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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the claimed listing filed with Request for Continued Examination on 06/04/2024.
Claims 1 and 7 are amended; Claims 1-2, 4-10 and 12-14 are pending.
Response to Arguments
This is in response to the Arguments/Remarks filed on 06/04/2024.
- Amendment and Applicant’s remarks are silent to the objection of the specification, the specification remains objected to.
- The claims 1-2, 4-10 and 12-14 have been subjected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Applicant amending “target object” with “the target object is a programming personnel”.
Thus, it can replace all recitation “target object” in the claims by programming personnel, the claim will be visualized a programmer’s behavior is typing a program using a computer from first step “acquiring..”. The computer will observe the programmer’s behavior with “identifying…:, and determines the programmer’s programming behaviors to providing programming code.
In the remarks, Applicant asserted that the present the
present application is used to solve a specific technical problem: the behaviors and the
functions of the programmer, the automatic code generation tools and the programming
platform cannot be clearly distinguished in the programming process so as not to reflect
their respective contribution on the programming efficiency and quality, no effective
technical solution has been proposed yet.
Thus, this has been admitted as using computer to observe, manage the behaviors of a programmers.
The amendment has the claims fall with groups of certain methods of organized human activities, mental processes, manage human behaviors, or tentative abstract idea because within the scope of the claims, the computer acting like an instructor to observe a student and to teach the student to program based on his behaviors.
Programming contribution rates is term of degree, in this manner, the instructor can observe the typing behaviors, and the act of recommendation can be performed on the student.
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) , “• managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). ”
As well as “programmer’s behaviors” identified in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), or 2106.04(a)(3), all the steps in the claims, identifying, the steps of determining, fall within mental processes. The claims would fall through step 2A Prong One in Eligibility Analysis.
All other elements such as Processor, recommending codes by an automatic code generation tool are recited at high level, lack of claimed structures that preclude the performance from human. In “recommending codes by an automatic code generation tool”, it could be performed by the instructor upon the observation from the student’s behaviors by the example as given.
Applicant’s remarks have especially been considered, the amendment accordingly does not overcome the analysis in the step 2A, prong One, and Prong Two.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The MPEP, 37 CFR 1.52 (b)(6) stated,
“(6) Other than in a reissue application or reexamination or supplemental examination proceeding, the paragraphs of the specification, other than in the claims or abstract, may be numbered at the time the application is filed, and should be individually and consecutively numbered using Arabic numerals, so as to unambiguously identify each paragraph. The number should consist of at least four numerals enclosed in square brackets, including leading zeros (e.g., [0001]). The numbers and enclosing brackets should appear to the right of the left margin as the first item in each paragraph, before the first word of the paragraph, and should be highlighted in bold. A gap, equivalent to approximately four spaces, should follow the number. Nontext elements (e.g., tables, mathematical or chemical formulae, chemical structures, and sequence data) are considered part of the numbered paragraph around or above the elements, and should not be independently numbered. If a nontext element extends to the left margin, it should not be numbered as a separate and independent paragraph. A list is also treated as part of the paragraph around or above the list, and should not be independently numbered. Paragraph or section headers (titles), whether abutting the left margin or centered on the page, are not considered paragraphs and should not be numbered.”
Appropriate correction is required. The substitution of the specification for being in accordance to MPEP, 37 CFR 1.52 (b)(6) could be suggested.
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, 4-10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per claims 1-2, 4-6:
- Claim 1 recites, A method for processing programming data, comprising:
[Acquiring, by a processor, the programming data of a target object, wherein the programming data are acquired by monitoring key operations of the target object in a programming process with the automatic code generation tool;]
(Per above limitation, it is for gathering data gathering step. Programming data, and target object, in this claiming is a programmer, “acquired by monitoring key operations”, read on the activities of a programmer activity using a computer. Herein is, by a processor, with the tool are recited at high and generic level. So, acquiring step is an insignificant pre-solution of data gathering activity, contributes no inventive concept.)
identifying, by the processor, a programming behavior of the target object according to the programming data (mental step and now “a programming behavior of the target object” is programmer’s behavior such as strongly hit on the keyboard, type the bad words, etc., under its broadest reasonable interpretation, it covers the performance in human mind or certain methods of organizing human activities, managing personal behavior (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) and (III)); and
determining, by the processor, programming contribution rates of the target object, (determining programming contribution rates of the Programmer covers a determination in the mind or with an observation of an instructor teaching the Programmer. The determination of programming contribution rates merely an observation. In this manner “by the processor” is only using generic computer component to replace the performance to the instructor. This determining step covers the performance in human mind, and covers an observation (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) [an automatic code generation tool and a programming platform according to the programming behavior] (This recitation is an extra insignificantly activity, it is added with a tool, and programing platform, generic elements that performs nothing rather being determined based on a human like an instructor to provide programming code to the programmer because of observing the programmer behavior);
Thus, per above identifying and determining steps, encompass mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activities, including managing the programmer behaviors in accordance to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) and (III);
identifying the programming behavior of the target object according to the programming data, comprises: (repeating above identifying step)
determining the programming behavior of the target object is a behavior of entering codes
[by the target object according to codes that are entered by the target object and are not deleted in the programming data];
(Per above limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, it covers the performance in human mind. Determining programing behavior is an aspect of observation over programmer’s behavior. Thus, the step encompass mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activities, including managing the programmer behaviors in accordance to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) and (III));
determining the programming behavior of the target object is a behavior of successfully recommending codes [by the automatic code generation tool according to codes that are recommended by the automatic code generation tool, selected by the target object, and are not deleted in the programming data]; and
determining the programming behavior of the target object is a behavior of successfully recommending codes [by the programming platform according to codes that are recommended by the programming platform, selected by the target object, and are not deleted in the programming data, the target object is a programming personnel.] (Per above claimed recitations not in the squared brackets, the claim includes three determining steps, which are extended from the identifying step. They are for determining the programmer behavior of entering codes which are of successfully recommending codes. All these determination encompass the performance in the mind include certain methods of organizing human activities, managing personal behavior (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) and (III));
Thus, the claim is directed to a process, and by the analysis, the claim is performed in the steps of identifying and determining (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (II), and (III) "claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions."). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses the mental process and also includes certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e. managing personal behavior such as teaching of an instructor to the claimed recitation: programming personnel). The claim is directed to an exception, that is an abstract idea. Moreover, the claim encompasses tentative abstract ideas for recommending code to a programmer from the determinations of programmer’s behavior. By the analysis, it falls through Step 2A, Prong One.
The step of acquiring, the claimed recitations in the squared brackets, including using the processor, are at the generic levels, extra activities of gathering data. They are insignificant extra-solution activities added to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(b)(III)).
The recitations which are placed in the squared brackets appear intended the determinations as for the code generation tool and a programming platform, but shown at high level, and in the claim as being applied and generally linked to the technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(b)(III)). They do not add significantly more to the claim.
Therefore, all the acquiring, identifying and determining steps in the claim have the claim falls within the abstract idea, and it does not have any additional elements to integrate the excerption to significantly more. The claim is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2, recites,
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the programming data comprise at least one of: codes entered by the target object, selected codes recommended by the automatic code generation tool, selected codes recommended by the programming platform, deleted codes entered by the target object, deleted codes recommended by the automatic code generation tool, and deleted codes recommended by the programming platform.
Per the above limitation, the claim directs the types of code in the programming data. This limitation encompasses the human using pen and paper. It does not indicate an inventive concept and contribute to significantly more. Therefore, by further analysis, the claim does not include any additional elements to integrate the exception to significantly more. The claim is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 4, recites,
4. The method according to claim 1, wherein determining, by the processor, the programming contribution rates of the target object, the automatic code generation tool and the programming platform according to the programming behavior, comprises:
determining, by the processor, a quantity of codes entered by the target object,
a quantity of codes successfully recommended by the automatic code generation tool, and a quantity of codes successfully recommended by the programming platform according to the programming behavior;
(per the above limitation, with the broadest interpretation, determining and target object acts like programmer’s activity and his behaviors, it encompasses a mental step and certain methods of organizing human activity like teaching. And with processor, and the use a computer as a tool recited at generic level, the claimed recitation remains performing an abstract idea)
acquiring , by the processor, a total quantity of codes according to the quantity of the codes entered by the target object, the quantity of the codes successfully recommended by the automatic code generation tool, and the quantity of the codes successfully recommended by the programming platform; and
acquiring, by the processor, the programming contribution rates of the target object, the automatic code generation tool and the programming platform according to the quantity of the codes entered by the target object, the quantity of the codes successfully recommended by the automatic code generation tool, the quantity of the codes successfully recommended by the programming platform, and the total quantity of the codes.
(Per the above acquiring steps, it is further for performing data gathering. Programming data, and target object is a programmer – The acquiring steps are for gathering data in the target object, but added with generic computing components, herein, merely being used as a tool to carry out. So the steps are insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity for performing data gathering step that contributes no inventive concept ) .
So, by the same analysis as in claim 1, the determining, acquiring steps in the claim have the claim falls within the abstract idea, and it does not have any additional elements to integrate the excerption to significantly more. The claim is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5, recites,
5. The method according to claim 4, wherein the programming behavior comprises a behavior of entering codes by the target object, a behavior of successfully recommending codes by the automatic code generation tool and a behavior of successfully recommending codes by the programming platform,
and determining, by the processor, the quantity of the codes entered by the target object, the quantity of the codes successfully recommended by the automatic code generation tool, and the quantity of the codes successfully recommended by the programming platform according to the programming behavior, comprises:
determining, by the processor, the quantity of the codes entered by the target object according to the behavior of entering codes by the target object;
determining, by the processor, the quantity of the codes successfully recommended by the automatic code generation tool according to the behavior of successfully recommending codes by the automatic code generation tool; and
determining the quantity of the codes successfully recommended by the programming platform according to the behavior of successfully recommending codes by the programming platform.
Per above limitations, the claims recites determining steps, theses determining steps cover mental steps, that the claims directed to mental process. The addition element, processor, tool, at generic level, contribute no significantly more, but used tool for carryout the judicial exception. The claim therefore is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6, it recites,
6. The method according to claim 4, wherein
acquiring, by the processor, the programming contribution rates of the target object, the automatic code generation tool and the programming platform according to the quantity of the codes entered by the target object, the quantity of the codes successfully recommended by the automatic code generation tool, the quantity of the codes successfully recommended by the programming platform, and the total quantity of the codes, comprises:
acquiring, by the processor, a programming contribution rate of the target object according to the quantity of the codes entered by the target object and the total quantity of the codes;
acquiring, by the processor, a programming contribution rate of the automatic code generation tool according to the quantity of the codes successfully recommended by the automatic code generation tool and the total quantity of the codes; and
acquiring, by the processor, a programming contribution rate of the programming platform according to the quantity of the codes successfully recommended by the programming platform and the total quantity of the codes.
Per above limitations, the claims recites acquiring steps, theses acquiring steps contribute to insignificant pre-solution activities. Acquiring and with the use of processor and tool add no inventive steps contribute significantly more. The claim therefore is ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Thus, Claims 1-6 recitations comprising acquiring steps for acquiring programming data in a target object, and without additional elements contributed to significantly more.
And, the claims 1-6 are ineligible under 35 USC 101.
As per claims 7-8:
- Claims 7-8: The claims recite an apparatus; the apparatus has the claimed limitations and functionality drawn from the method of claims 1-2, 4-6. Thus, the claims encompass the judicial exception without any additional elements to contribute significantly more.
As per claims 9-10, 12-14:
- Claims 9-10, 12-14: The claims recite a processor. However, the processor is at a generic level, and has the limitations corresponding to the limitations of claims 1-6. It is recited as the use of process of claims 1-2, 4-6. Thus, at generic level and merely to perform the method of claim 1-2, 4-6, the claims encompass the judicial exception without any additional elements to contribute significantly more.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ted T Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-3706. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm ET.
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, Wei Y Zhen can be reached on (571) 272-3708. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
TTV
October 19, 2024
/Ted T. Vo/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191