DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is responsive to Applicant's reply filed 8/18/2025.
Claims 1-2 and 5-8 have been amended.
Claims 1-2 and 5-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
This application claims priority of Foreign Application KR10-2020-0159191 filed on 11/24/2020. Applicant's claim for the benefit of this prior-filed application is acknowledged. Acknowledgment is made of applicant' s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Response to Amendments
Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered, but do not overcome the previously pending 35 USC 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the limitations of claims 1-2 and 5-8, Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101 because the pending claims are not directed toward an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has already set forth a prima facie case under 35 USC 101. The Examiner has clearly pointed out the limitations directed towards the abstract idea, what the additional elements are and why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and why the additional elements and remaining limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Examiner notes that analyzing projects using mathematical relationships to determine similarity (plagiarism) for commercial purposes is directed towards the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity as shown in the rejection below (See MPEP 2106). The Examiner further notes that the claims recite nothing more than general purpose computer equipment for implementing the abstract idea. The Examiner asserts that general purpose computers have a way to download/upload content, which as claimed is generic loading/saving content from a database and have a processor for performing the abstract idea (e.g. the similarity analysis for plagiarism). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner further questions why analyzing computer code for plagiarism cannot be done in the human mind. A human writes the code and can inherently analyze two different pieces of code to see if they are the same or similar. How can that not be done in the human mind? Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant alleges the claims improve the way computers analyze and manage software version data, but does not point out what limitations amount to that improvement. There are no limitations that are actually managing how software is stored or distributed beyond generic recitation of a downloader. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Examiner further asserts the entire concept of determining if plagiarism occurred is abstract because it is analyzing software code to determine if plagiarism occurred which is a commercial interaction. The Applicant’s claims do not do anything beyond the analysis, which is abstract (See MPEP 2106). Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, by providing a downloader for determining if plagiarism has occurred. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant does not properly identify the additional elements. The Examiner asserts that implementing the abstract idea on a general purpose computer (e.g. fork determination unit, apparatus, processors, computer readable medium, downloader, and/or program) and merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception. The claims merely recite details on the analysis being performed and displaying the results so a human user can make determinations (in the human mind) about what to do if a project has been plagiarized as an example, where the computer itself is not being improved, but rather merely being used as a tool to implement the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106). The Examiner asserts that the claimed downloader is a generic piece of computer equipment, where general purpose computers have a way to download/upload content, which as claimed is generic loading/saving content from a database because Applicant’s claims and originally filed specification provide no specifics on what the downloader actually entails other than the general purpose computer components recited in Paragraphs 0051-0054 and Figures 1. The Examiner further asserts that the downloader is performs the function of merely showing the code to a human so a human can determine if the two pieces of code are plagiarized/similar. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims amount to a specific improvement to computer functionality. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant does not point out what limitations amount to the improvement and specifically say the analysis (e.g. the abstract idea) is the improvement. The Examiner further points to Page 2 of the McRO-Bascom Memo from December 2016, "The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation "that improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process." The Applicants’ claims are geared toward determining if a project has been plagiarized, where these techniques are merely being applied/calculated in a computing environment. Simply applying these known concepts to a specific technical environment (e.g. the computers/Internet) does not account for significantly more than the abstract idea because it does not solve a problem rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the functioning of the computer itself because it is merely making a determination of plagiarism based on rules and/or mathematical relationships to output to a user. The Applicant’s claimed limitations do not appear to bring about any improvement in the operation or functioning of a computer per se, or to improve computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer (see page 2 of the McRo-Bascom memo). The solution appears to be more of a business-driven solution rather than a technical one. In addition, McRO had no evidence that the process previously used by animators is the same as the process required by the claims. The Applicant’s claimed limitations and originally filed specification provide no evidence that the claimed process/functions are any different than what would be done without a computer, where there are no adjustments to the mental process to accommodate implementation by computers. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 1-2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter;
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In the instant case (Step 1), claims 1-2 and 5 are directed toward a process, claims 7-8 are directed towards a system, and claims 6 are directed toward a product; which are statutory categories of invention. Additionally (Step 2A Prong One), the independent claims are directed toward a processor-implemented method for determining a code similarity of an open source project by a device including a downloader, a similarity calculation unit, and a Fork determination unit, the method comprising: a downloading step comprising downloading, by the downloader, first commits of first plural updates of the first project and second commits of the second project; a similarity detecting step comprising, storing, by the similarity calculation unit, the first commits as first to m-th A commits and the second commits as first to n-th B commits, where m and n are natural numbers, and detecting, by the similarity calculation unit, similarities between each of the m A commits and each of the n B commits to generate an m x n similarity matrix; a highest similarity determining step comprising detecting, by the Fork determination unit, a highest similarity between the A commits and the B commits based on the similarity matrix and a similar commit pair representing the highest similarity; a Fork determining step- comprising: determining, by the Fork determination unit, a Fork time based on a later update time of the similar commit pair in response to the highest similarity being equal to or more than a predetermined threshold; assigning, by the Fork determination unit, one project of the similar commit pair that generated an earlier updated commit as an original project and another project that generated a later updated commit as a replication project; and determining, by the Fork determination unit, that the project of the update similar commit pair that generated the later updated commit is a product of plagiarism (Organizing Human Activity), which are considered to be abstract ideas (See MPEP 2106). The steps/functions disclosed above and in the independent claims are directed toward the abstract idea of Organizing Human Activity because the claimed limitations are analyzing similarities between A commits and B commits to determine highest similarities, which is used to determine a Fork time, which is further used for determining if code has been plagiarized and identifying projects as original and replicated, where determining if plagiarism occurs is a commercial interaction.
Step 2A Prong Two: In this application, even if not directed toward the abstract idea, the above “a processor; by a similarity calculation unit, by a Fork determination unit, by the Fork determination unit, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to execute a program; an apparatus, the apparatus comprising: a downloader; a memory storing instructions; one or more processors configured to execute the instructions” steps/functions of the independent claims would not account for additional elements that integrate the judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) into a practical application because the units merely add the words to apply it with the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
In addition, dependent claims 2, 5, and 8 further narrow the abstract idea and present no additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See MPEP 2106).
The claimed “a processor; by a similarity calculation unit, by a Fork determination unit, by the Fork determination unit, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to execute a program; an apparatus, the apparatus comprising: a downloader; a memory storing instructions; one or more processors configured to execute the instructions” are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are general purpose computing components and regular office supplies) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use the computer components as a tool. There is no change to the computers and other technology that is recited in the claim, and thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology (See MPEP 2106).
Step 2B: When analyzing the additional element(s) and/or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se the claim limitations amount(s) to no more than: a general link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment and merely amounts to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer (See MPEP 2106). Further, Method and Product claims 1-2 and 5-8 recite a processor; by a similarity calculation unit, by a Fork determination unit, by the Fork determination unit, non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, configure the one or more processors to execute a program; an apparatus, the apparatus comprising: a downloader; a memory storing instructions; one or more processors configured to execute the instructions; however, these elements merely facilitate the claimed functions at a high level of generality and they perform conventional functions and are considered to be general purpose computer components which is supported by Applicant’s specification in Paragraphs 0051-0054 and Figures 1. The Applicant’s claimed additional elements are mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer and generally link of the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In addition, claims 2, 5, and 8 further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and present no additional elements that provide significantly more. The Examiner notes that the dependent claims merely further define the data being analyzed and how the data is being analyzed. The additional limitations of the independent and dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner has considered the dependent claims in a full analysis including the additional limitations individually and in combination as analyzed in the independent claim(s). Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Allowable over 35 USC 103
Claims 1-2 and 5-8 are allowable over the prior art, but remain rejected under §101 for the reasons set forth above. Claims 1-2 and 5-8 disclose a method for determining code similarity and determining Fork times based on highest similarities between A commits and B commits to determine update times of the similar commit pairs that are over a threshold for determining which commit is original and which commit is modified/plagiarized.
Regarding a possible 103 rejection: The closest prior art of record is:
Go et al. (KR 20170096440 A) – which discloses document classification.
Jakobsson et al. (US 2022/0398538 A1) – which discloses analysis of source code at specific times to classify code with novelty scores.
The prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests all particulars of the limitations as recited in claims 1-2 and 5-8, such as determining code similarity and determining Fork times based on highest similarities between A commits and B commits to determine update times of the similar commit pairs that are over a threshold for determining which commit is original and which commit is modified/plagiarized. While individual features may be known per se, there is no teaching or suggestion absent applicants’ own disclosure to combine these features other than with impermissible hindsight and the combination/arrangement of features are not found in analogous art. Specifically the claimed “a processor-implemented method for determining a code similarity of an open source project by a device including a downloader, a similarity calculation unit, and a Fork determination unit, the method comprising: a downloading step comprising downloading, by the downloader, first commits of first plural updates of the first project and second commits of the second project; a similarity detecting step comprising, storing, by the similarity calculation unit, the first commits as first to m-th A commits and the second commits as first to n-th B commits, where m and n are natural numbers, and detecting, by the similarity calculation unit, similarities between each of the m A commits and each of the n B commits to generate an m x n similarity matrix; a highest similarity determining step comprising detecting, by the Fork determination unit, a highest similarity between the A commits and the B commits based on the similarity matrix and a similar commit pair representing the highest similarity; a Fork determining step- comprising: determining, by the Fork determination unit, a Fork time based on a later update time of the similar commit pair in response to the highest similarity being equal to or more than a predetermined threshold; assigning, by the Fork determination unit, one project of the similar commit pair that generated an earlier updated commit as an original project and another project that generated a later updated commit as a replication project; and determining, by the Fork determination unit, that the project of the update similar commit pair that generated the later updated commit is a product of plagiarism (as required by claims 1-2 and 5-8)”, thus rendering claims 1-2 and 5-8 as allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record, but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0504. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM.
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.
/MATTHEW D HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights