DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This action is in response to response filed on 10/21/2025. This action is FINAL
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.
Claims 1-6, 10-12, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallbaum et al. (US 2020/0201608 A1).
As per claim 1 (Amended), Zhang et al. teaches the invention as claimed including, “A method for generating source code from at least one hierarchical block of a block diagram, wherein a respective hierarchical block of the at least one hierarchical block comprises a plurality of subordinate blocks implementing calculations of the hierarchical block, wherein the respective hierarchical block comprises at least one communication block that exchanges data with a block outside the respective hierarchical block, and wherein the method comprises:
reading in, by a computer system the block diagram;” A host computer opens a block diagram selected for code generation (0051). Also see figure 3, figure 5 and figure 7 (S51).
“determining, by the computer system, that the block diagram includes a hierarchical block having an unresolved reference;”
The host determines if there are block variables that have not been considered (0063). Also see figure 3 and figure 5 (S53).
“replacing, by the computer system, the unresolved reference a data object”
If the block variable fulfills the filter conditions for the current modification rule the processor applies the code changes of the modification rule (0064-0066). Also see 0008 and figure 5 (S58). Also see 0014-0016.
“generating , by the computer system, an intermediate representation; “
Intermediate representation is generated (0062). Also see figure 5 (S52).
“performing , by the computer system, at least one optimization on the intermediate representation; and
translating , by the computer system, the intermediate representation into source code;”
IR graphs are optimized and translated into source code (0051-0052). Also see figure 3 and figure 5 (S59)
“compiling, by the computer system, the source code into executable code;
transferring, by the control device, the executable code;
executing, by the control device, the executable code”
After code generation, a compilation process can be performed and production code can be exported for use (0053).
“wherein replacing the unresolved reference
determining a first code generation mode out of a group of code generation modes, wherein the group of code generation modes comprises at least two out of the following three modes: a standard code generation mode, a classic AUTOSAR code generation mode, and an adaptive AUTOSAR code generation model and
replacing the unresolved reference with first data object based on the first code generation mode, wherein respective data objects corresponding to different code generation modes have different data types associated therewith.”
Code changes of the modification rule comprise adding a string, the string comprising a name macro and/or a compiler directive. The compiler directive may be specific to a selected compiler and/or it may compromise definition according to a code standard such as AUTOSAR (0014-0017). Also see 0061.
“wherein the method further comprises reusing the hierarchical block having the unresolved reference in a second code generation model out of the group of code generation modes, wherein reusing the hierarchical block having the unresolved reference in the second code generation mode comprises replacing the unresolved reference with a second data object based on the second code generation mode.”
The examiner states that these limitations are repeating the same steps as claimed above and are therefore rejected for the same reasons. As claimed a different code generation mode is selected, in which the second code generation mode replaces the unresolved reference with a second data object based on the second code generation mode.
Wallbaum et al. teaches code changes of the modification rule comprise adding a string, the string comprising a name macro and/or a compiler directive. The compiler directive may be specific to a selected compiler and/or it may compromise definition according to a code standard such as AUTOSAR (0014-0017). Also see 0061. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the same block diagram as stated above to be used a second time with a different compiler requiring a different compiler directive and therefore performing different code changes. This is nothing more than a design choice and would have been obvious to try.
As per claim 2, Wallbaum et al. further teaches, “The method according to claim 1, wherein the hierarchical block comprises a plurality of communication blocks, and wherein each of the respective communication blocks is provided with a respective reference to a respective data object.”
Occurances of block variables comprise a declaration of the block variable and/or definition of the block variable and/or a read access to the block variable (communication) and/or a write access to the block variable (communication) (0016). Also see figure 7.
As per claim 3, Wallbaum et al. further teaches, “The method according to claim 1, wherein the data object is a placeholder to be defined after the generation of source code.”
Wallbaum et al. teaches that code changes comprise adding a name macro (0015).
As per claim 4, Wallbaum et al. further teaches, “The method according to claim 3, wherein the placeholder is defined by a pre-processor macro.”
Wallbaum et al. teaches that code changes comprise adding a name macro (0015).
As per claim 5, Wallbaum et al. further teaches, “The method according to claim 1, wherein the hierarchical block comprises a function block, wherein a reference to a call modality is stored in the function block.”
See figure 7.
As per claim 6, Wallbaum et al. further teaches, “The method according to claim 5, wherein the hierarchical block comprises at least two input ports and/or at least two output ports, and wherein the call modality comprises an order of arguments and/or a combination of the at least two input ports and/or of the at least two output ports to form a structure in the generated source code.”
See figure 7 and paragraph 0072.
As per claim 10, Wallbaum et al. further teaches, “The method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one communication block refers to more than one data object.”
Occurances of block variables comprise a declaration of the block variable and/or definition of the block variable and/or a read access to the block variable (communication) and/or a write access to the block variable (communication) (0016). Also see figure 7 and paragraph 0072.
As per claim 11, Wallbaum et al. further teaches, “The method according to claim 10, wherein the at least one communication block refers to at least one reference comprising a port, a data element, and/or a communication mode.”
Occurances of block variables comprise a declaration of the block variable and/or definition of the block variable and/or a read access to the block variable (communication) and/or a write access to the block variable (communication) (0016). Also see figure 7 and paragraph 0072.
As per claim 12, Wallbaum et al. further teaches, “The method according to claim 1, wherein the hierarchical block comprises at least one calculation block that receives an input signal and calculates an output signal therefrom, and wherein the calculation block is provided with the reference to the data object.”
See figure 7 and paragraph 0072.
As per clam 14, Wallbaum et al. further teaches, “The method according to claim 1, wherein the control device comprises at least one sensor and/or at least one actuator for acquiring data from and/or acting upon a physical process.”
See figures 6- 7 and paragraphs 0068-0072. Also see 0053
As per claims 15-16, both claims contain similar limitations to claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10/21/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant further argues that the code changes of Wallbaum occur after having optimized the intermediate representation (IR) and points to figure 5 of Wallbaum. The examiner states that nowhere in claim 1 specifically states the order of the steps and that one step must be specifically be performed before another. For these reasons the current rejection stands.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK A GOORAY whose telephone number is (571)270-7805. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am - 6:00pm.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3759. 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.
/MARK A GOORAY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199