DETAILED ACTION
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 in response to communication filed 10/23/2025.
The instant application having application No. 18/178,960 filed on March 6, 2023, claims foreign priority to Japanese application JP2022-079404 filed on May 13, 2022.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-10 were previously canceled. Claims 11-14 and 20 are amended, claims 15-19 are canceled, claims 21-26 are added. Accordingly, claims 11-14 and 20-26 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
(A). Regarding claim objections: Applicant's amendment to the claims appropriately addressed the objections to claims 11-19, the objections are withdrawn.
(B). Regarding 112 (a) rejections: Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive; the rejections are maintained.
(C). Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection: the new claims are still 101 abstract idea without significantly more, and are so rejected as set forth in the office action below.
(D). Regarding art rejection: In regards to pending claims Applicant’s arguments are persuasive; art rejections are withdrawn.
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.
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 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.
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 11-14, and 22-26 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites “a graph database” in line 4 and in line 6. It is not clear whether the two “a graph database” are the same, if they are not the same, it is not clear which graph database “the graph database” in the later part of claim 11 and dependent claims are referring to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-14 and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amended claim 11 recites “(h) in response to determining that the identified source -code node lacks correspondence with [[a]] any function node as defined in the document information, generate and store, in the graph database, a documentation -inconsistency alert node linked to the source-code node, the alert node encoding at least the source-code node identifier, an implicated function node identifier when available, and a reference to the verified-by-testing edge.” The claimed features are not described in the specification of the application. Para [0139] of the instant spec discloses “In S1107, the server device 110 stores in the graph DB 420 the source code name of the source code node 407 associated with the function node 406 identified in S1104 in such a way that the source code name is updated by the source code name extracted from the execution trace. ...” The paragraph discloses that when there is “a difference between the source code name extracted from the execution trace in S1102 and the source code name acquired in S1105” (see paragraph 0138), the graph DB 420 is updated, rather than generating and storing a documentation -inconsistency alert node. The amended claim 20 recites those same features as in amended claim11, and are rejected for the same reason. Claims 12-14 and 21-26 are rejected for the same reason because they depend from their independent claims 11 or 20 respectively.
Claims 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The new claim 23 recites “wherein the execution trace information identifies runtime events at symbol or line-range granularity, and the processor resolves each event to a single source-code node and rejects ambiguous frames that map to multiple nodes.” The claimed features are not described in the specification of the application. Para [0075] of the instant spec discloses “… For example, the execution trace 502 contains the names of executed source codes, the executed lines of the source codes, the contents of the lines of the source codes (such as function name, content of process, and comment), and other factors in the order of execution.” No disclosure is found for “the processor resolves each event to a single source-code node and rejects ambiguous frames that map to multiple nodes.”
The new claim 24 recites “wherein the processor overwrites a document-derived function-to-source edge only upon detecting verified-by-testing edges from at least N independent test runs associating the same function node with the same source-code node, where N > 2.” The claimed features are not described in the specification of the application. Para [0139] of the instant spec discloses “… In S1107, the server device 110 deletes the edge information 410 on the edge between the function node 406 and the source code node 407 “B”, and generates the edge information 410 on the edge between the function node 406 and source code node 407 “A”.” No disclosure is found for “detecting verified-by-testing edges from at least N independent test runs associating the same function node with the same source-code node, where N > 2.”
The new claim 25 recites “wherein the processor is further configured to stream-parse the execution trace information and incrementally update the graph database during test execution.” The claimed features are not described in the specification of the application. Para [0131-0132] of the instant spec discloses execution trace analysis process. No disclosure is found for “to stream-parse the execution trace information and incrementally update the graph database during test execution.”
The new claim 26 recites “wherein the processor is further configured to render a visualization of nodes and edges in a user interface, highlight the documentation-inconsistency alert node, and enable user selection to open the executed code segment at a storage location recorded in the source-code node.” The claimed features are not described in the specification of the application. Para [0183] of the instant spec discloses “The screen 1800 includes a selection interface 1801, which allows selection of a search category (type of node), an input interface 1802, which allows input of a search keyword, and a search execution interface 1803, which allows execution of the search. The user selects a search category via the selection interface 1801, inputs a search keyword via the input interface 1802, and executes the search via the search execution interface 1803.” No disclosure is found for “to render a visualization of nodes and edges in a user interface, highlight the documentation-inconsistency alert node, and enable user selection to open the executed code segment at a storage location recorded in the source-code node.”
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 11-14 and 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 20, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a method claim under Step 1.
Under Prong 1, Step 2A:
However, the limitations of claim 20,
“registering, (…), node data representing function nodes and edge data representing inter-function relationships
registering node data representing a test item node and edge data representing a test-coverage relationship between the test item node and a function node based on test information;
registering node data representing a source code node for a code segment obtained from static analysis;
reading per-test-item execution trace information comprising, for each executed test item, a test-item identifier and
a sequence of runtime events identifying executed code segments;
for a given test run, associating [[a]]the identified test -item node with
one or more executed source-code nodes and, based on previously registered test-item-to-function edges, identifying [[the]] an associated function node;
registering a verified-by-testing edge [[data]] associating the function node with [[the]]each executed source code node[[;]] and
comparing the registered edge data to relationships derived from the document informationto detect a lack of correspondence between an executed source-code node and any function node; and
generating , (…) a documentation- inconsistency alert node linked to the executed source-code node, the alert node including the source-code node identifier and a reference to the verified-by-testing edge.”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. 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. e.g. human can manually perform the registering, reading, associating, comparing, and generating processes as defined in the claim. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under Prong 2, Step 2A:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements
“a graph database”, “a processor”,
“storing, with the edge, at least a test-item identifier and a test-run identifier;”
“storing, and displaying a documentation- inconsistency alert node linked to the executed source-code node, the alert node including the source-code node identifier and a reference to the verified-by-testing edge.”
Wherein the graph database and the processor are cited as a generic computer/software component, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f). The storing processes are insignificant extra-solution activities, the displaying process is insignificant extra-solution activity such as gathering and transmitting data. Even Viewed as a whole, the additional element do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B:
The claim does 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, the graph database and the processor are cited as a generic computer component, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f). The storing processes are insignificant extra-solution activities which are recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions; the displaying process is insignificant extra-solution activity such as receiving and transmitting data which are recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions. See MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. for storing and retrieving data. Symantec for receiving and transmitting data. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claim 11, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a system claim under Step 1.
This claim recites a system to implement the method that is disclosed in claim 20 and therefore recites the same abstract idea as claim 20, please see the office action analysis regarding claim 20.
Claim 11 recites more mental processes that are not recited in claim 20, i.e. “parse …” and “identify, …” the parse and identify are mental processes because human can manually perform these processes.
Claim 11 recites more additional elements, i.e. “a development assistance system”, “a memory”, and “receive per-test-item execution trace information generated by a test execution system running the test items, the execution trace information comprising, for each executed test item, a test-item identifier and a time-ordered sequence of runtime events each identifying a corresponding code segment;” that are not recited in claim 20. However, “a development assistance system”, and “a memory” are cited as generic computer components, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f). the “receive …” is insignificant extra-solution activity which is recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions. See MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Symantec for receiving and transmitting data. Accordingly, even viewed as whole, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claim 12, “wherein the processor is further configured to maintain versioned edge records that include an origin field indicating whether an edge originates from document information or from execution trace information , and to replace or annotate a document-derived edge with execution- trace-derived edge data when the wo differ.” as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic computer component of a processor. That is, other than reciting “the processor” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for “the processor” language, human can manually perform “maintain versioned edge records …” and “replace” or “annotate” processes as defined in the claim. And “the processor” is cited as generic computer component, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more.
With respect to claim 13, “wherein the processor is further configured to: extract a word or phrase representing a function and register a corresponding function node; extract inter-function relationships from the document information and register edges representing the extracted relationships; and register a similarity word-vector similarity computed from the document information, the similarity edge storing a numeric similarity score and excluded from forming the verified-by-testing edge of claim 11(g) unless the score exceeds a stored threshold.” as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic computer component of the processor. That is, other than reciting “the processor” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for “the processor” language, human can manually perform extracting and registering of the information in the claim elements with aid of pencil and paper. And the “the processor” is cited as a generic computer component, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more.
With respect to claim 14, “wherein s determined using (i) word-vector similarity [[and]]from the document information and (ii) similarity between respective source codes associated with the function nodes determined from static-analysis features, and the processor registers the similarity edge only when both similarities exceed respective thresholds.” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic computer component of the processor. That is, other than reciting “the processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for “the processor” language, human can manually determine similarity between two function nodes, and register the similarity edge as defined in the claim. And “the processor” is cited as a generic computer component, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more.
With respect to claim 21, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim under Step 1.
This claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium to implement the method that is disclosed in claim 20 and therefore recites the same abstract idea as claim 20, please see the office action analysis regarding claim 20.
Claim 11 recites one more additional element, i.e. “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, that is not recited in claim 20. However, the medium is cited as a generic computer component, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more. Refer to MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, even viewed as whole, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claim 22, “wherein the graph database is a property graph, and the verified-by-testing edge stores properties {testItemId, testRunId, timestampRange} enabling per-test coverage queries.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claim 23, “wherein the execution trace information identifies runtime events at symbol or line-range granularity, and the processor resolves each event to a single source-code node and rejects ambiguous frames that map to multiple nodes.”
For “wherein the execution trace information identifies runtime events at symbol or line-range granularity”, as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h). For “the processor resolves each event to a single source-code node and rejects ambiguous frames that map to multiple nodes.” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic computer component of the processor. That is, other than reciting “the processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for “the processor” language, human can manually resolve each event as defined in the claim. And “the processor” is cited as a generic computer component, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more.
With respect to claim 24, “wherein the processor overwrites a document-derived function-to-source edge only upon detecting verified-by-testing edges from at least N independent test runs associating the same function node with the same source-code node, where N > 2.” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic computer component of the processor. That is, other than reciting “the processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for “the processor” language, human can manually overwrite a document-derived function-to-function edge as defined in the claim. And “the processor” is cited as a generic computer component, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more.
With respect to claim 25, “wherein the processor is further configured to stream-parse the execution trace information and incrementally update the graph database during test execution.” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic computer component of the processor. That is, other than reciting “the processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for “the processor” language, human can manually stream-parse execution trace information and incrementally update the graph database as defined in the claim. Update the graph database is insignificant extra-solution activity like storing data which is recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions. See MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. for storing and retrieving data. And “the processor” is cited as a generic computer component, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more.
With respect to claim 26, “wherein the processor is further configured to render a visualization of nodes and edges in a user interface, highlight the documentation-inconsistency alert node, and enable user selection to open the executed code segment at a storage location recorded in the source-code node.” as drafted, is a process of transmitting and receiving data which is insignificant extra-solution activities and are recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions. See MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Symantec for receiving and transmitting data. Wherein render a visualization of nodes and edges in a user interface, highlight the documentation-inconsistency alert node is like transmitting data, and enable user selection to open the executed code segment at a storage location recorded in the source-code node is like receiving data. And “the processor” is cited as a generic computer component, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and does not amount to significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 112 (a) and 101 abstract idea rejections filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At p10 last to p13 third paragraphs of the Remarks, Applicant argued with respect to 112 (a) rejections. Particularly, at p11 last to p12 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “… These are the exact predicates the claims use to trigger and anchor the "alert" (a detected lack of correspondence between documentation-derived function definitions and runtime-verified code execution).”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, para [0062-0064] of the instant spec discloses relationship correction process, “in the relationship correction process 116B, relationships that are not extracted in the extraction process (function—source code) 115C are complemented based on the actual operation of the software.” See para [0063] of the instant spec. para [0123-0140] of the instant spec discloses detecting a difference between the source code name extracted from the execution trace in S1102 and the source code name acquired in S1105. (para [0137], “In S1105, the server device 110 acquires from the graph DB 420 the node information 400 (source code name) of the source code node 407 associated with the function node 406 identified in S1104.”). when a difference is detected, “In S1107, the server device 110 stores in the graph DB 420 the source code name of the source code node 407 associated with the function node 406 identified in S1104 in such a way that the source code name is updated by the source code name extracted from the execution trace.” See para [0139] of the instant spec. These paragraphs of the instant spec does not disclose “generate and store, in the graph database, a documentation -inconsistency alert node linked to the source-code node, the alert node encoding at least the source-code node identifier, an implicated function node identifier when available, and a reference to the verified-by-testing edge.”
At p12 second paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “… A skilled reader would understand that this stored, machine-readable indication of a documentation/code discrepancy in the same graph that the UI queries is, in substance, an alerting artifact associated with the implicated source-code node and the corrected/verified relationship. The UI processes then visualize nodes and edges, list related artifacts, and-using stored location properties-open the code/document at issue. See para [0055], [0149]-[0156].”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, para [0054-0055] of the instant spec discloses an overview of processes carried out by the server device, does not disclose the claimed feature. Para [0149-0156] discloses the process of searching graph information, does not disclose the claimed feature.
At p12 last to p13 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “Taken together, these disclosures reasonably convey possession of the now- claimed feature set as of filing: a graph DB with typed nodes/edges/properties for software artifacts ( [0051]-[0059]); …”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, para [0051-0054] of the instant spec provide overview of the functions of the development assistance system 100. Para [0055-0059] provide overview of processes carried out by the server device. These paragraph do not disclose the claimed feature. As explained above, para [0123-0137] and para [0149-0156] do not disclose the claimed feature.
At p13 second paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “… Here, the specification teaches storing new graph information when a difference is found, associating that information with identified documents and code, and outputting that information so the user can see that the documentation is stale/incorrect-in other words, an alerting artifact persisted in and served from the same graph that stores nodes and edges. ….”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as explained above, the cited paragraphs, [0051-0059, 0063-0064, 0123-0140, 0149-0156] disclose the functions of the system including detecting a difference between the source code name extracted from the execution trace in S1102 and the source code name acquired in S1105. (para [0137], “In S1105, the server device 110 acquires from the graph DB 420 the node information 400 (source code name) of the source code node 407 associated with the function node 406 identified in S1104.”). when a difference is detected, “In S1107, the server device 110 stores in the graph DB 420 the source code name of the source code node 407 associated with the function node 406 identified in S1104 in such a way that the source code name is updated by the source code name extracted from the execution trace.” See para [0139] of the instant spec. These paragraphs do not disclose “generate and store, in the graph database, a documentation -inconsistency alert node linked to the source-code node, the alert node encoding at least the source-code node identifier, an implicated function node identifier when available, and a reference to the verified-by-testing edge.”
At p13 third paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “For these reasons, claims 11-20 are fully supported. Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the § 112(a) written-description rejection.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as explained above, the cited paragraphs do not disclose the claimed feature “in response to determining that the identified source -code node lacks correspondence with any function node as defined in the document information, generate and store, in the graph database, a documentation -inconsistency alert node linked to the source-code node, the alert node encoding at least the source-code node identifier, an implicated function node identifier when available, and a reference to the verified-by-testing edge.” The 112 (a) rejection is maintained.
At p13 last to p14 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “… The pending claims are not "directed to" an abstract idea under Alice/Mayo Step One (USPTO Step 2A, Prong One). …. Even if any individual limitation were viewed as implicating a judicial exception, the claims are integrated into a practical application under the USPTO's 2019 Revised Guidance, and, in all events, recite significantly more at Step Two. ….”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as set forth in the office action, the claims recite mental processes and additional elements which are either insignificant extra-solution activities or mere use of generic computer component as tool to implement the identified judicial exception. Thud the claims are abstract idea without significantly more.
At p14 second paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “As amended, the claims are directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality-namely, …. The claimed advance is rooted in specific data structures and processing rules disclosed in the specification (e.g., graph nodes/edges with identifiers and properties; extraction pipelines; execution-trace parsing; replacement/annotation of relationships), not to an abstract end result of "organizing information."”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as set forth in the office action, the claims recite mental processes and additional elements which are either insignificant extra-solution activities or mere use of generic computer component as tool to implement the identified judicial exception. Thud the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, i.e. do not improve technology.
At p15 of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “The Claims Are Not “Directed To” an Abstract Idea”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, the graph database and the computer/processor are mere use of a computer with software as a tool to implement the identified mental processes of abstract idea. For example, human can manually transform streaming execution-trace into provenance-bearing edges, generate/create a graph and register nodes and edges as defined in the claims, parse traces for a given test run, resolve the trace to the test-item node and the source-code node. The storing data into database is insignificant extra-solution activity which is recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions. See MPEP 2106.05(d) II, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. for storing and retrieving data. Thus, the claims recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
At p16 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “… These are the sort of claim-specific, technological implementations that the Federal Circuit found patent-eligible in Enfish (self- referential table as an improved data structure), McRO (specific rule-based improvement in computer animation), and Finjan (non-generic data structures that carry security-relevant semantics). Like those cases, the present claims recite how the computer improves traceability and consistency checks through particular structures and processing, not merely that such improvement occurs.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, Enfish, McRO, and Finjan are not applicable here. For Enfish, its self-referential data table was a data table of the memory controller of the computer itself and thus the improvement was to the computer itself. For McRO, the animation is not automation of a manual task, the improved animation
process can not be performed by human. For Finjan, the behavior-based virus scan constitutes an improvement in computer functionality. The instant claims do not recite any feature similar to those of the example cases. The processes of the instant claims are mental processes or insignificant extra-solution activities; and the database and a computer/processor are merely used a tool to implement the judicial exception.
At p16 second to p18 second paragraphs of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “McRO held claims eligible where they used particularized rules that constrained how a computer performed an animation task, thereby improving the technology itself. ...
As in McRO, these constraints are not result-oriented abstractions. They are particular rules and representations that enable the improvement realized by the invention-namely, runtime-verified, provenance-rich traceability that is more accurate and auditable than manual or purely static approaches. ….”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as explained above, McRO is not applicable here. The animation of McRO is not automation of a manual task, the improved animation process can not be performed by human. The instant claims do not recite any feature similar to those of McRO. The processes of the instant claims are mental processes or insignificant extra-solution activities; and the database and a computer/processor are merely used a tool to implement the judicial exception.
At p18 last to p19 first paragraph of the Remarks Applicant argued with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two that “… The claimed steps thus "apply" data processing to alter the state of a machine-stored graph with concrete artifacts that are then acted upon by the UI. The system's internal data structures, trace-driven update rules, and UI coupling amount to more than collecting/displaying information; they improve the functioning of the computer- implemented traceability tool itself by ensuring that its graph is incrementally reconciled to runtime evidence and by surfacing actionable alerts that can be followed to the implicated code.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as explained above, the processes of the instant claims are mental processes or insignificant extra-solution activities; and the database and a computer/processor are merely used a tool to implement the judicial exception. Altering or updating a machine-stored graph is insignificant extra-solution activity like storing data which is recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions. See MPEP 2106.05(d) II. Incrementally reconciling its graph to runtime evidence and surfacing actionable alerts are mental processes because human can manually perform these tasks, and do not improve computer technology, the computer functions the same as it would before the instant case.
At p19 last to p20 second paragraphs of the Remarks, Applicant argued with respect to Step 2B that “These concrete, interlocking elements "add significantly more" than any abstract notion of "associating items," just as in Finjan where specific data structures with security semantics conferred eligibility. Here, the verified-by-testing edge stores test/run provenance, alters the machine's stored graph state, and enables per-test coverage queries and UI operations-results that are necessarily computer-centric and unavailable in the human mind.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, these concrete, interlocking elements that Applicant argued about are mental processes or insignificant extra-solution activities; and the database and a computer/processor are merely used a tool to implement the judicial exception. The Finjan case is not applicable here, see explanation in paragraph 40 above. Storing and altering stored data is insignificant extra-solution activities, per-test coverage queries is mental process because human can manually perform per-test coverage queries. The UI operations, as set forth in the office action above, are like transmitting and receiving data which are insignificant extra-solution activities and are as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions. See MPEP 2106.05(d) II.
At p20 last to p21 second paragraphs of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “Step 2B -Claims recite "significantly more" under McRO”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, the computer operations that Applicant argued about are mental processes. For example, human can manually perform coverage queries, generate/register versioned edge records, reject/flag ambiguity, stream parse & incrementally update aligned to test execution. The UI operations are like transmitting and receiving data which are insignificant extra-solution activities and are as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions. See MPEP 2106.05(d) II. The computer is merely used as a tool to implement the mental processes and insignificant extra-solution activities. McRO case is not applicable here, see explanation in paragraph 40 above.
At p21 last to p22 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued with respect to “Addressing Examiner's Characterizations” that “To the extent the Office previously characterized the pre-amendment claims as "collecting and correlating information," that characterization no longer applies. …”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as set forth in the office action, and as explained above, the processes and/or operations that Applicant argued about are mental processes or insignificant extra-solution activities; and the database and a computer/processor are merely used a tool to implement the judicial exception. The claim elements do not improve technology and do not constitute an inventive concept.
At p22 second paragraph under title “Conclusion”, Applicant argued that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and requested withdrawal of the 101 rejection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as set forth in the office action, and as explained above, the claims are mental processes of abstract idea without significantly more. The 101 rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Verma et al., US 20220012069 A1, teaches Machine Learning Based Impact Analysis In A Next-Release Quality Assurance Environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zengpu Wei whose telephone number is 571-270-1302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets, can be reached on 571-272-3338. 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, 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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/ZENGPU WEI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2197