DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Application filed 8/03/2023.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are submitted for prosecution on merits.
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.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1 is/are directed to an Abstract Idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following 2-step analysis.
Step I: Claim 1 is directed to a method/process category
Step 2A
Prong 1:
The limitations recited as “receiving” instructions, “identifying” contradictions, “comparing” differences, “rectifying” instructions “by modifying” the sequence, and “updating” software consist of collecting data, analyzing discrepancies, and modifying rules to resolve conflicts. These steps constitute basic logical operations and mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (e.g., a human programmer reviewing code instructions, spotting conflicting commands, comparing them, and updating the instruction sequence). Per MPEP § 2106.04(a), claim directed to concepts of collecting, analyzing, and modifying data without a specific technical improvement recite an Abstract Idea.
Prong 2:
The elements recited as “processor”, “electronic device”, “software programming”, “sequence of operational instructions” are viewed as generic, known computer field components functioning within a generic environment to execute the abstract logic.
There are no sufficient details showing how these generic components inter-relate to provide a improvement to the computer field in which the Abstract Idea operates.
Per MPEP 2106.04(d), simply applying an abstract Idea on a generic computer or stating its implementation on “a electronic device” does not transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible practical application.
The claim overall does not integrate the Abstract idea of prong 1 into a Practical Application.
Step 2B
The additional elements such as sequence of instructions, electronic device, software programming, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, amount nothing more than well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions or concepts expressed in a high level of generality.
Under MPEP § 2106.05(d), generic computer functions performed in a standard manner do not provide "significantly more" to the Abstract Idea. Therefore, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is deemed non-eligible under the 35 USC § 101 statute.
Claims 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 8 and 15 is/are directed to an Abstract Idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the following 2-step analysis
Eligibility of claim 8
Step I: Claim 8 is directed to a medium/product category
Step 2A
Prong 1:
The steps recited as “receive” instructions, “identify” contradictions, “compare” differences, “rectify” instructions “by modifying” the sequence, and “update” software consist of collecting data, analyzing discrepancies, and modifying rules to resolve conflicts; and constitute basic logical operations and mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (e.g., a human programmer reviewing code instructions, spotting conflicting commands, comparing them, and updating the instruction sequence). Per MPEP § 2106.04(a)
Prong 2:
The elements recited as “processor”, “electronic device”, “software programming”, “sequence of operational instructions” are viewed as generic, known computer field components functioning within a generic environment to execute the abstract logic.
There are no sufficient details showing how these generic components inter-relate to provide a improvement to the computer field in which the Abstract Idea operates.
Per MPEP 2106.04(d), simply applying an abstract Idea on a generic computer or stating on implementing it on “a electronic device” does not transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible practical application
Step 2B
The additional elements such as processor, sequence of instructions, electronic device, software programming, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, amount nothing more than well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions or concepts expressed in a high level of generality.
Under MPEP § 2106.05(d), generic computer functions performed in a standard manner do not provide "significantly more" to the Abstract Idea. Therefore, the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. laim 8 is deemed non-eligible under the 35 USC § 101 statute.
B. Eligibility of claim 15
Step I: Claim 15 is directed to a system/apparatus category
Step 2A
Prong 1:
The steps recited as “receive” instructions, “identify” contradictions, “compare” differences, “rectify” instructions “by modifying” the sequence, and “update” software consist of collecting data, analyzing discrepancies, and modifying rules to resolve conflicts; and constitute basic logical operations and mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (e.g., a human programmer reviewing code instructions, spotting conflicting commands, comparing them, and updating the instruction sequence). Per MPEP § 2106.04(a)
Prong 2:
The elements recited as “processor”, “electronic device”, “software programming”, “sequence of operational instructions” are viewed as generic, known computer field components functioning within a generic environment to execute the abstract logic.
There are no sufficient details showing how these generic components inter-relate to provide a improvement to the computer field in which the Abstract Idea operates.
Per MPEP 2106.04(d), simply applying an abstract Idea on a generic computer or implementing it on “a electronic device” or “processor” does not transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible practical application
Step 2B
The additional elements such as processor, sequence of instructions, electronic device, software programming, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, amount to nothing more than well-understood, routine and conventional computer functions or concepts expressed in a high level of generality.
Under MPEP § 2106.05(d), generic computer functions performed in a standard manner do not provide "significantly more" to the Abstract Idea. Therefore, claim 15 is deemed non-eligible under the 35 USC § 101 statute.
Step 2b analysis of dependent claims.
Claims 2, 9, 16 recite updating information displayed to include directions, and progressing to a next operation upon receiving user input; these interactive steps and updating data from a display belong to the well-known flow or logic of Organizing Human Activity associated with a human re-organizing received data; thus fail to add significantly more to the Abstract Idea.
Claims 3, 10, 17 recite updating by highlighting a area or inserting a text; but these activities belong to well-understood computer-based activities or interaction associated with the Organizing Human activity by a human and cannot add significantly more to the Abstract Idea.
Claims 4, 11, 18 recite comparing instructions to known information, identifying differences and determine whether to adjust; and these activities fall directly into the range of activities carried out by known mental processes.
Claims 5, 12, 19 recite determining whether to adjust, comparing the differences and ignoring the information; but these fall into the type of activities known to the mental processes underlying the Organizing of human activity type of Judicial Exception.
Claims 6, 13, 20 recite modifying a sequence by analyzing contradicting instructions (via a ML) and applying deduplication scheme thereto. As machine learning belongs to a mathematical concepts associated with generic data analysis, and absent details showing how the modifying, analyzing and applying is being carried out with specific algorithm or machine in a non-conventional manner, these steps are construed as generic activities attached to the reorganizing of data via an interface by a human; hence fail to add significantly more to the Abstract Idea.
Claims 7, 14 recite initial sequence of instructions being generated using audio signals recorded from a individual; and as such amount to mere description of audio data received into a device and fail to demonstrate that a transformation of significance is being performed to enhance eligibility of the Abstract Idea
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8, 11-12, 15, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meller et al, USPubN: 2007/0050430 (herein Meller).
As per claim 1, Meller discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving an initial sequence of operational instructions (code embodied therein for in-place updating original content … original version stored in a … storage device – para 0048; para 0053; program code – para 0059-0060; logically sequential content, segments - para 0100-0104; Fig. 2A; original segment – para 0107) configured to update software programming (version of the program, need to update the programs … to execute a newer version thereof , updating programs – para 0088, 0090, 0091) in an electronic device (cellular telephones 102 … storage devices 103 – para 0088-0090; Fig. 1);
identifying contradicting ones (conflict arises when original segment … required by the update … for further updating segments … is being altered or lost before it is being used … segment portion 2B02 illustrates an “ambiguous portion”, caused by an overlap … represents a “conflict” between two segments – para 0110-0111) of the operational instructions (see ambiguous, overlap – para 0111; Fig. 2B) in the initial sequence;
comparing differences between the contradicting operational instructions (see Fig. 2A-2B and related text – Note1: recognizing position and overlapped segments from portions considered ambiguous or identified as “conflicts between segments” reads on differences between the contradicting instructions being compared or correlated);
rectifying the contradicting operational instructions by modifying (segment 2A03 can be protected … by copying it to its new position before segment 2A04” overwrites it … version 2C01 includes the original segment 2A04 and the updated segment 2A03’ and then segment 2A04 … moved to its new position 2A04’ in the new version 2A04 – para 0112) the initial sequence of operational instructions; and
updating the software programming in the electronic device by implementing the modified sequence of operational instructions (para 0005, 0013; overwrites part of segment 2A03’ content – para 0110; content of segments 2A04’ overwrites it – para 0112; allowing the update process to overwrite it with the content in 3B02 – para 0119; ambiguous portion 3A06,overwriting portion 3A06 … includes a copy … that overwrote portion 3A06 - para 0121 and Fig. 3C; divide each of two segments 3A03 and 3A04 into two segments one that generates conflict (ambiguous) and one that does not – para 0123, overwriting the content of the ambiguous portion 3A06 – para 0127 – Note2: separating conflicting segments having ambiguous portions by separating them into sub-portion copies or overwriting a sub-portion thereof with a protected new portion to clear up the conflictual ambiguity reads on updating software program segments by modifying their original sequence; see “copy” command, “incorporating” command, “erasing” command – para 0204).
As per claim 4, Meller discloses computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising:
comparing the modified sequence of operational instructions (updated version is 123756489” … compared to their position in the original version – para 0102) to known information associated with the initial sequence received (sequential text “123456789” … considered an original version – para 0102);
identifying differences between the modified sequence and the known information; and
determining whether to adjust (the characters “4” and “7” were switched … the character ‘7’ in the updated version replaces the character ‘4’ … in the original version – para 0102) the modified sequence to reflect the known information.
As per claim 5, Meller discloses computer-implemented method of claim 4, wherein determining whether to adjust the modified sequence to reflect the known information includes:
comparing the differences (see claim 4) between the modified sequence and the known information; and
ignoring the known information (see first, third, fifth segments from below, each outside of the second segment “4” and fourth segment “7” – para 0102) in response to determining the differences between the modified sequence and the known information are outside (first segment includes “123”… third segment includes ‘56’ and fifth segment includes “89” … the first, third and fifth segments are left intact – para 0102) a predetermined range.
As per claim 8, Meller discloses a computer program product, comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions readable by a processor, executable by the processor, or readable and executable by the processor, to cause the processor to:
receive an initial sequence of operational instructions configured to update software programming in an electronic device;
identify contradicting ones of the operational instructions in the initial sequence;
compare differences between the contradicting operational instructions;
rectify the contradicting operational instructions by modifying the initial sequence of operational instructions; and
update the software programming in the electronic device by implementing the modified sequence of operational instructions.
( All of which having been addressed in claim 1)
As per claims 11-12, refer to rejection of claims 4-5 respectively.
As per claim 15, Meller discloses a system, comprising: a processor; and logic integrated with the processor, executable by the processor, or integrated with and executable by the processor, the logic being configured to:
receive an initial sequence of operational instructions configured to update software programming in an electronic device;
identify contradicting ones of the operational instructions in the initial sequence;
compare differences between the contradicting operational instructions;
rectify the contradicting operational instructions by modifying the initial sequence of operational instructions; and
update the software programming in the electronic device by implementing the modified sequence of operational instructions.
( All of which having been addressed in claim 1)
As per claims 18-19, refer to rejection of claims 4-5 respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2-3, 9-10, 16-17 is/are rejected under § 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meller et al, USPubN: 2007/0050430 (herein Meller) in view of Groenewegen et al, USPubN: 2024/0069907 (herein Groenewegen), and Anderson, USPubN: 2014/0283118 (herein Anderson).
As per claims 2-3, Meller does not explicitly disclose computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein implementing the modified sequence includes,
(i) for each of the operational instructions in the modified sequence:
updating information displayed on a user interface (UI) of the electronic device to include directions that correspond to performing the given operational instruction; receiving an input from a user; and in response to determining the given operational instruction has been performed, progressing to a next operational instruction.
(ii) wherein updating information displayed on the UI of the electronic device includes highlighting a specific area of the UI and/or inserting prompt text.
Meller discloses update of programs (para 0088-0099) stored as versioned content on cellular phones (para 0096-0097) where the stored content can be text files organized in logical sequence (para 0100-0102) for which consideration for transform operations like move, copy, replace, insert, erase (para 0207; Fig. 7) have to check a command cursor (para 0203, 0207, 0209-210, 0217) to not infringe upon any existing block or position of source segment in the storage. Hence, command cursor acting as provision information on an interactive interface of the electronic device (e.g. cellular phones) to include directions that correspond to update operation performing a transform to one or more SW code segments is recognized.
As for (i)
Anderson discloses a WindowOS editor display/screen (para 0090) on a smartphone associated with software support of system level operations associated with virtual keyboard (Fig. 3) and a cursor (para 0075) indicating or pointing to icons, controls, events or characters, command line, text string that are subjected to editing, search, filter in pursuit of identification of malicious intrusion (para 0076-0078), the keyboard providing combination of keys (Fig. 5; para 0064) enabling manual select, deletion, scanning, accepting a command to recognize a level code, to format (Fig. 7) replace or filter it or block it (Fig. 6), the display screen (Fig. 10) with settings – command field, para 0051; Fig. 7 - by which the user can use UI buttons, keys of the virtual keyboard to remove or replace ascii text, or to move content (para 0055, 0058, 0063). Hence, screen editor of a smartphone enabled by control settings, cursor, keyboard commands by which the user can navigate events and interact with the screen for search, scanning, and selection of text to drag, move or insert (para 0063-0064) to remove, or replace is recognized entails provision information displayed on a user interface (UI) of this electronic device in form directions that correspond to performing the given operational instruction, i.e. the UI provision enabling an input from a user to be received; and in response to determining an operational instruction to perform, progressing to a next operational instruction with aid of a cursor or a pointer.
As for (ii)
Groenewegen discloses computer system for source code editing (para 0014, 0048, 0052,0054) with display setting – e.g. cursor - indicative of specific code from storage sources and responding to received command to perform editing operations (Fig. 5; filtering, refactoring, pasting, replacing, searching, copying – para 0199) over the pointed to (hovered over) portions of the code, the display setting provided via highlighting (para 0070) the highlighted code block destined for a cut as part of refactoring a given version of code (para 0129-0132), the highlighting also enabling the user to review of the change, the computer system including PDA, smartphones, mobile phones (para 0175)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the electronic device on which stored program are to be refactored and modified as part of the security protection in Meller, so that, in implementing the modified sequence of code, the electronic device would be configured with a UI (e.g. mobile phone display) so that for each of the operational instructions on the modified sequence, to
(1) provide information displayed on a user interface (UI) of the electronic device so include directions or aid – see pointer/cursor in Anderson - that particularly correspond/point to a given operational instruction to perform – see editing operations in Anderson – and receive an input from a user; and in response to determining the given operational instruction has been performed, cause the user to progress to a next operational instruction – as per Anderson use of pointer/curser;
(2) provide updating information on the UI of the electronic device in terms of highlighting a specific area of the UI – as per Groenewegen - and/or inserting prompt text – see Anderson’s command field; because
use of a UI equipped with virtual keyboard, cursor and command text field as set forth above on a mobile device, would extend useability of a user electronic device with added capability of storing and managing versioned or protected content or program code via active role of the mobile user, the active role including selection, manipulating features on the UI geared to control over which portions of the program to search, to filter, to remove, copy, move, replace/overwrite and modify the protected code, which falls under the very scheme of protecting versioned content/assets by the electronic system against malicious intrusion, and by supplying a mobile terminal as in Meller with a editor display equipped direction/pointer features like filter/search keys, pointer, cursor, command field, a edit/action by the user can be received/interpreted thereby to guide the user with proper flow of actions or manipulation options as part of the management role of the user in accordance with a asset protection scheme destined to alter a content location or pointed to segment at which a content or program sequence is detected as in dire need for preventive maintenance or refactoring to enable the protected code to move or be hidden away from one such vulnerability threat.
As per claims 9-10, refer to rejection of claims 2-3 respectively.
As per claims 16-17, refer to rejection of claims 2-3 respectively
Claims 6, 13, 20 is/are rejected under § 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meller et al, USPubN: 2007/0050430 (herein Meller) in view of Smudrala, USPubN: 2021/0373883 (herein Samudrala) and Miller et al, USPubN: 2023/0316186 (herein Miller)
As per claim 6, Meller discloses computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein rectifying the contradicting operational instructions (refer to claim 1) by modifying the initial sequence
B) Meller does not explicitly disclose
analyzing the contradicting operational instructions using a machine learning model; and
applying a deduplication scheme to the contradicting operational instructions, wherein the deduplication scheme is generated by the machine learning model.
Samudrala discloses resolution tool (Fig. 1) for a code development project and resolution of conflict between code branches, and applying a machine learning model (para 0019) to resolve a given conflict (para 0007), the conflict caused by inability to apply a first code branch to a second code branch due to inconsistency among requirements associated with reconciliating versions of source code (para 0009) or merging first and the second code branch (para 0008) from source repository (para 0023), the machine learning trainer generating vectorization of each code segment in association with requirements for the project and code corpus from previous developments (para 0034), as well as requirement vector mappings to help define a function operable to combine a set of implementable requirements (para 0035-0036); hence use of machine learning to analyze causal characteristics of source code version conflict and identifying solution thereto is recognized.
Miller discloses representation of business entities with vectorized encoding in which duplicate candidate entities for each business entity facilitate identification of the vector representation of these entities matrix, then using a reducing module to a neural network to support the dimension reducing, which takes a deduplicating action (para 0005) with respect to the candidate duplicate respective to a threshold (para 0414; Fig .55) and train the entity-deduplication AI Model to produce entity-specific vector over the set of business entities, e.g. and accordingly generate classification of target entities based on non-deduplicate candidate entities on basis of the generated entity-specific vectors ( para 0006). Hence, use of machine learning to perform de-duplication over a set of candidate entities to facilitate classification of the target data set is recognized.
Therefore, based on effect of maintaining protected assets such as source programs in Meller, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to implement the detection and analytics of code conflicts in Meller so that operational conflict and contradicting effect caused in combining code entities is analyzed with aid of machine learning as set forth Samudrala to investigate on its causal characteristics of the input set; and that deduplication of its training set thereof also resort to a machine learning or AI model – as in Miller – to remove redundant copies of vector set prior for the model to be able to better classify code entities in relevance to conflicts for resolution purposes; because
Use of machine learning to detect code conflicts associated with management and maintenance of software would improve throughput of the overall SW protection and SW version maintenance scheme so that speed of conflict analysis and conflict resolution can be accelerated with use of artificial intelligence methodology, and use of this artificial intelligence to perform deduplicating of training set destined for the ML-based resolution in support of conflict detection and refactoring framework as in Meller would significantly finetune the training set for noise and redundancy filtering and enabling thereby the AI model to better perform a classification of code entities, to more effectively separate non-conflictual from conflictual code portions that are destined for corrective course of actions, including use of a intelligent model to accelerate conflict resolution or recommendations with which to implement timely transformation or update as intended by Meller platform; e.g. for protecting state of software, stored assets from undesirable operational conflicts or malicious intents or flaws.
As per claim 13, refer to rejection of claim 6.
As per claim 20, refer to rejection of claim 6.
Claims 7, 14 is/are rejected under § 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meller et al, USPubN: 2007/0050430 (herein Meller) in view of Shirakawa M. JP 2023018851(translation) 02-09-2023, 15 pgs (herein Shirakawa)
As per claim 7, Meller does not explicitly disclose computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the initial sequence of operational instructions is generated using audio signals recorded from an individual in response to receiving a request sent from the electronic device.
Shirakawa discloses engineering acquisition of application code (programming language) for streamlining its content, conversion of semantic concepts and restructuring of collected text into templates (pg. 4-5) as part of learning data input into artificial intelligence learning thereby extracting semantic significance and search solution (pg.12), where the collected code is based recording via a microphone, from conversational sentence or voice data (pg. 2-3, pg. 7) at a terminal of a program code automatic generation device, the learning accumulated or obtained therefrom serving as referenced toward search of a solution suitable for processing the program code.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to the electronic device in Meller to collect, software program or statements of code in terms of voice recording - via a microphone on a terminal device - conveying program code responsive to a request for such recording – as in Shirakawa - by means of voice audio acquisition; because
electronic device equipped with recording capabilities can facilitate audio recording and instant capture of conversational statements with minimal risk of exposing text stream or files over the internet and likelihood of being contaminated during the passage, notably when direct voice capture of program statements can be transduced into computer data or bit data whose interpretation or reconversion can support various methodology or intelligent service to learn on the captured semantic or meaning obtained by this converted recorded stream, including use of a Artificial intelligence model to derive learning and/or generate possible solutions to any issues gathered from the AI training or learning.
As per claim 14, refer to rejection of claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan A Vu whose telephone number is (571) 272-3735. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4:30PM/Mon-Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Chat Do can be reached on (571)272-3721.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-3735 ( for non-official correspondence - please consult Examiner before using) or 571-273-8300 ( for official correspondence) or redirected to customer service at 571-272-3609.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist: 571-272-2100.
/Tuan A Vu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Septembre 03, 2026
Prosecution Insights