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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to communication filed 5/11/2026. Claims 1-7 and 11-20 are currently pending and claims 8-10 are cancelled. Claims 1, 17, and 20 are the independent 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 1-7 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claim 1, it recites “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions recorded thereon that, in response to execution by one or more processors, cause performance of operations comprising: reading a configuration file of a plurality of software parts in response to building the plurality of software parts, the plurality of software parts including a first software part and a second software part, the second software part depending upon the first software part; generating a record of the plurality of software parts, the record including dependency between the first software part and the second software part, a build status of the plurality of software parts, and an integration status between the first software part and the second software part; and providing, to a client device, a script including instructions for displaying a visual representation of interdependency among the plurality of software parts, wherein the visual representation includes a connector, which visually indicates the integration status, joining the first software part and the second software part.”
The limitation “generating a record of the plurality of software parts, the record including dependency between the first software part and the second software part, a build status of the plurality of software parts, and an integration status between the first software part and the second software part”, as drafted, recites a function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components, and as such the limitation, as drafted, is a function that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a human may mentally/with pen and paper judge/observe/evaluate/decide/etc. dependency, build status, and integration status of software parts and may mentally/with pen and paper remember/write a list of/generate a record/etc. including the dependency, build status, and integration status. Therefore, with broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions recorded thereon that, in response to execution by one or more processors, cause performance of operations comprising”, “reading a configuration file of a plurality of software parts in response to building the plurality of software parts, the plurality of software parts including a first software part and a second software part, the second software part depending upon the first software part”, and “providing, to a client device, a script including instructions for displaying a visual representation of interdependency among the plurality of software parts, wherein the visual representation includes a connector, which visually indicates the integration status, joining the first software part and the second software part”. The additional element/limitation “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions recorded thereon that, in response to execution by one or more processors, cause performance of operations comprising” recite that high-level/generality computer components/non-transitory computer readable medium and processor/etc. are used to implement/perform the abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception and as such amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and/or mere computer components. The additional elements/limitations “reading a configuration file of a plurality of software parts in response to building the plurality of software parts, the plurality of software parts including a first software part and a second software part, the second software part depending upon the first software part” and “providing, to a client device, a script including instructions for displaying a visual representation of interdependency among the plurality of software parts, wherein the visual representation includes a connector, which visually indicates the integration status, joining the first software part and the second software part” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception of merely gathering/accessing/reading/etc. data/information/configuration file of software parts/etc. and transmitting/providing/sending/etc. data/information/a script/etc. for displaying/outputting/etc. data/information/visual representation/etc. and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f), 2106.05(g), etc..
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply/implement/perform the abstract idea/mental process/judicial exception using high level/generic computer/computer components, which does not provide an inventive concept, and mere insignificant extra solution activities to the judicial exception of merely gathering/accessing/reading data/information/configuration file of software parts/etc. and transmitting/providing/sending/etc. data/information/a script/etc. for displaying/outputting/etc. data/information/visual representation/etc., and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
As per claim 2, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the integration status includes one of success status and failure status” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to performance of the abstract/idea/mental process, and as such does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. As such, claim 2 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 3, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the integration status includes one of success status, failure status, and not running status” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to performance of the abstract/idea/mental process, and as such does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. As such, claim 3 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 3, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the operations further comprise building the plurality of software parts; wherein the build status indicates a newest release tag in response to successfully building the plurality of software parts; and wherein the build status indicates a previous release tag in response to not successfully building the plurality of software parts.” The additional element/limitation “wherein the operations further comprise building the plurality of software parts” further recites an insignificant extra solution activity of building/updating and storing/etc. data/information which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, the additional elements/limitations “wherein the build status indicates a newest release tag in response to successfully building the plurality of software parts; and wherein the build status indicates a previous release tag in response to not successfully building the plurality of software parts” conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to performance of the abstract/idea/mental process, and as such does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. As such, the additional elements/limitations of claim 4 fail to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore claim 4 is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 5, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the operations further comprise receiving an instruction to build the plurality of software parts; determining a test indicated in the configuration file; and performing the test in response to building the software part to produce a test result, the test result indicating the integration status.” The additional element/limitation “wherein the operations further comprise receiving an instruction to build the plurality of software parts” further recites an insignificant extra solution activity of gathering/receiving/etc. data/information/instructions which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). The additional element/limitation “determining a test indicated in the configuration file” provides further clarification as to performance of the abstract/idea/mental process, and as such does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. And the additional element/limitation “performing the test in response to building the software part to produce a test result, the test result indicating the integration status” recites the performance of an action decided on by performing/output resulting from/etc. the abstract idea/mental process and as such is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process as mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. As such, the additional elements/limitations of claim 5 fail to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore claim 5 is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 6, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the operations further comprise building the plurality of software parts; wherein the configuration file indicates a version of each input software part used during the building” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, recites an insignificant extra solution activity of building/updating and storing/etc. data/information which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); and provides further clarification as to data/information/configuration file gathered/accessed/read/obtained/etc. during performance of the insignificant extra solution activity of gathering/reading/accessing data/information, and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the additional elements/limitations of claim 6 do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. As such claim 6 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore claim 6 is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 7, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the record further indicates a time of building the plurality of software parts” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, provides further clarification as to performance of the abstract/idea/mental process, and as such does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. As such, claim 7 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 11, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the visual representation includes the build status of the second software part” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, recites further clarification as to insignificant extra solution activity of displaying data/information, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). As such, claim 11 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 12, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the visual representation includes each software part in a row or column of a table having fields corresponding to the dependency, build status, and integration status” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, recites further clarification as to insignificant extra solution activity of displaying data/information, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). As such, claim 12 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 13, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the operations further comprise transmitting the record to a database; and transmitting, in response to a request from a client device, the record from the database” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, recites further clarification as to insignificant extra solution activity of transmitting/storing data/information, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). As such, claim 13 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 14, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the visual representation includes a release tag, the release tag indicating whether the release is outdated” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, recites further clarification as to insignificant extra solution activity of displaying data/information, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). As such, claim 14 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 15, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the script includes instructions for switching a visual representation in response to interaction with the first software part” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, recites further clarification as to insignificant extra solution activity of displaying data/information, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). As such, claim 15 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 15, it incorporates the deficiencies of claim 1, upon which it depends, and further recites “…wherein the script includes instructions for sorting software parts of the table by dependency” which, conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, recites further clarification as to performance of the abstract idea/mental process/judging/evaluating/sorting/etc. which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. As such, claim 16 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 17, it recites a method having similar limitations as the operations performed by the processors executing instructions recorded on the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, and as such claim 17 recites a similar abstract idea/mental process and has similar deficiencies as claim 1, and is therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claims 18 and 19, they recite methods having similar limitations as the non-transitory computer readable mediums of claims 2 and 3, respectively, and are therefore rejected for similar reasoning as claims 2 and 3, respectively, above.
As per claim 20, it recites a device having similar limitations as the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 1, and as such claim 20 recites a similar abstract idea/mental process and has similar deficiencies as claim 1. Claim 20 recites the further additional elements/limitations “A device comprising: a controller including circuitry configured to perform operations including” which, with broadest reasonable interpretation, recites that high level/generic computer/computer components/device comprising circuitry/etc. are used to implement/perform/etc. the abstract idea/mental process, and as such amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception/abstract idea/mental process using high level/generic computer/computer components, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. As such, the additional elements/limitations of claim 20 fail to correct the deficiencies of claim 1, and therefore claim 20 is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
ALLOWABILITY OVER PRIOR ART
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowability over the prior art.
The prior art of record (Jain et al. US PG Pub. 2015/0046903 A1, Bendert et al. US PG Pub. 2024/0338184 A1, and Jorapur (US Patent 7,299,382 B2) teaches building multiple/plural/etc. software parts/components/etc.; that configuration file of software parts/components/etc. is read/used/etc.; that software parts/multiple software parts/first and second software components/etc. may have dependencies on each other; that a record of software parts/components/etc. may be generated that includes dependencies/relationships/etc. between the software parts/first and second components/etc., build status of the software parts/components/etc., and integration status between the software parts/components/etc.; that a script/script file/etc. may be provided to a client device/GUI of computing device/etc. that is used to display/render a visual representation/graph/tree/etc. that shows interdependencies/dependencies/etc. among/between the software parts/components, and that the visual representation/graph/tree may have nodes representing/indicating the software components/parts and edges connecting/joining the nodes that represent dependencies between the software components/parts/nodes/etc..
However, the prior art of record fails to render an obviousness of providing, to a client device, a script including instructions for displaying a visual representation of interdependency among a plurality of software parts, when the visual representation includes a connector joining a first software part and a second software part, and when the connector visually indicates an integration status between the first software part and the second software part; after reading a configuration file of the plurality of software parts in response to building the plurality of software parts, when the plurality of software parts includes the first software part and the second software part and the second software part depends upon the first software part; and after generating a record of the plurality of software parts, the record including dependency between the first software part and the second software part, a build status of the plurality of software parts, and the integration status between the first software part and the second software part, as required by the independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As per the 101 arguments on pg. 6 par. 7-pg. 8 par. 3 of the remarks that the amended independent claims are allowable under 35 USC 101 as they do not merely recite using generic computer elements or mere instructions to implement/perform the abstract idea on a computer, but rather recite displaying a visual representation of interdependency among the plurality of software parts that includes a connector joining the first and second software part and which visually indicates the integration status, and the display visually indicating integration status via a connector joining the software parts integrates any abstract idea into a practical application by providing a specific technical solution for software development visualization as it is not merely displaying data but rather provides developers with immediate visual feedback on the integration status between dependent software parts through color or style of connectors which enables developers to quickly identify integration issues between interdependent software components through visual indicators thereby addressing the technical problem of determining which software part is the immediate cause of a build failure, and therefore the amended independent claims and their respective dependent claims are allowable, the examiner, respectfully, disagrees.
The examiner would first like to point out that the actual wording/phrasing of the independent claims (claim 1) is “a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions recorded thereon that, in response to execution by one or more processors, cause performance of operations comprising: reading a configuration file of a plurality of software parts in response to building the plurality of software parts, the plurality of software parts including a first software part and a second software part, the second software part depending upon the first software part; generating a record of the plurality of software parts, the record including dependency between the first software part and the second software part, a build status of the plurality of software parts, and an integration status between the first software part and the second software part; and providing, to a client device, a script including instructions for displaying a visual representation of interdependency among the plurality of software parts, wherein the visual representation includes a connector, which visually indicates the integration status, joining the first software part and the second software part.” As such, with broadest reasonable interpretation, the amended independent claims do not actually recite/require/etc. any identification of integration issues between interdependent software components, a build failure and determining which software part is the immediate cause of a build failure, software developers addressing/correcting/etc. integration issues or build failures, etc.. Further, the examiner would like to point out that, with broadest reasonable interpretation, the wording/phrasing “providing, to a client device, a script including instructions for displaying a visual representation of interdependency…” does not actually recite/require the displaying of the visual representation to a developer, but rather only actively recites/requires transmitting/providing data/information/a script to a client device and then recites/states that the script is meant for/intended to be used for/may be used for/etc. displaying a visual representation of interdependency. As such, with broadest reasonable interpretation, these argued features are not required by the amended independent claims, and therefore, with broadest reasonable interpretation, the amended independent claims do not incorporate the abstract idea into a practical application as these limitations/element amount to mere insignificant extra solution activities of transmitting/providing/sending/etc. data/information/a script/etc. for displaying/outputting/etc. data/information/visual representation/etc., which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting, and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)), as seen in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 101, above. If applicant intended for the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims to be limited to include these features/elements then the examiner would suggest applicant consider further clarification/amendment to the independent claims so that they actually recite these features/elements in order to potentially overcome the 101 issues.
Therefore, the examiner finds these arguments unpersuasive and maintains that the rejection under 35 USC 101 is proper.
Conclusion
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 DOUGLAS M SLACHTA whose telephone number is (571)270-0653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOUGLAS M SLACHTA/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights