DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to application 17/934719, filed on 9/23/2022. Claims 1-20 are pending. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 10, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anonymous IP.com Prior Art Database Technical Disclosure Number IPCOM000264131D, published 11/14/2020, hereinafter “Anon.”
Regarding claim 1, Anon anticipates “A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving a set of input commands within a programming interface; (see, e.g., Anon, pg. 2, “generate a shell script draft by utilizing the command history”)
parsing the set of input commands into a set of command parts; (see, e.g., Anon, pg. 3; “the shell commands history (e.g., one year’s history) is separated into N parts (N>=1).”)
normalizing the set of input commands based on the set of command parts to generate a set of normalized commands; (see, e.g., Anon, pg. 4; “The commands are normalized”)
generating a set of behavior trees based on the set of normalized commands and the set of command parts; (see, e.g., Anon, pg. 4; “After normalizing the commands, the system utilizes cluster analysis to classify the segments into groups.”; pg. 5; “For the logic control flow, the system identifies sequential, branch, and loop.”; pg. 6; “After clustering the segments into N groups, the system deletes the following disturbing segments because they are not valuable for scripting”; pg. 1; “Before generating the scripts, the system arranges the commands in the segments and extracts branches and circulations.”) and
generating a set of command scripts based on the set of behavior trees.” (see, e.g., Anon, pg. 1; “Based on the remaining segments, scripts are generated”; pg. 8; “For each iteration, the loop segment and association segment, including sequential segments and branch segments, are identified, and new segments are annotated with a new label within the command history. The iteration can terminate with some predefined rules, such as when a certain iteration number is reached, no new segment can be annotated, or a certain shell script input parameter number is reached.”).
Regarding claim 3, Anon anticipates “The method of claim 1, wherein generating the set of command scripts further comprises:
pruning a subset of command nodes from the set of behavior trees; (see, e.g., “After clustering the segments into N groups, the system deletes the following disturbing segments because they are not valuable for scripting: • Some isolated segments • Groups with large entropy”)
merging consecutive steps within the set of behavior trees; (see, e.g., Anon, pg. 8; “In the command history, if a segment labeled segA is repeated continuously, the system combines those commands into a loop and forms a new segment with new label segA(n)” and
identifying variables within the set of normalized commands and the set of command parts.” (see, e.g., Anon, pg. 5; Table 3 depicts “Normalized commands” including variables).
Regarding claims 8, 10, and 15-16, the instant claims are equivalents of claims 1 and 3, differing only by statutory class. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claims 8 and 15, and the rejection of claim 3 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claims 10 and 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anon.
Regarding claim 2, Anon discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein generating the set of behavior trees further comprises: generating a [data structure] from the set of normalized commands and the set of command parts.” (see, e.g., Anon, pg. 6; the “segments and classes” are stored in an array data structure). Anon does not explicitly disclose linked lists. However, on or before the effective filing date of the instant claim, linked lists were known in the art.1 Official Notice is hereby invoked to that effect. Also on or before the effective filing date of the instant claim, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to use a linked list as a data structure in combination with the disclosure of Anon, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear and predictable benefit or motivation to do so is that “the list elements can be easily inserted or removed without reallocation or reorganization of the entire structure.”2 Accordingly, the instant claim is unpatentable over Anon.
Regarding claim 9, the instant claim is an equivalent of claim 2, differing only by statutory class. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 2 applies, mutatis mutandis, to claim 9.
Claims 4-7, 11-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anon and USPGPUB 2022/0188213, hereinafter “Mota.”
Regarding claim 4, Anon discloses “The method of claim 1,” but does not appear to disclose the further limitation “wherein the method further comprises: generating a set of recommended scripts based on the set of command scripts.” However, Mota discloses (at para. 17) a method with the steps of “generate a list of solution scripts, simulate execution of the solution scripts, evaluate performance of the solution scripts, and select a solution script for execution.” Stated more simply, Mota discloses evaluating a set of scripts and generated a set of recommended scripts. Mota and Anon are directed toward scripting and therefore are analogous art. On or before the effective filing date of the instant claim, one of ordinary skill in the art would have deemed it obvious to try to combine the script evaluation method of Mota with the script generation method of Anon, thereby obtaining the invention of the instant claim. A clear and predictable benefit of so combining would have appeared as “enabling a user to make an informed decision of which solution script to implement.” (Mota, para. 20). Accordingly, the instant claim is unpatentable over the combination of Anon and Mota.
Regarding claim 5, including the reasoning stated in the rejection of claim 4, the combination of Anon and Mota renders obvious “The method of claim 4, wherein the method further comprises:
identifying a new command input of a user, the new command input representing at least a portion of code generated by the user; (see, e.g., Mota, fig. 3 sec. 306; “New Command?”; para. 38-39, 41)
matching the new command input of the user to at least a portion of a behavior tree of the set of behavior trees; and identifying one or more scripts from the portion of the behavior tree as the set of recommended scripts.” (see, e.g., Mota, para. 40; “a candidate script may include a first command (e.g., “echo”). The command mapping database may indicate that a second command (e.g., “printf”) fulfills essentially the same purpose as the first command, but is generally preferred in the industry.”; para. 42; “If the current command is a new command (306 “Yes”), method 300 further comprises searching for preferable alternative commands”; para. 46; “If a preferable alternative command is identified (314 “Yes”), method 300 further comprises modifying the candidate script to include the preferable alternative command at operation 316.”).
Regarding claim 6, including the reasoning stated in the rejections of claims 4-5, the combination of Anon and Mota renders obvious “The method of claim 5, wherein matching the new command input further comprises:
identifying one or more command parts as one or more command nodes within the new command input; (see, e.g., Mota, para. 40; “a candidate script may include a first command (e.g., “echo”)”) and
comparing the one or more command nodes with a set of tree nodes of the behavior tree.” (see, e.g., Mota, para. 40; “The command mapping database may indicate that a second command (e.g., “printf”) fulfills essentially the same purpose as the first command, but is generally preferred in the industry.”; para. 42; “If the current command is a new command (306 “Yes”), method 300 further comprises searching for preferable alternative commands”; para. 46; “If a preferable alternative command is identified (314 “Yes”), method 300 further comprises modifying the candidate script to include the preferable alternative command at operation 316.”).
Regarding claim 7, including the reasoning stated in the rejections of claims 4-5, the combination of Anon and Mota renders obvious “The method of claim 5, wherein matching the new command input further comprises:
identifying a subset of behavior trees matching a portion of the new command input; (see, e.g., Mota, para. 40; “a candidate script may include a first command (e.g., “echo”)”)
including the subset of behavior trees for inclusion in a first matching list; (see, e.g., Mota, para. 43; “adding entries to the command mapping data structure corresponding to the new command”) and
selectively removing one or more behavior trees of the subset of behavior trees from the matching list for failing to match at least a portion of a subsequent new command input, removal of the one or more behavior trees generating a second matching list.” (see, e.g., Mota, para. 45; “Once the command mapping has been updated (via operation 310) or checked (via operation 312) for the current command, method 300 further comprises determining, at operation 314, whether a preferable alternative command has been identified.”; para. 46; “If a preferable alternative command is identified (314 “Yes”), method 300 further comprises modifying the candidate script to include the preferable alternative command at operation 316.)
Regarding claims 11-14 and 17-20, the instant claims are equivalents of claims 4-7, differing only by statutory class. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 4-7 apply, mutatis mutandis, to claims 11-14 and to claims 17-20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D COYER whose telephone number is (571) 270-5306. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 12pm-10pm Eastern Time. 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 Mui, 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.
/Ryan D. Coyer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_list
2 Id.