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 .
The instant application having application No. 18/770,145 filed on July 11 2024, with a preliminary amendment filed on September 30, 2024, presents claims 1-20 for examination. The instant application claims priority to U.S. Provisional patent application No. 63/513,104 filed on July 11, 2023, and U.S. Provisional patent application No. 63/514,030 filed on July 17, 2023.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to claims 12 and 13, “the computer-executable instructions” on line 2 of claim 12 lacks antecedent basis. Claim 13 inherits this deficiency.
With respect to claim 14, “the computer-executable instructions” on line 2 lacks antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category of machines; Claims 8-14 are directed to computer implemented methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; Claims 15-20 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable media and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.04).
Step 2A Prong 1:
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, the limitation “analyze the source code to determine one or more metrics,” as claimed, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with no more than pen and paper. For example, a human developer could count the number of lines of source code.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite limitations that fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
As the claims have been identified as reciting a judicial exception, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)).
Step 2A Prong 2:
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements: “the system comprising: at least one memory storing computer-executable instructions; and at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to:,”1 “implemented using a system including a computing device including at least one processor communicatively coupled to a memory device, the computer-based method comprising:,”2 “At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, wherein when executed by at least one processor, the computer-executable instructions cause the at least one processor to:,”3 which merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components to perform the abstract idea, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(f), which also cites pertinent court cases, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1243-44, 120 USPQ2d 1844, 1855-57 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016).).
The claims further recite the following additional element(s): “receive, from a database, source code; store the source code in one or more code vaults; replicate, via a replication engine, the source code … cause to be displayed, on a user interface, an interactive dashboard, the interactive dashboard displaying the one or more metrics,” which is/are merely insignificant extra-solution activity such as gathering, transmitting, storing, and displaying data, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), which also cites pertinent court cases, e.g., In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794; 215 USPQ 193, 196-97 (CCPA 1982); OIP Technologies, 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011), Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d at 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d at 1937; and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).), and will be analyzed further below in Step 2B as being well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Lastly, the claims recite the following additional element(s): “A system for storage and evaluation of source code”4 and “A computer-based method for storing and evaluating source code, the computer-based method”5 which is/are merely a recitation of a field of use or technological environment that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(h), which also cites pertinent court cases, e.g., FairWarning v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1319-20, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1361 (2016); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2014).).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 8, and 15 not only recite a judicial exception but are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, Step 2B will evaluate whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Step 2B:
With respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components applying the abstract idea, recitation of a field of use/technological environment, and insignificant extra-solution activity such as gathering, transmitting, storing, and displaying data, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) for court decisions recognizing that this activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional.).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 8, and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to claims 2, 9, and 16, the limitations recite “wherein the one or more metrics include at least one of: number of lines of code, number of languages used, or types of languages used,” which merely provides details of the one or more metrics, which could also be determined by human developer in the mind with no more than pen and paper. For example, a developer could count the number of lines of source code. Thus, the claims are directed to the judicial exception and do not have elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to claims 3, 10, and 17, the limitations recite “wherein the one or more metrics include at least one valuation metric,” which merely provide details of the one or more metrics, which could also be determined by human developer in the mind with no more than pen and paper. For example, a developer could use their judgment and expertise to determine how much it cost to develop the source code. Thus, the claims are directed to the judicial exception and do not have elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to claims 4, 11, and 18, the limitations recite “wherein the at least one valuation metric is at least one of a cost-based metric, a market-based metric, an income-based metric, or a royalty-based metric,” which merely provide details of the one or more metrics, which could also be determined by human developer in the mind with no more than pen and paper. For example, a developer could use their judgment and expertise to determine how much it cost to develop the source code. Thus, the claims are directed to the judicial exception and do not have elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to claims 5, 12, 19, the limitations “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to”, merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The limitation “analyze the updated source code to determine one or more updated metrics” could be performed in the human mind. For example, a developer could count the lines of the updated source code. The limitations “in response to receiving a notification that the source code has been updated: store updated source code in the one or more code vaults; replicate the updated source code … cause to be displayed, on a user interface, the interactive dashboard displaying the one or more updated metrics” which is merely insignificant extra-solution activity such as displaying data, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and § 2106.05(d)(II)). Thus, the claims are directed to the judicial exception and do not have elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to claims 6, 13, and 20, the limitations recite “wherein the source code is updated according to a predetermined schedule,” which is insignificant extra-solution activity such as gathering and/or storing data that is well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(g) and § 2106.05(d)(II)). Furthermore, this extra-solution activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Thus, the claims are directed to the judicial exception and do not have elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to claims 7 and 14, the limitations “answer questions and perform tasks regarding the source code” could, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, also be performed in the human mind with no more than pen and paper. For example, a human developer could answer questions about source code and provide suggestions for how to edit the source code. The limitation “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to provide an artificial intelligence (AI) voice bot or chatbot configured to employ AI to” merely recites instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The limitation “stored in the one or more code vaults” is merely insignificant extra-solution activity for the same reason set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 8. Thus, the claims are directed to the judicial exception and do not have elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan et al. (US 20140123110 A1, hereinafter Wan) in view of Moorthi et al. (US 20130152047 A1, hereinafter Moorthi).
With respect to claim 1, Wan discloses A system for storage and evaluation of source code (e.g., Fig. 1 and associated text, e.g., [0021], FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary quality monitoring system 100 that implements the framework described herein; see also [0006].), the system comprising:
at least one memory storing computer-executable instructions (e.g., Fig. 1 and associated text, e.g., [0022], Turning to the computer system 101 in more detail, it may include a … a non-transitory computer-readable media 106.); and
at least one processor in communication with the at least one memory, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to (e.g., Fig. 1 and associated text, e.g., [0022], Non-transitory computer-readable media 106 may store machine-executable instructions, data, and various programs, such as an operating system (not shown) and a software quality monitoring unit 107 for implementing the techniques described herein, all of which may be processed by CPU 104.):
receive, from a database, source code (e.g., Figs. 1-4 and associated text, e.g., [0028], An example of an SCM system 130 includes, but is not limited to, a SourceSafe … system; [0029], the software quality monitoring unit 107 receives the software project files from the SCM system 130; [0039], the automated build system triggers an SCM client application to download the latest version of the source code from the SCM system 130.);
analyze the source code to determine one or more metrics (e.g., Figs. 1-5 and associated text, e.g., [0041], At 406, static code analysis (or static program analysis) is performed on the updated source code; [0072], the DEV quality score is based at least in part on a code complexity score (Complexity). Code complexity may be measured by cyclomatic complexity (or conditional complexity), which directly measures the number of linearly independently paths through a program's source code. Sections of the source code may be categorized into different levels of code complexity, depending on the number of linearly independently paths measured; see also [0029] and [0031].); and
cause to be displayed, on a user interface, an interactive dashboard, the interactive dashboard displaying the one or more metrics (e.g., Figs. 1-9 and associated text, e.g., [0058], The exemplary summary report 436 shows … the code quality results for the static code analysis 610; [0059], the summary report 436 may be converted to a dashboard; [0062], a dashboard may include different elements to present aggregated views of data using, for example, appropriate software quality indicators, key performance indicators (KPIs), metrics, trends, graphs, data visualizations and interactions … The dashboard may also be provided with different features or functions. For example, components or elements, such as drop down menus, sliders and command buttons for performing "what if" analyses and dynamic visualization of data may be provided to enable interactions by a user at runtime [interactive]; [0067], Similar graphical representations (814 and 818) may be provided to present the instantaneous developer (DEV) and software tester (ST) quality scores; see also [0065-66] and [0068].).
Wan does not appear to disclose the following, which is taught in analogous art, Moorthi: store the source code in one or more code vaults (e.g., Figs. 3-9 and 15 and associated text, e.g., [0065], push the customer's … source code to support them from the customer's environment 302 to the web service 304 … the web service 304 can be configured to include a hosted version of the SCM system; [0072], The SCM 404 [code vault] can be configured to provide isolated and efficient storage of customer test and source code repositories; [0325], the system prevents its maintainers from directly accessing user source code using, for example, public key encryption and access control measures; [0297], secure, multi-tenant storage of user repositories.); see also [0093] and [0164].); replicate, via a replication engine, the source code (e.g., Figs. 3-12 and 15 and associated text, e.g., [0066], the storage system 308 can also be configured to cache; [0303], strategy for caching includes maintaining a mirror of … source code … the original repository can be copied to a new location known to the system and that copy can be periodically updated; see also [0305].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Wan with the invention of Moorthi, such that source code is stored securely and mirrored, because it would help prevent unauthorized access to a customer’s source code and improve efficiency.
With respect to claim 8, Wan discloses A computer-based method for storing and evaluating source code, the computer-based method implemented using a system including a computing device including at least one processor communicatively coupled to a memory device (e.g., Figs. 1 and 4 along with associated text, e.g., [0006] Systems and methods for monitoring and improving software development quality are described herein; [0022], Non-transitory computer-readable media 106 may store machine-executable instructions, data, and various programs, such as an operating system (not shown) and a software quality monitoring unit 107 for implementing the techniques described herein, all of which may be processed by CPU 104.), the computer-based method comprising:
receiving, from a database, source code (e.g., Figs. 1-4 and associated text, e.g., [0028], An example of an SCM system 130 includes, but is not limited to, a SourceSafe … system; [0029], the software quality monitoring unit 107 receives the software project files from the SCM system 130; [0039], the automated build system triggers an SCM client application to download the latest version of the source code from the SCM system 130.);
analyzing the source code to determine one or more metrics (e.g., Figs. 1-5 and associated text, e.g., [0041], At 406, static code analysis (or static program analysis) is performed on the updated source code; [0072], the DEV quality score is based at least in part on a code complexity score (Complexity). Code complexity may be measured by cyclomatic complexity (or conditional complexity), which directly measures the number of linearly independently paths through a program's source code. Sections of the source code may be categorized into different levels of code complexity, depending on the number of linearly independently paths measured; see also [0029] and [0031].); and
causing to be displayed, on a user interface, an interactive dashboard, the interactive dashboard displaying the one or more metrics (e.g., Figs. 1-9 and associated text, e.g., [0058], The exemplary summary report 436 shows … the code quality results for the static code analysis 610; [0059], the summary report 436 may be converted to a dashboard; [0062], a dashboard may include different elements to present aggregated views of data using, for example, appropriate software quality indicators, key performance indicators (KPIs), metrics, trends, graphs, data visualizations and interactions … The dashboard may also be provided with different features or functions. For example, components or elements, such as drop down menus, sliders and command buttons for performing "what if" analyses and dynamic visualization of data may be provided to enable interactions by a user at runtime [interactive]; [0067], Similar graphical representations (814 and 818) may be provided to present the instantaneous developer (DEV) and software tester (ST) quality scores; see also [0065-66] and [0068].).
Wan does not appear to disclose the following, which is taught in analogous art, Moorthi: storing the source code in one or more code vaults (e.g., Figs. 3-9 and 15 and associated text, e.g., [0065], push the customer's … source code to support them from the customer's environment 302 to the web service 304 … the web service 304 can be configured to include a hosted version of the SCM system; [0072], The SCM 404 [code vault] can be configured to provide isolated and efficient storage of customer test and source code repositories; [0325], the system prevents its maintainers from directly accessing user source code using, for example, public key encryption and access control measures; [0297], secure, multi-tenant storage of user repositories.); see also [0093] and [0164].); replicating, via a replication engine, the source code (e.g., Figs. 3-12 and 15 and associated text, e.g., [0066], the storage system 308 can also be configured to cache; [0303], strategy for caching includes maintaining a mirror of … source code … the original repository can be copied to a new location known to the system and that copy can be periodically updated; see also [0305].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Wan with the invention of Moorthi, such that source code is stored securely and mirrored, because it would help prevent unauthorized access to a customer’s source code and improve efficiency.
With respect to claim 15, Wan discloses At least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon, wherein when executed by at least one processor, the computer-executable instructions cause the at least one processor to (e.g., Figs. 1 and 4 along with associated text, e.g., [0006] Systems and methods for monitoring and improving software development quality are described herein; [0022], Non-transitory computer-readable media 106 may store machine-executable instructions, data, and various programs, such as an operating system (not shown) and a software quality monitoring unit 107 for implementing the techniques described herein, all of which may be processed by CPU 104.):
receive, from a database, source code (e.g., Figs. 1-4 and associated text, e.g., [0028], An example of an SCM system 130 includes, but is not limited to, a SourceSafe … system; [0029], the software quality monitoring unit 107 receives the software project files from the SCM system 130; [0039], the automated build system triggers an SCM client application to download the latest version of the source code from the SCM system 130.);
analyze the source code to determine one or more metrics (e.g., Figs. 1-5 and associated text, e.g., [0041], At 406, static code analysis (or static program analysis) is performed on the updated source code; [0072], the DEV quality score is based at least in part on a code complexity score (Complexity). Code complexity may be measured by cyclomatic complexity (or conditional complexity), which directly measures the number of linearly independently paths through a program's source code. Sections of the source code may be categorized into different levels of code complexity, depending on the number of linearly independently paths measured; see also [0029] and [0031].); and
cause to be displayed, on a user interface, an interactive dashboard, the interactive dashboard displaying the one or more metrics (e.g., Figs. 1-9 and associated text, e.g., [0058], The exemplary summary report 436 shows … the code quality results for the static code analysis 610; [0059], the summary report 436 may be converted to a dashboard; [0062], a dashboard may include different elements to present aggregated views of data using, for example, appropriate software quality indicators, key performance indicators (KPIs), metrics, trends, graphs, data visualizations and interactions … The dashboard may also be provided with different features or functions. For example, components or elements, such as drop down menus, sliders and command buttons for performing "what if" analyses and dynamic visualization of data may be provided to enable interactions by a user at runtime [interactive]; [0067], Similar graphical representations (814 and 818) may be provided to present the instantaneous developer (DEV) and software tester (ST) quality scores; see also [0065-66] and [0068].).
Wan does not appear to disclose the following, which is taught in analogous art, Moorthi: store the source code in one or more code vaults (e.g., Figs. 3-9 and 15 and associated text, e.g., [0065], push the customer's … source code to support them from the customer's environment 302 to the web service 304 … the web service 304 can be configured to include a hosted version of the SCM system; [0072], The SCM 404 [code vault] can be configured to provide isolated and efficient storage of customer test and source code repositories; [0325], the system prevents its maintainers from directly accessing user source code using, for example, public key encryption and access control measures; [0297], secure, multi-tenant storage of user repositories.); see also [0093] and [0164].); replicate, via a replication engine, the source code (e.g., Figs. 3-12 and 15 and associated text, e.g., [0066], the storage system 308 can also be configured to cache; [0303], strategy for caching includes maintaining a mirror of … source code … the original repository can be copied to a new location known to the system and that copy can be periodically updated; see also [0305].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Wan with the invention of Moorthi, such that source code is stored securely and mirrored, because it would help prevent unauthorized access to a customer’s source code and improve efficiency.
With respect to claims 5, 12, and 19, Wan also discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to, in response to receiving a that the source code has been updated (e.g., Figs. 1-4 and associated text, e.g., [0039], The automated build system may be implemented as a daemon process to continuously (or periodically) check the SCM system for changes to the source code … the automated build system triggers an SCM client application to download the latest version of the source code from the SCM system 130; see also [0038] and [0041].): analyze the updated source code to determine one or more updated metrics (e.g., Figs. 1-5 and associated text, e.g., [0041], At 406, static code analysis (or static program analysis) is performed on the updated source code … Such static code analysis may be invoked by the automated build system when the SCM system client completes the updating of the source code; [0072], the DEV quality score is based at least in part on a code complexity score (Complexity). Code complexity may be measured by cyclomatic complexity (or conditional complexity), which directly measures the number of linearly independently paths through a program's source code. Sections of the source code may be categorized into different levels of code complexity, depending on the number of linearly independently paths measured; see also [0029], [0031], and [0038-39].); and cause to be displayed, on a user interface, the interactive dashboard displaying the one or more updated metrics (e.g., Figs. 1-9 and associated text, e.g., [0058], The exemplary summary report 436 shows … quality results for the static code analysis 610; [0059], the summary report 436 may be converted to a dashboard; [0062], a dashboard may include different elements to present aggregated views of data using, for example, appropriate software quality indicators, key performance indicators (KPIs), metrics, trends, graphs, data visualizations and interactions … The dashboard may also be provided with different features or functions. For example, components or elements, such as drop down menus, sliders and command buttons for performing "what if" analyses and dynamic visualization of data may be provided to enable interactions by a user at runtime [interactive]; [0067], Similar graphical representations (814 and 818) may be provided to present the instantaneous developer (DEV) and software tester (ST) quality scores; see also [0038-39], [0058], [0065-66] and [0068].) and Moorthi further teaches notification (e.g., Figs. 1-4 and 8-9 along with associated text, e.g., [0286], triggers tests using a continuous integration model, where an agent can be notified when the user's software changes; see also [0072].) … store updated source code in the one or more code vaults (e.g., Figs. 3-9 and 15 and associated text, e.g., [0072], a customer can push code updates to a hosted SCM, which causes the web service 400 to update execution tasks for a test suite; [0065], the customer environment 302 need only to be configured to provide the most up to date version of any code; [0072], The SCM 404 can be configured to provide isolated and efficient storage of customer test and source code repositories; [0325], the system prevents its maintainers from directly accessing user source code using, for example, public key encryption and access control measures; see also [0040], [0093], [0112], [0164], and [0297].); replicate the updated source code (Id., particularly, [0072], a customer can push code updates to a hosted SCM; [0066], the storage system 308 can also be configured to cache; [0303], strategy for caching includes maintaining a mirror of … source code … the original repository can be copied to a new location known to the system and that copy can be periodically updated; see also [0305].);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Wan with the invention of Moorthi for the same reason set forth above and also because using a notification of a code change as a trigger could because so that evaluation happens automatically every time code is updated.
With respect to claims 6, 13, and 20, Wan also discloses wherein the source code is updated according to a predetermined schedule (e.g., Fig. 4 and associated text, e.g., [0038], The time-based monitoring task 400 may be triggered by a time event … the time-based task 400 may be triggered at regular time intervals (e.g., nightly, daily, weekly, etc.) or at predetermined times (e.g., midnight, weekends or holidays); [0039] At 402, after the task 400 starts, the source code from the SCM system 130 is updated.).
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan in view of Moorthi, as applied to claim 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Guatam (US 20140282445 A1, hereinafter Guatam).
With respect to claims 2, 9, and 16, Wan does not appear to disclose the following, which is taught in analogous art, Guatam: wherein the one or more metrics include at least one of: number of lines of code, number of languages used, or types of languages used (e.g., Fig. 2, particularly 216 “Size (KLOC)”6, and associated text, e.g., [0023], A fourth chart 208 is a table showing various metrics for a plurality of applications … A third column 214 describes the programming language in which the application is written. A fourth column 216 identifies the lines of code for each of the applications.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Wan with the invention of Guatam because “There are circumstances in which analysis of source code for different metrics, such as size or complexity, can be useful,” as suggested by Guatam (see [0003]).
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan in view of Moorthi, as applied to claim 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (US 20060041857 A1, hereinafter Huang).
With respect to claims 3, 10, and 17, Wan does not appear to disclose the following, which is taught in analogous art, Huang: wherein the one or more metrics include at least one valuation metric (e.g., Fig. 4 and associated text, e.g., [0021] A software output metric produced by the software estimation system will be indicative of the cost; [0046], Many algorithmic models have been proposed to estimate different software output metrics, such as software development cost, software maintenance cost.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Wan with the invention of Huang because knowing how much a software development project costs would be helpful in many ways, such as determining whether a project is on budget or determining whether a project is too costly to continue.
With respect to claims 4, 11, and 18, Huang further teaches wherein the at least one valuation metric is at least one of a cost-based metric, a market-based metric, an income-based metric, or a royalty-based metric (e.g., Fig. 4 and associated text, e.g., [0021] A software output metric produced by the software estimation system will be indicative of the cost; [0046], Many algorithmic models have been proposed to estimate different software output metrics, such as software development cost, software maintenance cost.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Wan with the invention of Huang for the same reason set forth above.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan in view of Moorthi, as applied to claim 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Groenewegen et al. (US 20240411527 A1, hereinafter Groenewegen).
With respect to claims 7 and 14, Moorthi further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the computer-executable instructions to provide and perform tasks regarding the source code stored in the one or more code vaults (e.g., Figs. 3-9 and 15 and associated text, e.g., [0065], push the customer's … source code to support them from the customer's environment 302 to the web service 304 … the web service 304 can be configured to include a hosted version of the SCM system; [0066], The user interface 305 can also be configured to initiate testing via the web service 304; [0072], The SCM 404 can be configured to provide isolated and efficient storage of customer test and source code repositories); see also [0063], [0093], [0164], [0297], and [0325].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Wan with the invention of Moorthi for the same reason set forth above.
Wan as modified by Moorthi does not appear to disclose the following, which is taught in analogous art, Groenewegen: an artificial intelligence (AI) voice bot or chatbot configured to employ AI to answer questions (e.g., Figs. 2-4 and associated text, e.g., [0026], AI chat component 203 retains the chat indicator after the user interaction and resolution of the AI persona's suggestion. Notably, this enables the user to return to the chat indicator and further interact with the AI persona (e.g., to ask follow-up questions about the suggestion, to provide further instructions about the suggestion, to ask a question about a different source code location) [chatbot configured to employ AI to answer questions]; [0031], A chat window 306 associated with chat indicator 303 shows that the code-commenting AI persona has initiated a conversation to suggest adding a comment to the Person class, while a chat window 305 associated with chat indicator 304 shows that the code-fixing AI persona has initiated a conversation to suggest a correction to the variable “Lastname.” [AI chatbot configured to employ AI to perform tasks regarding source code]; see also [0025].).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the invention of Wan with the invention of Groenewegen because it can improve the developer experience by offering a “suggestion for the user that is relevant to the particular source code location” without being “distracting”, as suggested by Groenewegen (see [0013]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Kenefick, “Chapter 6: SourceSafe” provides details of the SourceSafe database SCM, and Thiruvathukal et al., “Metrics Dashboard: A Hosted Platform for Software Quality Metrics” teaches a dashboard with metrics indicative of team progress and project health.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN DAVID BERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7206. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-6 Eastern.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hyung S. Sough can be reached on 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 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.
/STEPHEN D BERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2192
1 See claim 1.
2 See claim 8.
3 See claim 15.
4 See claim 1.
5 See claim 8.
6 Examiner notes that “KLOC” stands for “thousands of lines of code”
Prosecution Insights