DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to application 18/737971, filed on 6/8/2024. Claims 1-21. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Code Red: The Business Impact of Code Quality – A Quantitative Study of 39 Proprietary Production Codebases,” ACM, 2022, hereinafter “Tornhill.”
Regarding claim 1, Tornhill anticipates “A method of analyzing a software application, the method comprising:
receiving source code for an application; processing, using a processor, the source code to generate metadata related to at least one technical characteristic of the application; (see, e.g., Tornhill, pg. 15, sec. 4, 4.2; “Repository mining is the appropriate standard as we use automated techniques to extract data from source code repositories and issue management systems followed by quantitative analysis.”)
identifying, using the processor, a plurality of issues associated with the application based on the metadata; categorizing, using the processor, each of the plurality of issues into a category; (see, e.g., Tornhill, pg. 15-18, sec. 4.1; 5.1-5.3)
generating, using the processor, a report providing an assessment of the technical state of the software application based on the categorized issues; and presenting, via a user interface, the generated report.” (see, e.g., Tornhill, pg. 15-17, figs. 5-9 & associated text).
Regarding claim 2, Tornhill anticipates “The method of claim 1, wherein the category is code complexity, duplication, security vulnerabilities, code quality, or test coverage.” (see, e.g., Tornhill, pg. 15-18, sec. 4.1; 5.1-5.3).
Regarding claim 3, Tornhill anticipates “The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, using the processor, based on remediation effort metrics, at least one of duration, total cost of ownership, and productivity improvement from remediating the application; and presenting information regarding remediating the application in the report.” (see, e.g., Tornhill, pg. 18-19, sec. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Tornhill anticipates “The method of claim 1, wherein processing the source code comprises executing rules to generate metadata relating to the issues for identification based on predefined rules.” (see, e.g., Tornhill, pg. 15-16, sec. 4.2).
Regarding claim 5, Tornhill anticipates “The method of claim 1, wherein the remediation effort metrics comprise at least one of developer productivity, developer cost, or number of developers assigned to remediation.” (see, e.g., Tornhill, pg. 18-19, sec. 6).
Regarding claim 6, Tornhill anticipates “The method of claim 1, wherein the report identifies a specific code element associated with at least one identified issue.” (see, e.g., Tornhill, pg. 15-18, sec. 4.1; 5.1-5.3).
Regarding claim 7, Tornhill anticipates “The method of claim 6, wherein the specific code element is a process, a rule, or a data instance.” (see, e.g., Tornhill, pg. 15-18, sec. 4.1; 5.1-5.3)
Regarding claims 8-21, the instant claims are equivalents of claims 1-7, differing only by statutory class. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 1-7 apply, mutatis mutandis, to claims 8-14, and the rejections of claims 1-7 apply, mutatis mutandis, to claims 15-21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D. COYER whose telephone number is (571) 270-5306 and whose fax number is (571) 270-6306. The examiner normally can be reached via phone on Monday-Friday 12pm-10pm Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached on 571-272-3708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ryan D. Coyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights