DETAILED ACTION
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 have been submitted for examination and are pending further prosecution by the United States Patent & Trademark Office.
Allowable Subject Matter
With respect to independent claim 1, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, either solely or in combination, the limitations "f) Training, by a training component, the a porting mechanism to reach the pre-defined technical porting goal for the porting system." when considered in combination with the other limitations of claim 1.
With respect to independent claim 7, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, either solely or in combination, the limitations "f) a training component configured for training the creation and evaluation component of the porting system with data of the porting log based on the decisions and [[the]] outcome of the porting project using a porting mechanism to reach the pre-defined technical porting goal for the porting system." when considered in combination with the other limitations of claim 7.
Note, however, that claims 1, 2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
Cite number 1 under the section Non-Patent Literature Documents in the IDS filed on 3/11/24 has been crossed out and not considered as the citation requires at least the year of publication or a full date of online retrieval. See MPEP 609.04(a). Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (paragraph [0025]). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a qualification component, a user interface connector, a porting component, and an evaluation component, in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of informalities and antecedence issues. It is suggested Applicants amend these claims as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method for porting software artifacts from a source system to a target system based on a porting strategy, wherein the following method steps are performed by components of a porting system which are hardware components and/or software components executed by one or more processors:
a) Quantifying a pre-defined technical porting goal of a porting project into a technical value model;
b) Receiving, by a user interface (UI) connector, selected decisions regarding the target system and porting tasks and a current version of the porting system;
c) Executing, by a porting component, traceable porting steps based on the selected decisions, porting tasks and the current version of the porting system and creating software artifacts of the target system;
d) Evaluating, by an [[a]] evaluation component, software artifacts created or converted by each of the executed porting steps and/or evaluating test results by applying and/or simulating each ported software artifact based on a given quality model of the porting project and on the technical value model;
e) Outputting, by an output component, references to [[the]] versions of created and/or converted and evaluated software artifacts including [[the]] evaluation results into a porting log and presenting to a user interface device; and
f) Training, by a training component, the evaluation component of the porting system with data of the porting log based on the decisions and [[the]] outcome of the porting project using a porting mechanism to reach the pre-defined technical porting goal for the porting system.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation component can switch into different kinds of training modus whereby each training modus determines which kind of artificial intelligence (AI)-based and/or rule-based trainable model supports the evaluation component.
4. The method according to claim 1, wherein if evaluation results miss the pre-defined technical porting goal, the selected decisions are retrieved and/or reselected and/or evaluated software artifacts are recreated and/or reconverted and/or the porting goal and a training goal are redefined.
5. The method according to claim 1, wherein if evaluation results meet the pre-defined technical porting goal, the porting goal and a training goal are raised.
7. A system for porting software functions from a source system to a target system, comprising:
a) a quantification component configured for quantifying a pre-defined technical porting goal of a porting project into a technical value model;
b) a [[an]] user interface connector configured for receiving selected decisions regarding the target system and porting tasks and a current version of the porting system;
c) a porting component configured for executing traceable porting steps based on the selected decisions, porting tasks and the current version of the porting system and configured for creating software artifacts of the target system;
d) an evaluation component configured for evaluating software artifacts created or converted by each of the executed porting steps and/or evaluating test results by applying and/or simulating each ported software artifact based on a given quality model of the porting project and on the technical value model;
e) an output component configured for outputting references to [[the]] versions of created and/or converted and evaluated software artifacts including [[the]] evaluation results into a porting log and presenting to a user interface device; and
f) a training component configured for training the evaluation component of the porting system with data of the porting log based on the decisions and [[the]] outcome of the porting project using a porting mechanism to reach the pre-defined technical porting goal for the porting system.
Claims 3, 6, 8 and 9 are also objected to due to their dependence on objected parent claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites a method for porting software artifacts from a source system to a target system based on a porting strategy. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 would fall under the category of mental processes as the claim features limitations performable as mental steps, with the assistance of pen & paper, but without additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. An analysis of claim 1 according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility test follows:
Step 1: Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 1 is directed to a method and, therefore, a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes, claim 1 recites an abstract idea as the following limitations are performable as mental processes with the assistance of pen & paper: a) Quantifying a pre-defined technical porting goal of a porting project into a technical value model; - a software engineer can represent a porting goal of a porting project as a quantifiable measure based upon a technical value model; b) Receiving, the software engineer can verbally receive from a manager decisions regarding the target system and porting tasks and a current version of the porting system; c) Executing, - the software engineer can manually perform traceable porting steps based upon selected decisions, porting tasks and a current version of a porting methodology, and manually create artifacts, such as user manuals, of the target system; d) Evaluating, - the software engineer can evaluate software artifacts, such as user manuals, created by performing the porting steps, by evaluating a given artifact using a quality model and the technical value model; e) Outputting, the software engineer can enter into a paper log references to versions of artifacts created and evaluated, along with evaluation results, and review said paper log.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application?
Claim 1 recites the method steps are computer-implemented and performed by components of a porting system which are hardware components and/or software components executed by one or more processors, where such components include a user interface (UI) connector, a porting component, an evaluation component, an output component, a user interface device, and a training component. However, implementing the method on a computer using the recited components simply amounts to using a generic computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and, therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 also recites the additional element of f) Training, by a training component, the evaluation component of the porting system with data of the porting log based on the decisions and outcome of the porting project using a porting mechanism to reach the pre-defined technical porting goal for the porting system. - Since no detail regarding how the evaluation component of the porting system is trained by the training component, using data from the porting log based on the decisions and outcome of the porting project, the additional element simply amounts to employing a generic machine learning technique to train a machine learning model. Thus, the additional element amounts to using generic instructions for implementing the abstract idea on a computer and, consequently, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount To Significantly More Than The Judicial Exception?
Claim 1 recites the method steps are computer-implemented and performed by components of a porting system which are hardware components and/or software components executed by one or more processors, where such components include a user interface (UI) connector, a porting component, an evaluation component, an output component, a user interface device, and a training component. However, implementing the method on a computer using the recited components simply amounts to using a generic computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and, therefore, does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 also recites the additional element of f) Training, by a training component, the evaluation component of the porting system with data of the porting log based on the decisions and outcome of the porting project using a porting mechanism to reach the pre-defined technical porting goal for the porting system. - Since no detail regarding how the evaluation component of the porting system is trained by the training component, using data from the porting log based on the decisions and outcome of the porting project, the additional element simply amounts to employing a generic machine learning technique to train a machine learning model. Thus, the additional element amounts to using generic instructions for implementing the abstract idea on a computer and, consequently, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 is also directed to the abstract idea as the limitation "wherein the evaluation component can switch into different kinds of training modus whereby each training modus determines which kind of artificial intelligence (AI)-based and/or rule-based trainable model supports the evaluation component." is recited functionally, not assertively, as no actual switching of training modes takes place in the claim. Since the claim lacks additional elements indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 4 is also directed to the abstract idea as the software engineer can manually redefine a training goal if evaluation results miss the pre-defined technical porting goal. Since the claim lacks additional elements indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 5 is also directed to the abstract idea as the software engineer can manually raise a training goal if evaluation results meet the pre-defined technical porting goal. Since the claim lacks additional elements indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 6 recites the additional element of "wherein evaluation results are presented as distance between a porting goal and the outcome of the porting project on the user interface device." which amounts to using a generic computer component to perform the abstract idea. Since the claim lacks additional elements indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 7 recites a system for performing the method of claim 1 and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons given for claim 1. Since claim 7 does not recite further additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, claim 7 is ineligible.
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons given for analogous claim 1. While claim 8 recites the further additional elements of a computer program comprising instructions executed by a computer for carrying out the method of claim 1, said further additional elements simply amount to using a generic computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and, therefore, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons given for analogous claim 8. While claim 9 recites the further additional element of a storage and/or provisioning device for storing/providing the computer program of claim 8, said further additional element simply amounts to using a generic computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and, therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 8 recites a computer program which is not a process, a machine, a manufacture or a composition of matter.
Claim 9 is further rejected for inheriting the deficiency of claim 8.
Claim 9 is also rejected for reciting "A storage and/or provisioning device" for storing or providing a computer program. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, such a device could encompass transitory signals, which are non-statutory. See MPEP 2106. It is suggested that Applicants amend the claim to recite the computer program is only embodied on a non-transitory storage and/or provisioning device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20230075183 A1 discloses a method for automatically migrating infrastructure as code between different cloud infrastructure platforms/providers. US 20220365778 A1 discloses systems and methods to efficiently evaluate the efforts of a porting task between different platforms. US 20210294600 A1 discloses a system for the automated transforming of applications from operations in a first computing environment to a target computing environment. US 20200326935 A1 discloses a method and system for assessing portability of source code based on predictions from a learning model trained with historical outputs from a portability analyzer. US 20190108223 A1 discloses technologies for capturing information during a data migration and to use the captured information to generate data migration artifacts that can be used in subsequent data migrations. US 20130091099 A1 discloses a method for migrating artifacts between service-oriented architecture repositories. The NPL document "Model Weaving Support for Migrating Software Artifacts from AUTOSAR 2.0 to AUTOSAR 2.x" discusses tools for migrating software artifacts conforming to the AUTOSAR 2.0 standard to a new version of the AUTOSAR standard.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY R ST LEGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7720. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (IFP) ~9:00-5:00 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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GEOFFREY R ST LEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192