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 January 7, 2026. Claims 2-4, 15-17, and 28-30 are currently amended and claims 1-19 and 21-39 remain pending in the application and have been fully considered by Examiner.
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s request to hold the Double Patenting rejections in abeyance, but the rejections are maintained in accordance with current USPTO policy.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but are not persuasive, as detailed below in the 35 USC 101 Arguments – Rejections section.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 7, 2026, 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.
Arguments -- 35 USC 101
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered by Examiner, but are not persuasive, as follows:
With respect to all remaining claims, Applicant primarily argues that Applicant’s specification at p. 57 describes “the problem associated with individually manually classifying the objects, and Applicant's solution of automatically identifying and classifying code objects based on relationships or associations to other objects. Thus, Applicant's disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or a technical field”1 and thus the “claims are directed to an improvement in existing computer technology common as the claims reflect the disclosed improvement of automatically identifying and classifying code objects based on their relationships or associations to other objects.”2 Examiner respectfully disagrees for two reasons. First, the benefit stated on p. 57 is for transforming applications that have “tens of thousands of code objects, tables, reports, variable, database or other entities” where “Individually manually classifying these objects may be so time-consuming as to be nigh impossible.” However, Applicant has not claimed that the source code is so large, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, the amount of source code could be very small such that the benefit described on p. 57 would not apply. Second, even assuming that the claimed invention provides the benefit of doing something that would be practically impossible to do manually, this benefit is realized simply by automating a manual process, which can be performed mentally with no more than pen and paper, using generic computing components. Since “‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept” (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues “Moreover, as with Enfish's improvements of ‘faster search times, and smaller memory requirements,’ the claimed subject matter also provides similar improvements of faster times for processing of data (as well as other benefits noted in the specification). Thus, contrary to the Office's contention, as with Enfish, the present claims are ‘focused on a specific improvement in how the computer function[s].’”3 Examiner respectfully disagrees. As opposed to Enfish, the portion of the specification cited by Applicant here merely indicates that performing a manual process “automatically”4 would address the problem of transforming large applications, which is simply the result of implementing the mental process on a generic computer. As noted above, “‘claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Thus, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
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 4, 17, 21, and 30 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 4, lines 2-4 recite, with emphasis added, “responsive to the determination that at least one additional code object of the one or more additional code objects is part of the second functional area.” However, “determination that at least one additional code object of the one or more additional code objects is part of the second functional area” (emphasis added) is not previously recited. Furthermore, it is unclear whether this refers to “determining whether any of the one or more additional code objects are part of the second functional area” (emphasis added), as recited in parent claim 2, or if it instead means a possible outcome of the previously recited “determining whether any …”, namely “a determination that at least one additional code object of the one or more additional code objects is part of the second functional area.” The scope of claim 4 is therefore indefinite. For purposes of compact prosecution only, Examiner has interpreted claim 4 as reciting “responsive to a determination that at least one additional code object of the one or more additional code objects is part of the second functional area”.
With respect to claims 17 and 30, each recites limitations similar to claim 4 and are indefinite for the same reason (see above). For purposes of compact prosecution only, Examiner has interpreted claims 17 and 30 as indicated above with respect to claim 4 above.
With respect to claim 21, lines 5-6 recite “… associated with entry point of the first functional area.” It is unclear if this is the same as “an entry point of the first functional area”, as recited on line 17 of claim 14. For purposes of compact prosecution only, Examiner has interpreted claim 21 as reciting “associated with the entry point of the first functional area”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 and 21-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,698,674. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, as illustrated in the following table:
Instant Application
Reference Patent No. 10,698,674
1. A method for entry point-based code analysis and transformation, comprising:
selecting, by an analysis agent executed by a processor of a computing device, a first functional area of a source installation of an application to be transformed to a target installation of the application from a plurality of functional areas of the source installation, each of the functional areas comprising a plurality of associated code objects;
identifying, by the analysis agent, a first subset of the plurality of associated code objects of the first functional area having associations only to other code objects of the first functional area, and a second subset of the plurality of associated code objects of the first functional area having associations to code objects in additional functional areas, the second subset comprising entry points of the first functional area;
replacing, by a transformer executed by the processor of the computing device, the first subset of the plurality of associated code objects of the first functional area with first corresponding code objects of the target installation;
replacing, by the transformer, the second subset of the plurality of associated code objects of the first functional area with second corresponding code objects of the target installation;
identifying, by the analysis agent, at least one additional code object of a second functional area as associated with an entry point of the first functional area, wherein at least one of the first functional or the second functional area are defined by a number of inter-related code objects; and
modifying the at least one additional code object of the second functional area, responsive to the identification of the at least one additional code object of the second functional area as associated with the entry point of the first functional area.
14 and 27. (Text omitted as being substantially similar).
1. A method for entry point-based code analysis and transformation, comprising: selecting, by an analysis agent executed by a processor of a computing device, a first functional area of a source installation of an application to be transformed to a target installation of the application from a plurality of functional areas of the source installation, each functional area comprising a plurality of associated code objects; identifying, by the analysis agent, a first subset of the plurality of associated code objects of the first functional area having associations only to other code objects of the first functional area, and a second subset of the plurality of associated code objects of the first functional area having associations to code objects in additional functional areas, the second subset comprising entry points of the first functional area, wherein a first entry point of the first functional area comprises a call back from a code object of the first functional area to a code object of the second functional area, or a database table having associations to at least one code object of the first functional area and at least one code object of the second functional area; replacing, by a transformer executed by the processor of the computing device, the identified first subset of the plurality of associated code objects of the first functional area with corresponding code objects of the target installation; replacing, by the transformer, the identified second subset of the plurality of associated code objects of the first functional area with corresponding code objects of the target installation; identifying, by the analysis agent, at least one additional code object of a second functional area as associated with the first entry point of the first functional area; and modifying the at least one additional code object of the second functional area, responsive to the identification of the at least one additional code object of the second functional area as associated with the first entry point of the first functional area.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the first subset and the second subset of the plurality of associated code objects of the first functional area further comprises, for each of the code objects of the first functional area: identifying, within each code object, one or more references to a corresponding one or more additional code objects, and determining whether any of the one or more additional code objects are part of the second functional area.
15. The system of claim 14, wherein the analysis agent is further configured to, for each of the code objects of the first functional area: identify, within each code object, one or more references to a corresponding one or more additional code objects, and determine whether any of the one or more additional code objects are part of the second functional area.
28. (Text omitted as being substantially similar).
2. The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the first subset and the second subset of the plurality of associated code objects of the first functional area further comprises, for each code object of the first functional area: identifying, within the code object, one or more references to a corresponding one or more additional code objects, and determining whether any of the one or more additional code objects are part of the second functional area.
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising: assigning each code object to the first subset responsive to a determination that no additional code object of the one or more additional code objects is part of the second functional area.
16 and 29. (Text omitted as being substantially similar).
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising: assigning the code object to the first subset responsive to a determination that no additional code object of the one or more additional code objects is part of the second functional area.
4. The method of claim 2, further comprising: assigning each code object to the second subset responsive to the determination that at least one additional code object of the one or more additional code objects is part of the second functional area.
17 and 30. (Text omitted as being substantially similar).
4. The method of claim 2, further comprising: assigning the code object to the second subset responsive to the determination that at least one additional code object of the one or more additional code objects is part of the second functional area.
5. wherein identifying the second subset of the plurality of associated code objects of the first functional area first comprises adding a predetermined identifier to each of the code objects of the second subset.
18 and 31. (Text omitted as being substantially similar).
5. The method of claim 1, wherein identifying the second subset of the plurality of associated code objects of the first functional area first comprises adding a predetermined identifier to each code object of the second subset.
6. The method of claim 5, further comprising, for each code object of the second subset, adding a corresponding predetermined identifier to an additional code object of the second functional area associated with said each of the code objects of the second subset.
19 and 32. (Text omitted as being substantially similar).
6. The method of claim 5, further comprising, for each code object of the second subset, adding a corresponding predetermined identifier to an additional code object of the second functional area associated with said code object of the second subset.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one entry point of the first functional area comprises a shared variable between the first functional area and the second functional area.
33. (Text omitted as being substantially similar).
7. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one entry point of the first functional area comprises a shared variable between the first functional area and the second functional area.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one entry point of the first functional area comprises a shared portion of memory used by code objects of the first functional area and the second functional area.
23 and 34. (Text omitted as being substantially similar).
8. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one entry point of the first functional area comprises a shared portion of memory used by code objects of the first functional area and the second functional area.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one entry point of the first functional area comprises a call back from a code object of the first functional area to a code object of the second functional area.
24 and 35. (Text omitted as being substantially similar).
1. …wherein a first entry point of the first functional area comprises a call back from a code object of the first functional area to a code object of the second functional area….
10. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one entry point of the first functional area comprises a database table having associations to at least one code object of the first functional area and at least one code object of the second functional area.
25 and 36. (Text omitted as being substantially similar).
1. …wherein a first entry point of the first functional area comprises…a database table having associations to at least one code object of the first functional area and at least one code object of the second functional area….
11. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one entry point of the first functional area comprises a class, type, or variable definition.
26 and 37. (Text omitted as being substantially similar).
9. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one entry point of the first functional area comprises a class, type, or variable definition.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein modifying the at least one additional code object of the second functional area further comprises replacing an identifier within the at least one additional code object of the second functional area associated with the entry point of the first functional area with an identifier of a corresponding code object of the target installation, responsive to the identification of the at least one additional code object of the second functional area as associated with the entry point of the first functional area.
21 and 38. (Text omitted as being substantially similar).
10. The method of claim 1, wherein modifying the at least one additional code object of the second functional area further comprises replacing an identifier within the at least one additional code object matching the first entry point of the first functional area with an identifier of the corresponding replaced code object of the target installation, responsive to the identification of the at least one additional code object of the second functional area as associated with said first entry point of the first functional area.
13. The method of claim 1, wherein replacing the first subset of the plurality of associated code objects of the first functional area with the first corresponding code objects of the target installation further comprises replacing the first subset of the plurality of associated code objects with standard functionality of the target installation.
22. The system of claim 14, wherein the transformer is further configured to replace the first subset of the plurality of associated code objects with standard functionality of the target installation.
39. (Text omitted as being substantially similar to claim 13).
11. The method of claim 1, wherein replacing the identified first subset of the plurality of associated code objects of the first functional area with corresponding code objects of the target installation further comprises replacing the identified first subset of the plurality of associated code objects with standard functionality of the target installation.
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 1-19 and 21-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-13 are directed to computer implemented methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; Claims 14-19 and 21-26 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category of machines; Claims 27-39 are directed to a non-transitory software installation device and falls within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.04).
Step 2A Prong 1:
With respect to claims 1, 14, and 27, The limitations of “A method for entry point-based code analysis and transformation, comprising: selecting … a first functional area of a source installation of an application to be transformed to a target installation of the application from a plurality of functional areas of the source installation, each of the functional areas comprising a plurality of associated code objects; identifying … a first subset of the plurality of associated code objects of the first functional area having associations only to other code objects of the first functional area, and a second subset of the plurality of associated code objects of the first functional area having associations to code objects in additional functional areas, the second subset comprising entry points of the first functional area; replacing … the first subset of the plurality of associated code objects of the first functional area with first corresponding code objects of the target installation; replacing … the second subset of the plurality of associated code objects of the first functional area with second corresponding code objects of the target installation; identifying … at least one additional code object of a second functional area as associated with an entry point of the first functional area, wherein at least one of the first functional area or the second functional area are defined by a number of inter-related code objects; and modifying the at least one additional code object of the second functional area, responsive to the identification of the at least one additional code object of the second functional area as associated with the entry point of the first functional area,”5 as claimed, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with no more than pen and paper. For example, a person could mentally perform these steps with no more than pen and paper as part of process of translating source code in a human-readable legacy programming language into source code in a modern human-readable programming language.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 14, and 27 recite limitations that fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
As the claims have been identified as reciting a judicial exception, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)).
Step 2A Prong 2:
With respect to claims 1, 14, and 27, The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements: “by an analysis agent executed by a processor of a computing device”, “by the analysis agent”, “by a transformer executed by the processor of the computing device”, “by the transformer”, “by the analysis agent,” “A system … comprising: a computing device having a processor configured to execute an analyzer client comprising an analysis agent and a transformer stored in a main memory unit, wherein the analyzer client is in communication with a source installation of an application to be transformed to a target installation of the application; wherein the analysis agent is configured to … wherein the transformer is configured to,” “A non-transitory software installation device storing processor-executable instructions configured to cause a computing device to perform … by executing a method comprising … ,” which merely recite instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components to perform the abstract idea, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 14, and 27 not only recite a judicial exception but are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, Step 2B will evaluate whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Step 2B:
With respect to claims 1, 14, and 27, The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components applying the abstract idea.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 14, and 27 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to claims 2 and 28, the limitations recite “wherein identifying the first subset and the second subset of the plurality of associated code objects of the first functional area further comprises, for each of the code objects of the first functional area: identifying, within each code object, one or more references to a corresponding one or more additional code objects, and determining whether any of the one or more additional code objects are part of the second functional area”, which could also be performed in the human mind with no more than pencil and paper, e.g., by a developer analyzing human-readable source code. Thus, the claims are directed to the judicial exception and do not have elements amounting to significantly more that the abstract idea itself. Therefore, these claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
With respect to claim 15, the limitations recite “for each of the code objects of the first functional area: identify, within each code object, one or more references to a corresponding one or more additional code objects, and determine whether any of the one or more additional code objects are part of the second functional area”, which could also be performed in the human mind with no more than pencil and paper, e.g., by a developer analyzing human-readable source code. The claim also recites “wherein the analysis agent is further configured to”, which merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components to perform the abstract idea, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, the claim is directed to the judicial exception and does not have elements amounting to significantly more that the abstract idea itself. Therefore, this claim does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
With respect to claims 3, 16, and 29, the limitations recite “assigning each code object to the first subset responsive to a determination that no additional code object of the one or more additional code objects is part of the second functional area”, which could also be performed in the human mind with no more than pencil and paper, e.g., by a developer analyzing human-readable source code. Claim 16 also recites “the analysis agent is further configured to”, which merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components to perform the abstract idea, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, the claims are directed to the judicial exception and do not have elements amounting to significantly more that the abstract idea itself. Therefore, these claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
With respect to claims 4, 17, and 30, the limitations recite “assigning each code object to the second subset responsive to the determination that at least one additional code object of the one or more additional code objects is part of the second functional area”, which could also be performed in the human mind with no more than pencil and paper, e.g., by a developer analyzing human-readable source code. Claim 17 also recites “the analysis agent is further configured to”, which merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components to perform the abstract idea, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Therefore, these claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
With respect to claims 5, 18, and 31, the limitations recite “wherein identifying the second subset of the plurality of associated code objects of the first functional area first comprises adding a predetermined identifier to each of the code objects of the second subset”, which could also be performed in the human mind with no more than pencil and paper, e.g., by a developer analyzing and manipulating human-readable source code. Claim 18 also recites “the analysis agent is further configured to”, which merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components to perform the abstract idea, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, the claims are directed to the judicial exception and do not have elements amounting to significantly more that the abstract idea itself. Therefore, these claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
With respect to claims 6, 19, and 32, the limitations recite “for each code object of the second subset, adding a corresponding predetermined identifier to an additional code object of the second functional area associated with said each of the code objects of the second subset”, which could also be performed in the human mind with no more than pencil and paper, e.g., by a developer analyzing and manipulating human-readable source code. Claim 19 also recites “the analysis agent is further configured to”, which merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components to perform the abstract idea, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, the claims are directed to the judicial exception and do not have elements amounting to significantly more that the abstract idea itself. Therefore, these claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
With respect to claims 7 and 33, the limitations recite “wherein at least one entry point of the first functional area comprises a shared variable between the first functional area and the second functional area”, which provide additional details that could also be performed in the human mind with no more than pencil and paper, e.g., by a developer analyzing human-readable source code. Thus, the claims are directed to the judicial exception and do not have elements amounting to significantly more that the abstract idea itself. Therefore, these claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
With respect to claims 8, 23, and 34, the limitations recite “wherein at least one entry point of the first functional area comprises a shared portion of memory used by code objects of the first functional area and the second functional area”, which provide additional details that could also be performed in the human mind with no more than pencil and paper, e.g., by a developer analyzing human-readable source code. Thus, the claims are directed to the judicial exception and do not have elements amounting to significantly more that the abstract idea itself. Therefore, these claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
With respect to claims 9, 24, and 35, the limitations recite “wherein at least one entry point of the first functional area comprises a call back from a code object of the first functional area to a code object of the second functional area”, which provide additional details that could also be performed in the human mind with no more than pencil and paper, e.g., by a developer analyzing human-readable source code. Thus, the claims are directed to the judicial exception and do not have elements amounting to significantly more that the abstract idea itself. Therefore, these claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
With respect to claims 10, 25, and 36, the limitations recite “wherein at least one entry point of the first functional area comprises a database table having associations to at least one code object of the first functional area and at least one code object of the second functional area”, which provide additional details that could also be performed in the human mind with no more than pencil and paper, e.g., by a developer analyzing human-readable source code. Thus, the claims are directed to the judicial exception and do not have elements amounting to significantly more that the abstract idea itself. Therefore, these claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
With respect to claims 11, 26, and 37, the limitations recite “wherein at least one entry point of the first functional area comprises a class, type, or variable definition”, which provide additional details that could also be performed in the human mind with no more than pencil and paper, e.g., by a developer analyzing human-readable source code. Thus, the claims are directed to the judicial exception and do not have elements amounting to significantly more that the abstract idea itself. Therefore, these claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
With respect to claims 12, 21, and 38, the limitations recite “wherein modifying the at least one additional code object of the second functional area further comprises replacing an identifier within the at least one additional code object of the second functional area associated with the entry point of the first functional area with an identifier of a corresponding code object of the target installation, responsive to the identification of the at least one additional code object of the second functional area as associated with the entry point of the first functional area”, which could also be performed in the human mind with no more than pencil and paper, e.g., by a developer analyzing and manipulating human-readable source code. Claim 21 also recites “the transformer is further configured to”, which merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components to perform the abstract idea, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, the claims are directed to the judicial exception and do not have elements amounting to significantly more that the abstract idea itself. Therefore, these claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
With respect to claims 13 and 39, the limitations recite “wherein replacing the first subset of the plurality of associated code objects of the first functional area with the first corresponding code objects of the target installation further comprises replacing the first subset of the plurality of associated code objects with standard functionality of the target installation”, which could also be performed in the human mind with no more than pencil and paper, e.g., by a developer analyzing and translating human-readable source code. Thus, the claims are directed to the judicial exception and do not have elements amounting to significantly more that the abstract idea itself. Therefore, these claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
With respect to claim 22, the limitations recite “replace the first subset of the plurality of associated code objects with standard functionality of the target installation”, which could also be performed in the human mind with no more than pencil and paper, e.g., by a developer analyzing and translating human-readable source code. Claim 22 also recites “the transformer is further configured to”, which merely recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components to perform the abstract idea, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, the claims are directed to the judicial exception and do not have elements amounting to significantly more that the abstract idea itself. Therefore, these claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, Barraclough et al. US 20060277532 discloses translating subject code into target code, Chaiken et al. US 6802056 discloses translating basic code blocks having a single entry point, and El-Ramly et al. “An Experiment in Automatic Conversion of Legacy Java Programs to C#” discloses modernizing legacy code via source-to-source translation.
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 M-F, 9-6 Eastern.
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, 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 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.
/STEPHEN D BERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2192
1 See Remarks at p. 18.
2 See Remarks at p. 18.
3 See Remarks at p. 20
4 See Applicant’s specification at p. 57, lines 12-13.
5 Examiner notes that while the exact words of claims 1, 14, and 27 differ, the substance of these claim limitations for purposes of the 35 USC 101 analysis is equivalent.