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 application filed on 02/02/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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, 10, 19 are within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as they are directed to a method, system, and non-transitory processor-readable storage medium claims respectively, under Step 1.
However, the limitations “generating, a first predicted probability that the source program patch contains any bug conditioned on the source program patch, the first predicted probability corresponding to a binary classification indicating whether the source program patch contains a bug or no bug”, “computing a first training objective based on the first predicted probability and a ground-truth”, “mapping, by the encoder, last layer states of special tokens of the plurality of lines to a vector of predicted probabilities, each of the predicted probabilities indicating a respective line in the source program patch containing any bug conditioned on the source program patch”, “generating, the vector of predicted probabilities”, “computing a second training objective based on the vector of predicted probabilities and the set of labels”, “generating, tokens for a fixed program conditioned on the source program patch”, “computing a third training objective based on the tokens for the fixed program and the target program patch”, and “generating, by the trained pretrained language model, a fixed code snippet in response to an input program code snippet”, and “repairing, using the fixed code snippet, a code development file” as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under Prong 2 Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements “by an encoder of a pretrained language model”, “by the encoder and a decoder of the pretrained language model”, processor, memory, which merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional element “receiving, via a data interface, a training dataset comprising a source program patch, that includes a plurality of lines with a special token at an end of each line, a set of labels indicating line-level bugs in the source program patch and a target program patch” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Further, “training the pretrained language model based on at least in part on the first training objective, the second training objective and the third training objective” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the “by an encoder of a pretrained language model”, “by the encoder and a decoder of the pretrained language model”, processor, memory which merely are generic computer or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception which cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the limitation “receiving, via a data interface, a training dataset comprising a source program patch, a set of labels indicating line-level bugs in the source program patch and a target program patch” has been identified by the courts as mere data gathering and transmitting are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2, 5, 7-9 further recite mental steps which encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Claim 3 further recites “applying” limitation fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception and the “determining” limitation recites mental step which encompasses a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
Claims 4 and 6 merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). It has been identified by the courts as mere data gathering and transmitting are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim set 10-18 is also rejected under the same rationale as claim set 1-9 for having similar limitations. Claim 19 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 for having similar limitations while claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale as claims 8-9 for having similar limitations.
Response to Arguments
Response to 101 remarks
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the first remark that the training limitation does not a recite a judicial exception as long as the limitation does not set forth or describe a mathematical calculation, the examiner has updated the 101 rejection as illustrated above in which the training limitations is being analyzed as an “apply it” step which is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the trained data. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the claim recites additional limitations that recite mental process, therefore, 101 rejection is maintained.
Regarding the second remark, “repairing, using the fixed code snippet, a code development file” limitation improves technology or a technical field, the examiner would like to point out that the limitation is being analyzed as a mental step which cannot be an improvement and is not a consideration under Step 2A Prong Two nor Step 2B as an additional element. The examiner recommends further claiming the diverse range of bugs, the tool capable doing many debugging-related tasks, the results with better yields than baselines and metrics to potentially overcome the 101 rejection.
Regarding the third remark, the claims filed 09/03/2025 are using Al to fix code snippets but this is different from the example from Appeal 2024-000567 as decreasing storage capacity is not an outcome of the current invention. Further, 16/319,040 claims the improvements with respect to the training of machine learning model and the results. However, the instant application differs as it merely repairs the code which is being analyzed as a mental step. Further, Al to fix code snippets is WURC as seen in NPL reference ("CURE: Code-Aware Neural Machine Translation for Automatic Program Repair", Jiang et al, 05/01/2021).
Regarding the last remark, where a clear improvement to program debugging technology without high complexity, high computational overheard, and inaccuracy problem, the examiner would again like to point out that the repairing limitation is being analyzed as a mental step and that the improvements are not being claimed. The examiner recommends further amending the limitation such that it is not claimed at such a high-level of generality and further including the optimizations to potentially overcome the 101 rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art of record Clement et al. (US 2021/0357762 A1) hereinafter Clement in view of Woulfe et al. (US 2018/0276562 A1) hereinafter Woulfe and further in view of Chan et al. (US 2021/0406266 A1) hereinafter Chan and further in view of Tadesse et al. (US 11,664,130 B2) hereinafter Tadesse and further in view of Song (US 2022/0269934 A1) fail to teach the amendments in whole. An updated search/review was performed and source patch that includes a plurality of lines with a special token at end of each line is taught by Clement [0070] and repairing, using the fixed code snippet, a code development file is taught be Clement [0020]. However, no reference was found to teach the mapping limitation completely, NPL reference ("CURE: Code-Aware Neural Machine Translation for Automatic Program Repair", Jiang et al, 05/01/2021) at best teaches in Fig. 5 mapping between prefixes and valid next tokens from buggy projects. Thus, the combination of references fail to teach the claimed invention as a whole.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noor Alkhateeb whose telephone number is (313)446-4909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00AM ET to 5:00PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat do, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3721. 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. 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.
/NOOR ALKHATEEB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193