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 1-20 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 "receiving information identifying a set of artificial intelligence (AI) bots to generate information identifying a set of tasks associated with development of the feature of the software based on the information identifying the set of AI bots being input via an AI bot interface of the user interface of the user device; generating the information identifying the set of tasks associated with the development of the feature of the software using the set of AI bots;" when considered in combination with the other limitations of claim 1.
With respect to independent claim 8, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, either solely or in combination, the limitations "receiving information identifying a set of artificial intelligence (AI) bots to generate information identifying a set of tasks associated with development of the feature of the software based on the information identifying the set of AI bots being input via an AI bot interface of the user interface of the user device; generating the information identifying the set of tasks associated with the development of the feature of the software using the set of AI bots;" when considered in combination with the other limitations of claim 8.
With respect to independent claim 15, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, either solely or in combination, the limitations "receiving information identifying a set of artificial intelligence (AI) bots to generate information identifying a set of tasks associated with development of the feature of the software based on the information identifying the set of AI bots being input via an AI bot interface of the user interface of the user device; generating the information identifying the set of tasks associated with the development of the feature of the software using the set of AI bots;" when considered in combination with the other limitations of claim 15.
Note, however, that claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18 and 19 are 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.
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, 3, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17 and 20 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 identifying a set of tasks associated with development of a feature of software. 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: receiving information identifying a feature of software to be developed - a software developer can verbally receive from a project manager a description of a feature of a software application to be developed; receiving information identifying a set of artificial intelligence (AI) bots to generate information identifying a set of tasks associated with development of the feature of the software - the software developer can verbally receive from the project manager descriptions of AI bots capable of identifying a set of tasks associated with development of the feature of the software; generating the information identifying the set of tasks associated with the development of the feature of the software - the software developer can manually generate a list of tasks associated with development of the feature of the software.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application?
Claim 1 recites the additional element of receiving information identifying a feature of software to be developed based on the information identifying the feature being input via an agile software development interface of a user interface of a user device. However, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, this additional element simply amounts to an insignificant pre-solution activity in the form of data gathering and, therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 also recites the additional element receiving information identifying a set of artificial intelligence (AI) bots to generate information identifying a set of tasks associated with development of the feature of the software based on the information identifying the set of AI bots being input via an AI bot interface of the user interface of the user device; - However, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, this additional element simply amounts to an insignificant pre-solution activity in the form of data gathering and, therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 also recites the additional element of generating the information identifying the set of tasks associated with the development of the feature of the software using the set of AI bots. However, using a set of AI bots to generate the information identifying the set of tasks associated with the development of the feature of the software amounts to employing a generic machine learning technique to perform the abstract idea as no detail is provided as to how the set of AI bots generate said information. Thus, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 1 also recites the additional element of transmitting the information identifying the set of tasks to the user device to cause the user device to display the information identifying the set of tasks via the agile software development interface of the user interface of the user device. However, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, this additional element simply amounts to linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, that of agile software development. Thus, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea 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 additional element of receiving information identifying a feature of software to be developed based on the information identifying the feature being input via an agile software development interface of a user interface of a user device. However, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, this additional element simply amounts to an insignificant pre-solution activity in the form of data gathering. Furthermore, this additional element is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see US 10768929 B1; col. 4:34-38, for example) and, therefore, is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 also recites the additional element receiving information identifying a set of artificial intelligence (AI) bots to generate information identifying a set of tasks associated with development of the feature of the software based on the information identifying the set of AI bots being input via an AI bot interface of the user interface of the user device; - However, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, employing a user interface to make selections simply amounts to using generic computing technology to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 also recites the additional element of generating the information identifying the set of tasks associated with the development of the feature of the software using the set of AI bots. However, using a set of AI bots to generate the information identifying the set of tasks associated with the development of the feature of the software amounts to employing a generic machine learning technique to perform the abstract idea as no detail is provided as to how the set of AI bots generate said information. Thus, the additional element is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 also recites the additional element of transmitting the information identifying the set of tasks to the user device to cause the user device to display the information identifying the set of tasks via the agile software development interface of the user interface of the user device. However, when considered in view of the claim as a whole, this additional element simply amounts to linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, that of agile software development. Thus, the additional element is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites a device for performing the method of claim 1 and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons given for claim 1. While claim 8 recites the further additional elements of a memory, instructions and one or more processors for performing the method of claim 1, said further additional elements simply amount to using a 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 15 recites a computer-readable medium storing instructions for performing the method of claim 1 and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons given for claim 1. While claim 15 recites the further additional elements of one or more processors and a device for performing the method of claim 1, said further additional elements simply amount to using a 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.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 recite the additional element of wherein each bot of the set of AI bots is associated with a particular role related to the development of the feature of the software. However, using a set of AI bots - having particular roles - to generate the information identifying the set of tasks associated with development of the feature of the software still amounts to employing a generic machine learning technique as the particular roles are not recited as being distinct (i.e., each AI bot can be associated with the same role). Thus, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are also directed to the abstract idea as the limitation wherein the information identifying the set of tasks includes respective tasks of a set of roles of a software development team associated with the development of the feature of the software simply elaborates upon a limitation found abstract in the independent claims. Since these claims do not recite an additional element that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claims are ineligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20230368284 A1 discloses a software framework for developing applications using autonomous agents that chain together tasks to fulfill a service request. US 20250291583 A1 discloses an automated AI-driven software development system which utilizes generative neural models to determine commands needed to execute a software engineering task. WO 2021084510 A1 discloses, among other things, a workload optimizer responsible for optimizing assignment of tasks and operations to Artificial Intelligence (Al) agents, according to skill, affinity and/or other constraints. WO 2025037140 A1 disclose systems and methods for assisting in the selection of Artificial Intelligence (Al) agents for building an application. The NPL paper "Autonomy Is An Acquired Taste: Exploring Developer Preferences for GitHub Bots" explores characteristics affecting developer preferences for interactions between humans and bots, in the context of GitHub pull requests.
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