DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
Applicant presents a communication filed 11 August 2025 in response to the 30 July 2025 non-final Office action (the “Previous Action”).
Claims 1, 10 and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10-11, 13, 15-16 and 19-20 remain pending. Claims 1, 10 and 20 are the independent claims.
Any unpersuasive arguments are addressed in the “Response to Arguments” section below.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1, 10 and 20 would be allowable if somehow rewritten or amended to overcome the 35 U.S.C. §§ 112 and 101 rejections set forth in this Office action and all other claims would be allowable via dependence from those claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues with respect to claims 1, 10 and 20 that the claims are “rooted in improvements to the functioning of computer technology itself” because, according to the Applicant, the system “releases [a] hold only after a corrective design-control action is logged” and/or “issues a command that withholds the candidate build from promotion beyond the testing or staging tier” in the event of a FAIL flag or status. (Remarks, p, 13 last par. – p. 14 par. 1). Applicant adds that these features also integrate any abstract idea of the claims into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (Remarks, p. 14 par. 3, p. 15 par. 1).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that the claim does not refer to “issu[ing]” any command that withholds any build from promotion or “releas[ing]” any hold. It only refers to “inhibiting” promotion of the build to production. Nonetheless, because the claimed “inhibiting” could reasonably include issuing a command to withhold promotion of the build as argued, it is construed as a mental step in the claimed abstract mental process because the human mind with aid of pen and paper is capable of issuing such a command orally or in writing. Note that the specification is also silent as to inhibiting or withholding promotion of any build. (See the § 112 rejections below).
Since the claimed “inhibiting” is a step in the abstract mental process, it does not improve the functioning of a computer because “the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement.” (M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(a)).
Since the inhibiting is part of the abstract idea itself, it is not an additional element that could integrate that idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
These arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the remaining claims by virtue of their dependence from claims 1, 10 or 20 are unpersuasive for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
10. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 10-11, 13, 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 1, the last three lines of the claim recite:
when the pass/fail status indicates a fail status, automatically inhibiting promotion of the software build from a testing tier or a staging tier to a production tier until a corrective design-control action is logged in the design control subsystem server
There is insufficient support in the originally filed specification for these features.
Applicant points to p. 29 l. 1 – p. 31, Table 1, p. 39 ll. 8-18 and p. 40 ll. 8-10 of the originally filed specification as support. However, those paragraphs do not describe what is claimed. Pages 29-31 describe a “design control subsystem” server, a testing or staging tier and a production tier, page 39 describes rejecting features or design changes and page 40 describes assigning a FAIL or PASS status to a feature or design change. None of these passages describes inhibiting any promotion until a correction is logged in the server as claimed. Nor does any other portion of the originally filed specification.
As to claims 2, 4, and 6-7, the claims are dependent on claim 1, include the same new matter and are rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 10, the claim includes the same new matter as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
As to claims 11, 13, 15-16 and 19, the claims are dependent on claim 10, include the same new matter and are rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 20, the claim includes the same new matter as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
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, 4, 6-7, 10-11, 13, 15-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites:
a method for software quality assurance, comprising:
presenting, with a user computing device via a graphical user interface, an instance of a software build to a user,
wherein the instance of the software build is hosted on a first server comprising a software development server.
wherein the software build comprises at least one feature comprising one or more computerized stimuli or interactions configured to elicit an expected stimulus-input pattern from the user in response to the one or more computerized stimuli or interactions;
wherein the expected stimulus-input pattern comprises a clinically validated stimulus response pattern for treating or targeting one or more neurological, physiological and/or somatic condition in the user;
receiving, with at least one sensor communicably engaged with the user computing device, a plurality of user inputs in response to presenting the one or more computerized stimuli or interactions within the instance of the software build, the plurality of user inputs comprising user activity data for a session of the software build;
communicating, via a network communications protocol comprising an application programming interface, the user activity data from the first server to a second server, wherein the second server comprises a design control subsystem server;
wherein the design subsystem server is configured to mirror the instance of the software build being hosted on the first server
receiving, at a classification module executing on the second server, the user activity data; wherein the classification module is configured to classify the user activity data according to a classification model, wherein the classification model comprises a procedural reflection of at last one algorithm configured to drive the presentation of the one or more computerized stimuli or interactions within the instance of the software build;
processing, via the classification module, the user activity data to determine one or more actual stimulus-input pattern for each user input in the plurality of user inputs, wherein the classification module comprises a machine learning algorithm configured to classify one or more variables between the user activity data and the clinically validated stimulus response pattern;
wherein the classification module is configured to calculate a degree of conformity between the one or more actual stimulus-input patterns and the clinically validated stimulus-response pattern for treating or targeting the one or more neurological, psychological and/or somatic condition of the user;
comparing, with the second server, the one or more actual stimulus-input pattern for each user input in the plurality of user inputs to the expected stimulus-input pattern for the at least one feature to determine a total number of instances in which the one or more actual stimulus-input pattern was reflective of the expected stimulus-input pattern within the session of the software build;
calculating, with the second server, a measure of net therapeutic activity within the session of the software build according to the total number of instances in which the actual stimulus-input patterns was reflective of the expected stimulus-input pattern within the session of the software build;
determining, with the second server, a pass/fail status for the software build according to the measure of net therapeutic activity within the session of the software build.
wherein determining the pass/fail status comprises determining a minimum performance threshold for the session of the software build,
wherein the minimum performance threshold comprises a minimum degree of conformity between the one or more actual stimulus-input patterns and the clinically validated stimulus-response pattern for treating or targeting the one or more neurological, psychological and/or somatic condition in the user,
wherein the minimum performance threshold further comprises a minimum measure of therapeutic activity delivered to a user within the session of the software build; and
when the pass/fail status indicates a fail status, automatically inhibiting promotion of the software build from a testing tier or a staging tier to a production tier until a corrective design-control action is logged in the design control subsystem server.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification the above underlined elements recite a mental process because all of the above steps are performable by the human mind with aid of pen and paper. The claim therefore recites an abstract idea.
None of the additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As to:
presenting, with a user computing device via a graphical user interface, an instance of a software build to a user,
this step only amounts to data gathering necessary to perform the abstract mental process, and are insignificant extra solution activity. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(g).
As to:
wherein the instance of the software build is hosted on a first server comprising a software development server,
these features merely indicate a technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(h).
As to:
wherein the software build comprises at least one feature comprising one or more computerized stimuli or interactions configured to elicit an expected stimulus-input pattern from the user in response to the one or more computerized stimuli or interactions;
wherein the expected stimulus-input pattern comprises a clinically validated stimulus response pattern for treating or targeting one or more neurological, physiological and/or somatic condition in the user;
these features only indicate a field of use in which the judicial exception is applied. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(h).
As to:
receiving, with at least one sensor communicably engaged with the user computing device, a plurality of user inputs in response to presenting the one or more computerized stimuli or interactions within the instance of the software build, the plurality of user inputs comprising user activity data for a session of the software build;
communicating, via a network communications protocol comprising an application programming interface, the user activity data from the first server to a second server,
these features only describe the data gathering necessary to perform the abstract mental process, and are insignificant extra solution activity. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(g).
As to:
wherein the second server comprises a design control subsystem server;
wherein the design subsystem server is configured to mirror the instance of the software build being hosted on the first server
these features merely indicate a technological environment in which the judicial exception is applied. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(h).
As to:
receiving, at a classification module…the user activity data;
these features only describe to data gathering necessary to perform the abstract mental process, and are insignificant extra solution activity. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(g).
As to:
a classification module executing on the second server…;
these features merely indicate a technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(h).
As to:
wherein the classification module is configured to classify…according to a classification model,
these features only amount to instructions implement the abstract idea using generic computing components. This “classification module” and “classification model” are only used to generally perform classification without placing any meaningful limits on how those elements function. And these limitations only recite an outcome (“classify[ing] the user activity data”) without including any details about how that outcome is accomplished. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f).
As to:
wherein the classification model comprises a procedural reflection of at least one algorithm
these features merely indicate a technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(h).
As to:
at least one algorithm configured to drive the presentation of the one or more computerized stimuli or interactions within the instance of the software build;
these features only describe to data gathering necessary to perform the abstract mental process, and are insignificant extra solution activity. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(g).
As to performing certain steps via the classification module that comprises a machine learning algorithm, these features only amount to instructions implement the abstract idea using generic computing components. The “classification module” is only used to generally perform functions without placing any meaningful limits on how that element functions. And these limitations only recite outcomes (“determin[ing] one or more actual stimulus-input patterns”, “classify[ing] one or more variables” and “calculating a degree of conformity”) without including any details about how those outcomes are accomplished. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f).
As to performing certain steps with the second server, these features merely indicate a technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(h).
As to automatically inhibiting promotion of the software build, the term automatically only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a generic computer. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f).
As to:
a corrective design-control action is logged in the design control subsystem server
these features merely indicate a technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(h).
Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination yields the same conclusion as that reached when looking at the elements individually. Their collective function is merely to implement the abstract idea using generic computing components in particular technological environment and particular field of use, along with the necessary data gathering.
The claim does not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception either, for substantially the same reasons discussed above with respect to a practical application. Re-evaluation of the “…presenting…”, “…receiving…”, “…communicating…”, “…receiving…” and “driv[ing]…” data gathering steps noted above does not indicate that these steps are anything more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field. Software (i.e., a build) that elicits user input via presenting graphics on a touchscreen and senses user input received in response is recognized by the prior art as well-understood, routine and conventional. (See, e.g., 2010/0159823 at par. [0054]). Use of APIs is recognized as by the prior art routine and conventional as well. (See US 2021/0176326 at par. [0004]). And transmitting data over a network has been recognized as well-understood, routine and conventional by the courts. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II).
As to claims 2, 4, and 6-7, the features of these claims do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more at least because these claims add no additional elements beyond those already addressed above with respect to claim and otherwise only further describe the abstract idea itself.
As to claim 10, the claim recites the same abstract idea as claim 1 and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea for substantially the same reasons. The addition of a processor and non-transitory computer readable storage medium communicably engaged with the processor and encoded with processor-executable instructions that, when executed cause the processor to perform the method does not indicate integration of the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea at least because these features amount to nothing more than implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer.
As to claim 11, 13, 15-16 and 19, the features of this claim do not indicate an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons set forth above with respect to claims 2, 4 and 6-7.
As to claim 20, the claim recites the same abstract idea as claim 1 and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or include additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea for substantially the same reasons. The addition of a non-transitory computer readable medium encoded with instructions for commanding one or more processors to execute operations of the method does not indicate integration of the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea at least because these features amount to nothing more than implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular, “The Product Manager’s Guide to Continuous Delivery and DevOps” is cited because it generally discloses that in a continuous delivery environment, code is only promoter when it passes tests. (See “The Product Manager’s Guide to Continuous Delivery and DevOps” at p. 6).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TODD AGUILERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11AM - 7:30PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/TODD AGUILERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192