DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 were pending and were rejected in the previous office action. Claims 1, 5, 8, 10, 13, 15-16, and 19 were amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending and are examined in this office action.
Priority
As previously indicated, the present application claims the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Application 63/544,721, filed on October 18, 2023.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
Claims 1, 8, 10, 15-16, and 19 have been amended to correct the previous informalities – therefore, the previous claim objections to claims 1, 8, 10, 15-16, and 19 are withdrawn.
35 USC § 101:
Applicant’s arguments regarding the § 101 rejection of claims 1-20 (pgs. 9-12, remarks filed 1/8/2026) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amended claims now recite the limitations “implement the unified computing platform in which a plurality of distinct ecosystems are connected through the unified platform that integrate and manage the offering's resources, wherein a plurality of data streams corresponding to the hierarchical product parameters are captured by the unified platform” (using claim 1 as representative) and argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because this particular computer implemented limitation cannot be performed in the human mind (pg. 11 of remarks, specifically).
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The specific argued limitation falls outside of the scope of the abstract idea itself, and therefore is considered as an additional element under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, but does not change that the claims still recite a number of other previously identified limitations that recite an abstract idea at Step 2A Prong One.
For example, as indicated in the updated § 101 rejection at Step 2A Prong One below, independent claim 1 (and similar claims 10 and 16) recite limitations for classifying hierarchical product parameters in a hierarchy of operational factors for an offering, including limitations to:
obtain…the hierarchical product parameters associated with the offering within the hierarchy of operational factors, wherein the hierarchical product parameters include at least one of a feature of the offering;
retrieve the feature associated with the offering, wherein the feature encompasses a plurality of sub-modules,
determine decisive metrics of the plurality of sub-modules and evaluate the decisive metrics of each sub-module against a set of predefined threshold values to validate an operational relevance, the operational relevance being indicative of a degree to which each sub-module provides relevant contribution to the functionality of the feature;
identify a specific sub-module within the feature, wherein the specific sub-module has decisive metrics exceeding the predefined threshold values;
classify the identified specific sub-module into a sub-feature, the sub-feature being a distinct and operationally significant subset of the feature;
establish a hierarchical link between the classified sub-feature and the feature; monitor the performance and utilization of the sub-feature;
cause re-classification of the sub-feature, wherein the reclassification comprises at least one of: transformation of the sub-feature into an independent feature; and merge of the sub-feature with the feature to create a consolidated feature;
update a hierarchical product parameter map based on the classification and re-classification
For the reasons previously indicated (pgs. 4-6 of the 9/8/2025 non-final rejection) and indicated below in the current § 101 rejection, these limitations recite an abstract idea (“mental processes,” as all of the steps could otherwise be carried out via the human mind with or without the aid of simple tools such as pen and paper) and thus the examiner respectfully disagrees that the mere inclusion of another additional element indicates that the claims do not recite an abstract idea at Step 2A Prong One.
Moving to Step 2A Prong Two/Step 2B, Applicant further argues (pgs. 11-12, remarks) that:
“Nor would this claim element fall within the scope of merely being a "general purpose computer". As also stated in MPEP 2106, "a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts" would extend a given claim beyond the scope of a mere general purpose computer. Here, the specific implementation recited in the claim refers to a unified computing platform in which a plurality of distinct ecosystems are connected through the unified platform that integrate and manage the offering's resources. In addition, the plurality of data streams corresponding to the hierarchical product parameters are captured by the unified platform. These claimed concepts extend beyond just the simple concept of a general computer.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation “implement the unified computing platform in which a plurality of distinct ecosystems are connected through the unified platform that integrate and manage the offering's resources, wherein a plurality of data streams corresponding to the hierarchical product parameters are captured by the unified platform” is a computer system/element recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, simply reads on receiving data from a plurality of different data sources that is then used to perform the abstract idea. This indicates that the additional element, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, merely invokes computers merely as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e. “mental process”), while generally linking the performance of the abstract idea to performance within a computer environment (e.g. “implement the unified computing platform in which a plurality of distinct ecosystems are connected through the unified platform that integrate and manage the offering's resources…”). See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), showing “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).”
Furthermore, there is no explanation or indication in the claims or specification of how this limitation would provide a specific technological improvement to the way in which computers receive or transmit data or particular technological problem that is solved, beyond a conclusory statement that it provides a solution to a problem in the software arts.
Therefore, the § 101 rejection of claims 1-20 is maintained and updated below to reflect applicant’s amendments.
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 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-9 recite “A system…comprising: a processor…” (i.e. a machine); claims 10-15 recite “A method for classifying hierarchical product parameters…” (i.e. a process); and claims 16-20 recite “A non-transitory computer-accessible storage medium storing program comprising instructions for classification of hierarchical product parameters in a hierarchy of operational factors for an offering operating in a unified platform, the instructions being executable by a processor to…” (i.e. an article of manufacture). These claims fall under one of the four categories of statutory subject matter and as a result, pass Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test. However, “Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) in Step 1 does not end the eligibility analysis, because claims directed to nothing more than abstract ideas (such as a mathematical formula or equation), natural phenomena, and laws of nature are not eligible for patent protection.” See MPEP 2106.04. Accordingly, the examiner continues the subject matter eligibility analysis below.
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claim 1 (and similar claims 10 and 16) recite limitations for classifying hierarchical product parameters in a hierarchy of operational factors for an offering, including limitations to:
obtain…the hierarchical product parameters associated with the offering within the hierarchy of operational factors, wherein the hierarchical product parameters include at least one of a feature of the offering;
retrieve the feature associated with the offering, wherein the feature encompasses a plurality of sub-modules,
determine decisive metrics of the plurality of sub-modules and evaluate the decisive metrics of each sub-module against a set of predefined threshold values to validate an operational relevance, the operational relevance being indicative of a degree to which each sub-module provides relevant contribution to the functionality of the feature;
identify a specific sub-module within the feature, wherein the specific sub-module has decisive metrics exceeding the predefined threshold values;
classify the identified specific sub-module into a sub-feature, the sub-feature being a distinct and operationally significant subset of the feature;
establish a hierarchical link between the classified sub-feature and the feature; monitor the performance and utilization of the sub-feature;
cause re-classification of the sub-feature, wherein the reclassification comprises at least one of: transformation of the sub-feature into an independent feature; and merge of the sub-feature with the feature to create a consolidated feature;
update a hierarchical product parameter map based on the classification and re-classification
The limitations of independent claims 1, 10 and 16 above are determined to recite an abstract idea (i.e. classifying and updating hierarchical product parameters in a hierarchy of operational factors for an offering) for the reasons discussed in the following continued Step 2A Prong One analysis.
As described in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), “[T]he "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” and “If a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the claim recites an abstract idea.” The limitations recited by the representative independent claims 1, 10, and 16 above, under the broadest reasonable interpretation and but for the use of generic computer components, cover concepts (e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) that can reasonably be performed in the human mind or by the human mind with the aid of simple tools such as pen and paper. For example, the “obtain,” “retrieve,” steps represent observations, while the “determine,” “validate,” “identify,” and “classify” steps would be considered evaluations, judgments, and opinions. The additional steps to “establish a hierarchical link,” “cause re-classification of the sub-feature, wherein the reclassification comprises at least one of: transformation of the sub-feature into an independent feature; and merge of the sub-feature with the feature to create a consolidated feature,” and “update a hierarchical product parameter map based on the classification and re-classification” are processes which can be performed in the human mind using pen and paper (e.g., a human drawing a representation of the hierarchical product parameters including representation of the features and sub-features, a link between sub-features and features, and making edits or changes to a hierarchical product parameter map in accordance with the steps above). These limitations collectively amount to mental processes for classifying and updating hierarchical product parameters in a hierarchy of operational factors for an offering.
Therefore, as the processes above described by the representative independent claims 1, 10, and 16 can be characterized as mental processes (i.e. observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion) or processes performed by the human mind with the use of physical aid such as pen and paper, the claims fall under the “mental processes” category of judicial exceptions (i.e. abstract ideas).
The examiner notes that as per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) section (III)(C), a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process, if applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process. The additional elements involving computer implementation and/or a computer environment are discussed in the Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B analysis below.
Step 2A Prong Two:
Claims 1, 10 and 16 recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1: “A system…comprising a processor,” “operating in a unified platform,” “implement the unified computing platform in which a plurality of distinct ecosystems are connected through the unified platform that integrate and manage the offering's resources, wherein a plurality of data streams corresponding to the hierarchical product parameters are captured by the unified platform,” and “each sub-module amongst the plurality of sub-modules representing a set of programming code integrable in a microservice for performing a capability”
Claim 10: “operating in a unified platform,” “implementing the unified computing platform in which a plurality of distinct ecosystems are connected through the unified platform that integrate and manage the offering's resources, wherein a plurality of data streams corresponding to the hierarchical product parameters are captured by the unified platform,” and “each sub-module amongst the plurality of sub-modules representing a set of programming code integrable in a microservice for performing a capability”
Claim 16: “A non-transitory computer-accessible storage medium storing program comprising instructions…the instructions being executable by a processor to…,” “operating in a unified platform,” “implement the unified computing platform in which a plurality of distinct ecosystems are connected through the unified platform that integrate and manage the offering's resources, wherein a plurality of data streams corresponding to the hierarchical product parameters are captured by the unified platform,” and “each sub-module amongst the plurality of sub-modules representing a set of programming code integrable in a microservice for performing a capability”
The judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) recited in claims 1, 10 and 16 is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. classifying and updating hierarchical product parameters in a hierarchy of operational factors for an offering) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “A system…comprising a processor” and “implement the unified computing platform in which a plurality of distinct ecosystems are connected through the unified platform that integrate and manage the offering's resources, wherein a plurality of data streams corresponding to the hierarchical product parameters are captured by the unified platform” of claim 1; “implementing the unified computing platform in which a plurality of distinct ecosystems are connected through the unified platform that integrate and manage the offering's resources, wherein a plurality of data streams corresponding to the hierarchical product parameters are captured by the unified platform” of claim 10; and “A non-transitory computer-accessible storage medium storing program comprising instructions…the instructions being executable by a processor to…” and “implement the unified computing platform in which a plurality of distinct ecosystems are connected through the unified platform that integrate and manage the offering's resources, wherein a plurality of data streams corresponding to the hierarchical product parameters are captured by the unified platform” of claim 16). See MPEP 2106.05(f), showing “[C]laims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp.” The limitation “implement the unified computing platform in which a plurality of distinct ecosystems are connected through the unified platform that integrate and manage the offering's resources, wherein a plurality of data streams corresponding to the hierarchical product parameters are captured by the unified platform” is a computer system/element recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, simply reads on receiving data from a plurality of different data sources that is then used to perform the abstract idea. This indicates that the element, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, merely invokes computers merely as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e. “mental process”), while generally linking the performance of the abstract idea to performance within a computer environment (e.g. “implement the unified computing platform in which a plurality of distinct ecosystems are connected through the unified platform that integrate and manage the offering's resources…”). See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), showing “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” There is no explanation or indication in the claims or specification of how this limitation would provide a specific technological improvement to the way in which computers receive or transmit data or particular technological problem that is solved. Furthermore, the limitations indicating that the offering is “operating in a unified platform” and wherein “each sub-module amongst the plurality of sub-modules representing a set of programming code integrable in a microservice for performing a capability,” as recited by claims 1, 10 and 16, merely generally link the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Regardless of whether the product offering pertains to software development or “programming code,” it merely describes classifying and updating hierarchical product parameters in a hierarchy of operational factors for an offering in the context of planning development of a software product. None of the elements above indicates an improvement to the functioning of computers themselves, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field. It is noted that claim 10 (but for the “implementing the unified computing platform…” step) does not even recite the other functions of the abstract idea itself as being performed by any additional elements, but merely recites the abstract idea itself in conjunction with the above limitations generally linking the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or adding generic computer components operating in their ordinary capacity after the fact to the abstract idea.
Therefore, claims 1, 10 and 16 are directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 10 and 16 do not include additional elements, whether considered alone or as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) because as mentioned above, the claims recite mere instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. classifying and updating hierarchical product parameters in a hierarchy of operational factors for an offering) using generic computers/computer components (i.e. “A system…comprising a processor” and “implement the unified computing platform in which a plurality of distinct ecosystems are connected through the unified platform that integrate and manage the offering's resources, wherein a plurality of data streams corresponding to the hierarchical product parameters are captured by the unified platform” of claim 1; “implementing the unified computing platform in which a plurality of distinct ecosystems are connected through the unified platform that integrate and manage the offering's resources, wherein a plurality of data streams corresponding to the hierarchical product parameters are captured by the unified platform” of claim 10; and “A non-transitory computer-accessible storage medium storing program comprising instructions…the instructions being executable by a processor to…” and “implement the unified computing platform in which a plurality of distinct ecosystems are connected through the unified platform that integrate and manage the offering's resources, wherein a plurality of data streams corresponding to the hierarchical product parameters are captured by the unified platform” of claim 16). As above, the limitation “implement the unified computing platform in which a plurality of distinct ecosystems are connected through the unified platform that integrate and manage the offering's resources, wherein a plurality of data streams corresponding to the hierarchical product parameters are captured by the unified platform” is a computer system/element recited at a high level of generality, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation, simply reads on receiving data from a plurality of different data sources that is then used to perform the abstract idea. This indicates that the element, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, merely invokes computers merely as a tool to carry out the abstract idea (i.e. “mental process”), while generally linking the performance of the abstract idea to performance within a computer environment (e.g. “implement the unified computing platform in which a plurality of distinct ecosystems are connected through the unified platform that integrate and manage the offering's resources…”). There is no explanation or indication in the claims or specification of how this limitation would provide a specific technological improvement to the way in which computers receive or transmit data or particular technological problem that is solved.
Furthermore, the limitations indicating that the offering is “operating in a unified platform” and wherein “each sub-module amongst the plurality of sub-modules representing a set of programming code integrable in a microservice for performing a capability,” as recited by claims 1, 10 and 16, merely generally link the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. None of the elements above indicates an improvement to the functioning of computers themselves, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field. As above, it is noted that claim 10 in particular does not recite generic computers for implementing the abstract idea, but merely recites the abstract idea itself in conjunction with the above limitations generally linking the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Considering the additional elements above as an ordered combination does not amount to anything that amounts to significantly more.
Dependent Claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20:
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are directed to the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 10 and 16 above as they do not recite anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the unified platform comprises at least one of a developer-end ecosystem and a user-end ecosystem” which generally links the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but does not add anything that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or adds significantly more.
Claims 3 and 11 further describe the abstract by describing how the hierarchy of operations factors is formed, and additionally specify the microservice as a sub-unit of the feature, the microservice representing an executable piece of a programming file for performing the capability. However, these limitations do not add anything more than generally linking the performance of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment
Claims 4-6, 9, 12-15, 17, and 20 do not add any additional elements but merely further describe the abstract idea above by reciting limitations for: describing types of decisive metrics and/or what each decisive metric indicates (claims 4-5, 12-13, and 17), describe how the predefined threshold values are determined (claim 6); wherein the offering operating in the unified platform comprises at least one of a product and a service (claims 9 and 20); further describing the process of transforming the sub-feature (claim 14); and further describing the process of creating the consolidated feature (claim 15).
Claims 7-8 and 18-19 do not add any additional elements beyond those already addressed above, and merely further describe the abstract idea (“wherein to transform the sub-feature into the independent feature…determine independent aspects of the sub-feature; transform the sub-feature into the independent feature based on a validation of the determined independent aspects; and link the independent feature to a higher-tier hierarchical product parameter in the hierarchy of operational factors” of claims 7/18 and “wherein to create the consolidated feature…determine independent aspects of the sub-feature; and merge properties of the feature into the sub-feature to form the consolidated feature based on a validation of the determined independent aspects” of claims 8/19) being applied using generic computers (“the processor is to…” of claims 8-9 and “the instructions cause the processor to…” of claims 18-19).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under § 101.
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 1-20 are novel and nonobvious over the prior art. An updated search by the examiner did not change the previous determination. Prior art relevant to the instant application is discussed below, but no combination of the prior art below reasonably teaches each and every element of the claimed invention considered as a whole.
US 20230230115 A1 to Nistala et al. (previously cited) is the closest prior art to the claimed invention and teaches receiving data pertaining to a product, including a plurality of requirement specification documents, a domain dictionary, a plurality of configuration parameters, and a plurality of extraction patterns (Nistala: ¶ 0032), identify a plurality of sub products associated with the product based on a comparison between each of the plurality of requirement specification documents and the plurality of sub product patterns (Nistala: ¶ 0036), generate a product feature model for each of the plurality of sub products using a feature extraction technique (explained with reference to FIGS. 3A and 3B). The product feature model includes a plurality of product feature elements arranged hierarchically based on a predefined hierarchy level. The plurality of product feature elements includes the feature area, the major feature and the plurality of features. For example, if the predefined hierarchy level is three, for each sub product, the levels of the product feature elements include the plurality of feature areas, the plurality of major features and the plurality of features. If the predefined hierarchy level is four, each sub product of the product feature tree includes the plurality of feature areas, the plurality of major features, the plurality of features, and the plurality of sub features (Nistala: ¶ 0037), and generate contextual product feature model based on the product feature model (Nistala: ¶ 0047).
US 20180032935 A1 to Sankhavaram et al. (previously cited) teaches a product portfolio rationalization process including steps to receive a representation of functions and features associated with the respective functions, where the representation is according to a model (¶ 0013), compare features of products of a product portfolio to the features of the functions included in the representation received. Products can be used to implement functions, where each product can implement one or multiple respective functions (¶ 0019), and check for an existence of a gap of a product (where the gap relates to omission of at least one feature in the product), an existence of an overlap of features between multiple products in the product portfolio (where the overlap of features indicates that multiple products are providing redundant features, which may not be efficient), and an existence of the divergence in timing of releases between dependent products of the product portfolio (¶ 0020).
US 20060117012 A1 to Rizzolo et al. (previously cited) teaches a product structure classification scheme that is object oriented and spans both high-level structure (e.g., product family, product, and subsystems including virtual integration areas) and detailed assembly/part decompositions (e.g., bill of material decompositions) (¶ 0076); a parameter/requirements classification scheme 14 that is also object oriented and enables a host of views and rules to support best engineering and six sigma practices. At the highest level, the parameters/requirements classification scheme 14 includes inputs, outputs, critical parameters/critical specifications, and the process rules associated with them. Inputs and outputs are used to define and manage requirements at the interface to an object (¶ 0078), and a product structure feature group 48 which may allow product development teams to manage hierarchical and object-oriented product structures by configuration per the basic decomposition scheme using the UI 45. Structures and object attributes may be built and managed directly via the product structure feature group 48 or imported and synchronized with another master source, such as a configuration management or product data management tool. The product structure feature group 48 may be used to establish an object-oriented and hierarchical product structure by configuration to assign clear responsibility for requirements at product interfaces and to enable object reuse in other configurations or products (¶ 0116). The system includes an add/edit/link feature group 50 which may provide the ability to map and visualize requirements for an object that are derived from usage in multiple configurations or products (¶ 0127).
US 20130339932 A1 to Holler et al. (previously cited) teaches a method/system for developing software including work item planning by identifying and grouping features to be added into a hierarchical structure and estimating times needed for completion for each feature group (Holler: ¶ 0026), assigning work item to specific releases in the hierarchy, such that added features and fixes are included in initial and subsequent releases (Holler: ¶ 0027), specifying work items to be completed in iterations of future software releases, including tasks and tests corresponding to each of the features (Holler: ¶ 0028), and tracking work items including features and defects and the corresponding tasks/test in comparison to the estimates (Holler: ¶ 0029).
US 20190333019 A1 to Trim et al. (newly cited) generally teaches product hierarchy definition based on analyzing product/business requirements and technical requirements of a product (Trim: ¶ 0061-0066; Figs. 4-5).
AU2003268829B2 to Muhleck et al. (previously cited) is a relevant foreign prior art reference and teaches storing product classes in a data structure represented by product nodes, the products being grouped hierarchically according to classes, wherein the components are assigned to all individual product classes as lower nodes that are used in the product, and wherein subcomponents may be further associated with each of the components for the products (Muhleck: See Figs. 2-4, Pgs. 4-9, Pgs. 13-15).
Previous NPL Reference U to Botterweck et al. (“Visual Tool Support for Configuring and Understanding Software Product Lines”, see the 9/8/2025 PTO-892) teaches software component visualization techniques that breaks down software into a hierarchy of relationships, components, features, and decisions and displaying the features as a hierarchical configuration (Botterweck: Pgs. 77-84 generally).
NPL Reference U to Kalaoja et al. (“Feature modelling of component-based embedded software,” see current PTO-892) teaches a feature model that represents all of the components of a software product and automates the mapping of feature and component models (pgs. 444-445); wherein each components is associated with various parameters (pg. 447) and using component-based design to define a set of parametrized software components that implement all the features identified in the feature model (pg. 450).
However, no combination of the prior art above teaches all of the following features of claim 1 (and similar claims 10 and 16) considered together as a whole to: determine decisive metrics of the plurality of sub-modules and evaluate the decisive metrics of each sub-module against a set of predefined threshold values to validate an operational relevance, the operational relevance being indicative of a degree to which a sub-module provides relevant contribution to the functionality of the feature; identify a specific sub-module within the feature, wherein the specific sub-module has decisive metrics exceeding the predefined threshold values; classify the identified specific sub-module into a sub-feature, the sub-feature being a distinct and operationally significant subset of the feature; establish a hierarchical link between the classified sub-feature and the feature; monitor the performance and utilization of the sub-feature; cause re-classification of the sub-feature, wherein the reclassification comprises at least one of: transformation of the sub-feature into an independent feature; and merge of the sub-feature with the feature to create a consolidated feature; update a hierarchical product parameter map based on the classification and re-classification (emphasis on underlined features).
Claims 2-9, 11-15, and 17-20 depend from claims 1, 10, and 15, and therefore claims 1-20 are novel and nonobvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Hunter Molnar whose telephone number is (571)272-8271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 - 5:00 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571)272-4602. 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.
/HUNTER MOLNAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628