DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is filed in response to Applicant’s Request for Continued Examination dated October 29, 2025. Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-10, 13, and 15-16 are currently amended and claims 1-18 remain pending in the application and have been fully considered by Examiner.
Applicant’s amendment has introduced 35 USC 112(b) deficiencies in claims 1, 7, and 13 (see the Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112 section below).
In view of Applicant’s amendment, the prior art rejections are withdrawn.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 October 29, 2025, has been entered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, lines 8-11 recite “determining one or more differences between a plurality of expressions from the model between the counterexample and the satisfying instance.” However, this is not grammatically correct and it is unclear what the determined differences are between. For purposes of compact prosecution only, and consistent with Applicant’s specification1, Examiner has interpreted claim 1 as reciting -- determining, for a plurality of expressions from the model, one or more differences between
With respect to claims 7 and 13, each recites limitation similar to claim 1 and are indefinite for the same reason and have been interpreted similarly by Examiner for purposes of compact prosecution.
With respect to all dependent claims, each inherits the 35 USC 112(b) deficiency of its respective base claim (see the rejections of claim 1, 7, and 13 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 would be allowable if independent claims 1, 7, and 13 were rewritten or amended in accordance with Examiner’s interpretation to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action (see the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section above).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art of record teaches the general concepts of fault localization using partial MAX-SAT (see Jose et al. “Cause Clue Clauses: Error Localization using Maximum Satisfiability”), fault localization for models in a declarative specification language (see Wang et al. “Fault Localization for Declarative Models in Alloy”; see also Zhang et al. AlloyMax: Bringing Maximum Satisfaction to Relational Specifications”), bug detection using Max-SAT (see Sinha US 20100281306 A1; see also Si et al. “Maximum Satisfiability in Software Analysis: Applications and Techniques”), fault localization (see Funatsu US 20080256404 A1), formal model verification (see Arbel et al. US 20120203535 A1), and suspicion scores (see Saha et al. US 20190018753 A1). However, based on Applicant’s remarks and further search, Examiner has concluded that the specific claim limitations “querying an automated analysis of the declarative specification language for a counterexample, wherein the counterexample is an instance of the model that does not satisfy a property; using a partial max satisfiability solver and the counterexample to find a satisfying instance corresponding to the counterexample that satisfies the property; determining one or more differences between a plurality of expressions from the model between the counterexample and the satisfying instance2, wherein the plurality of expressions comprises a Boolean expression and a relational expression; analyzing the one or more differences between the counterexample and the satisfying instance; determining a suspicion score for the plurality of expressions in the model, wherein the suspicion score is based on a score of the Boolean expression and a score of the relational expression, and wherein the suspicion score is determined based on consistency of evaluation of the plurality of expressions and transitions between the plurality of expressions and connected expressions,” as recited in independent claim 1, with similar limitations recited in independent claims 7 and 13, in combination with the other recited claim elements, are not found in the prior art of record and would not have been obvious.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN DAVID BERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7206. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-6 Eastern.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hyung S. Sough can be reached on 571-272-6799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/STEPHEN D BERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2192
1 See Applicant’s specification, e.g., [0081], “At 1008, process 1000 can determine differences in expressions from the original model between the counterexample and the satisfying instance.”
2 Please see Examiner’s interpretation of this indefinite limitation in the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section above.
Prosecution Insights