DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/30/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This non-final office action is responsive to Applicant’s submission filed 03/30/2026. Currently, claims 1-5, 7-13 and 17-24 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 10, 17 and 21 have been amended. Claims 6 and 14-16 have been cancelled.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 17-24 are allowed over prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
None of the cited and/or relevant prior art, single or in combination, teaches the combination:
“generating tailored release notes documentation by filtering the release notes documentation to exclude a portion of the elements of the release notes documentation that are determined not to be relevant to the implementation of the software product, wherein the tailored release notes documentation comprises a remaining portion of the elements that were not excluded, and wherein generating the tailored release notes documentation comprises:
identifying at least one benefit specific to the customer entity associated with at least one of the changes, the enhancements, or the bug fixes according to the implementation of the software product, wherein identifying the at least one benefit comprises, for at least one of the elements of the remaining portion of the elements of the release notes documentation, computing a respective numerical benefit value for the at least one of the elements of the remaining portion based on the implementation of the software product as indicated by the customer data; and
adding at least one tailored element to the tailored release notes documentation that describes the at least one benefit specific to the customer entity associated with the at least one of the changes, the enhancements, or the bug fixes according to the implementation of the software product, and that comprises the respective numerical benefit value for the at least one of the elements of the remaining portion”
as recited in claims 17 and 21.
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 1-5, 7-13 and 17-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims recite method, system and computer program product for managing software update.
Exemplary claim 1 recites in part,
“in response to detecting the customer entity logging into the software product…,
performing an upgrade review to determine whether to present a customized upgrade prompt, via the customer device, applicable to upgrading the software product, comprising: (evaluating software upgrade review)
based on a determination that the customer entity is eligible to upgrade the software product from an older version to a newer version: (based on upgrade review evaluation)
receiving software product data comprising release notes documentation comprising elements that describe changes, enhancements, and bug fixes made to the newer version with respect to the older version; (obtaining software product data – release note documentations describing software changes)
based on a comparison of the software product data and customer data indicative of an implementation of the software product associated with the customer entity…generating tailored release notes documentation by filtering the release notes documentation to exclude a portion of the elements of the release notes documentation that are determined not to be relevant to the implementation of the software product, wherein the tailored release documentation comprise a remaining portion of the elements that were not excluded, and wherein generating the tailored release notes documentation comprises: (generating customized release notes documentation based on software product and customer data)
identifying at least one benefit specific to the customer entity associated with at least one of the changes, the enhancements, or the bug fixes according to the implementation of the software product, wherein identifying the at least one benefit comprises, for at least one of the elements of the remaining portion of the elements of the release notes documentation, computing a respective numerical benefit value for the at least one of the elements of the remaining portion based on the implementation of the software product as indicated by the customer data; and; and (specifying one benefit with the software update based customer data by computing numerical value(s))
adding at least one tailored element to the tailored release notes documentation that describes the at least one benefit specific to the customer entity associated with the at least one of the changes, the enhancements, or the bug fixes according to the implementation of the software product and that comprises the respective numerical benefit value for the at least one of the elements of the remaining portion; and (including identified benefit in tailored release notes documentation)
causing a presentation of the customized upgrade prompt via the customer device, wherein the customized upgrade prompt comprises the tailored release notes documentation via the customer device of the customer entity.” (presenting the customized software update)
The above limitations describe the steps of, 1) evaluating software upgrade, 2) obtaining software product data (release notes documentation), 3) generating a tailored release notes documentation based on customer data, software update data and identified benefits, and 4) presenting the generated tailored release notes documentation.
The above steps describe the process of managing software update. The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity" (managing personal behavior or relationship or interaction between people) enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationship or interaction between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The cited claims recite additional elements in the form of a computing device, having a processor and memory, to perform the limitations encompassing the abstract ideas identified above. The computing device represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, the step of “detecting user logging into a software product” represents receiving user logging action, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not impose meaning limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the feature, “wherein the customer data comprises at least one of customer system topology data representative of a topology of customer computing equipment, customer system configuration data representative of a configuration of the customer computing equipment, customer system environment data representative of an environment associated with the customer computing equipment, or customer service request history data representative of at least one previous service request applied to the customer computing equipment” simply describes the data type constituting the customer data, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not impose meaning limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The recitation of additional elements is acknowledged as identified above. The discussion with respect to practical application is equally applicable to consideration of whether the additional elements amount to significantly more. The recited computing device represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f). In addition, while the step of “detecting user logging into a software product” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, it also amounts to “transmitting data over a network” which has been recognized by the courts as a well-understood, routine, and conventional function as in MPEP 2106.05(d). Further, the feature, “wherein the customer data comprises at least one of customer system topology data representative of a topology of customer computing equipment, customer system configuration data representative of a configuration of the customer computing equipment, customer system environment data representative of an environment associated with the customer computing equipment, or customer service request history data representative of at least one previous service request applied to the customer computing equipment” simply describes the data type constituting the customer data, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not impose meaning limits on the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, there are no meaningful recitations, considered in combination, that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 17 and 21 recite similar limitations as set forth in claim 1, and therefore are rejected based on similar rationale.
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-13, 18-20 and 22-24 recite limitations directed to the abstract idea, and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Response to Arguments
101 Rejection
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-13 and 17-24 under 35 U.S.C. §101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's arguments, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussed above under section 101, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims describe the steps of detecting a user log-in operation and performing a software upgrade evaluation in response to user log-in. Upon determining eligibility, software product data (including release notes documentation) is compared to customer data to generate tailored release notes documentation. The tailored release notes documentation is generated by filtering the release notes documentation to exclude elements of the release notes documentation not relevant to the user. One or more benefits specific to the user is identified and included in the generated release notes document. The generated tailored release notes documentation is presented to the user.
In BASCOM, the court held that filtering content is an abstract idea because it is a longstanding, well-known method of organizing human behavior, similar to concepts previously found to be abstract. In BASCOM, a filtering scheme is implemented that associates each network account with (1) one or more filtering schemes and (2) at least one set of filtering elements from a plurality of sets of filtering elements, thereby allowing individual network accounts to customize the filtering of Internet traffic associated with the account. Similar to BASCOM, the claimed invention receives a user logging and determines software upgrade eligibility based on an upgrade review. Based on the upgrade review, customer data and software product data, the claimed invention generates tailored release notes documentation by filtering release notes documentation to exclude a portion of the elements that are determined not to be relevant to the implementation of the software product and by identifying at least one benefit specific to the customer entity associated with at least one of the changes, enhancements, or bug fixes according to the implementation and adding at least one tailored element describing that benefit. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Unlike, Enfish and Desjardins, the claimed invention uses computer technology (processor and memory with instructions) to generate release notes documentation associated with software upgrade based on software product data and customer data, and present the generated tailored release notes documentation to a user. The claimed invention fails to improve the functioning of the underlying computer or another technical field or technology. When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims use computer technology to provide a business solution of managing software upgrade by, 1) evaluating software upgrade, 2) obtaining software product data (release notes documentation), 3) generating a tailored release notes documentation based on customer data, software update data and identified benefits, and 4) presenting the generated tailored release notes documentation. The computing device represents using a computer as a tool to perform the judicial exception as in MPEP 2106.05(f). When considered both individually and as a whole, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUSEGUN GOYEA whose telephone number is (571)270-5402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9am-5pm 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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at 5712703324. 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.
/OLUSEGUN GOYEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights