANGELA HATCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1393. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached at (571)270-3923. 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.
ANGELA HATCH
Examiner
Art Unit 3626
/ANGELA HATCH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3626 /Michael Young/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights