Detailed Action
This action is in response to RCE filed on 10/28/2025.
This application was filed on 10/29/2021.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 17, 21-29 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 17, 21-29 are rejected.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/28/2025 has been entered.
Applicant's Response
In Applicant's Response dated 10/28/2025, Applicant amended claims 1-2, 4-11, 17, 21-23, and 29. Applicant argued against various rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 07/31/2025.
In light of applicant’s amendments/remarks, rejection of claims 17, and 21-29 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter set forth previously are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 8, 24, and 26 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of its parent claims 1 and 17 respectively. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
The examiner suggests canceling claim 6, 8, 24, and 26.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Representative claim 1 is directed to A method comprising:
receiving a programming task associated with first industry to be executed, wherein the programming task defines a program code alternation to be executed;
translating industry-specific terms for the program code alteration in the programming task associated with the first industry to non-specific terms for the program code alteration applicable across multiple industries that includes a second industry, wherein the non-specific terms for the program code alteration represent generic synonyms of the industry-specific terms for the program alteration;
identifying, from a database of completed tasks, a completed task associated with second industry based on a similarity to the programming task to be executed and non-specific terms;
extracting supporting documentation associated with the completed task that is similar to the programming task to be executed, wherein supporting documentation includes source code; and
generating supporting material to execute the programming task associated with the first industry based on supporting documentation associated with the completed task associated with the second industry, wherein the generating includes replacing the non-specific terms from the supporting documentation with industry-specific terms, and
displaying, via computing device, the supporting material as navigable graph by user, wherein the navigable is presented at hierarchical level to match a target level abstraction.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely,
Mental processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper (see, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942, hereinafter “PEG”) as well
Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)
For instance, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper perform Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. teaching) including translating industry-specific terms for the program code alteration in the programming task associated with the first industry to non-specific terms for the program code alteration applicable across multiple industries that includes a second industry, wherein the non-specific terms for the program code alteration represent generic synonyms of the industry-specific terms for the program alteration; identifying, from a database of completed tasks, a completed task associated with second industry based on a similarity to the programming task to be executed and non-specific terms; extracting/copying/identifying supporting documentation associated with the completed task that is similar to the programming task to be executed, wherein supporting documentation includes source code; and generating/copying/writing supporting material to execute the programming task associated with the first industry based on supporting documentation associated with the completed task associated with the second industry, wherein the generating includes replacing the non-specific terms from the supporting documentation with industry-specific terms, and [presenting] the supporting material as navigable graph/slides/paper by user, wherein the navigable is presented at hierarchical level to match a target level abstraction (e.g. teacher trailering content based on audience/reading level).
Per prong 2, Step 2A, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “receiving a programming task associated with first industry to be executed, wherein the programming task defines a program code alternation to be executed, and displaying, via computing device” and for arguments sake “navigable graph”; are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Per Step 2B, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “receiving a programming task associated with first industry to be executed, wherein the programming task defines a program code alternation to be executed, and displaying, via computing device” and for arguments sake “navigable graph”; are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. Accordingly, the above limitations singularly or in combination do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 17 is a product claim corresponding to method claim 1 and is of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 17 is rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1.
Dependent claims 2, 4-11, 21-29 when considered individually or in combination per steps as noted above are rejected under the same rational as set forth above for claims 1 and 17. In particular,
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein identifying the completed task associated with the second industry is based on a natural language comparison of the completed tasks in the database with the programming task to be executed.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites further comprising: following completion of the programming task to be executed, replacing the non- specific terms in the programming task with the industry-specific terms associated with the first industry.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites further comprising: receiving a user profile for a developer to execute the programming task, wherein the user profile indicates a level of expertise of the developer; and identifying the target level of abstraction for the supporting material based on the level of expertise of the developer.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 further incorporated, further recites wherein the supporting material is presented at a level of abstraction to match the target level of abstraction.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) to generate via pen/paper the supporting material and presenting it at a level of abstraction to match the target level of abstraction (e.g. similar to teacher trailering content based on audience/reading level).
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 5 further incorporated, further recites further comprising: following completion of the programming task to be executed, updating the user profile with the programming task to update the level of expertise of the developer.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the supporting material is provided as a navigable graph.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 further incorporated, further recites wherein the navigable graph includes different hierarchical levels having different levels of abstraction.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) to generate via pen/paper the supporting material that includes the navigable graph includes different hierarchical levels having different levels of abstraction (e.g. similar to teacher trailering content based on audience/reading level).
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites further comprising: generating a supporting material model from the supporting documentation.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein generating the supporting material model further comprises: collecting supporting documents; converting industry specific terms in the supporting material to the non-specific terms applicable across industries; and assigning a level of abstraction to the supporting documents.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claims 17, 21-29:
Claims 17, 21-29 are product claims corresponding to method claim 1-2, 4-11 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 17, 21-29 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1-2, 4-11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 4-11, 17, 21-29 would be allowable if above noted rejections/objection is are overcome via amendments and/or arguments. Reasons for allowance will held in abeyance until all matters the prosecution are closed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or moot in view of new/modified grounds/rational of rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Computing Program Equivalence Based On A Hierarchy Of Program Semantics And Related Canonical Representations
DOCUMENT ID
US 20150268950 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2015-09-24
Abstract
Methods, systems, and articles of manufacture for computing program equivalence based on a hierarchy of program semantics and related canonical representations are provided herein. A method includes defining a program semantic representation for a first program; generating a search query based on said semantic representation for the first program; executing said search query against an index of multiple programs to determine a set of candidate programs among the multiple programs, wherein said index comprises a program semantic representation defined for each of the multiple programs; and identifying one or more programs among the set of candidate programs that match the first program by performing one or more comparisons, across the set of candidate programs, of a canonical representation associated with each program in the identified set of candidate programs to a canonical representation associated with the first program.
See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA A AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3181. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young, can be reached on 571-270-3180. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MUSTAFA A AMIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194