Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/21/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Notes – Claims 9-16
Claims 9-16 are directed towards a computer readable storage medium , and in the Spec. the medium as described as “A computer readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals communicated through a wire, and/or other transmission media. As will be understood by those of skill in the art, data is typically moved at some occasional points in time during normal operations of a storage device, such as during access, de-fragmentation or garbage collection, but this does not render the storage device as transitory because the data is not transitory while it is stored.”
For clarity purposes, the Office recommends amending claims 9-16 so that they are directed towards a non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
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 1-20 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 1 is directed towards a system, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a mental concept- i.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: identifying statements in a software program / for ones of the identified statements that semantics information is not yet known: causing values that satisfy path constraints of a given one of the statements to be developed / producing outputs by executing the given one of the statements using the generated values as inputs / using the semantics information to generate a symbolic representation of the given one of the statements. These claimed limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements- see below, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional element of using machine learning to analyze/determine data (‘determining semantics information corresponding to the given one of the statements by evaluating the generated values and corresponding outputs using a machine learning model’), which does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, using machine learning to analyze/determine data
does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claims 9, 17 are directed to a CRM and system, respectively, for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1. Claims 9, 17 perform the claimed limitations using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claims 9, 17 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-20 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of independent claims 1/9/17. The claims further recite the abstract concept of a mathematical concept, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP: generating outputs that are linear functions. The claims further recite the additional elements of adding data to a buffer/accessing data from the buffer, using an interpretable decision tree based AI model to evaluate/determine data, examining the software program using an annotated parser. Adding data to a buffer/accessing data from the buffer
does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. Using an interpretable decision tree based AI model to evaluate/determine data does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. Examining the software program using an annotated parser
does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment/field of use. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1-20 recite the limitations “the generated values”, “generated values”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 14, 15, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Bucuvalas (20160170859 ).
As per Claims 1, 9, 17, Bucuvalas discloses a method, CRM and system 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 (the CRM/processor represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. At least: para 6891, 2500)
identifying statements in a software program; (at least: para 43 – path data model set is construed as the statements)
for ones of the identified statements that semantics information is not yet known:
causing values that satisfy path constraints of a given one of the statements to be developed,
producing outputs by executing the given one of the statements using the generated values as inputs, (at least: para 79-81, 24, 2905)
determining semantics information corresponding to the given one of the statements by evaluating the generated values and corresponding outputs using a machine learning model; (at least: para 7285, 7782, 7228, 1492, 1542: “The method of aspect 1326 wherein said step for generating a FIOSM for the procedure further comprises: [1543] a step for generating a parse tree; [1544] a step for generating a code path set based on the parse tree; [1545] a step for generating a path data model set using the code path set; and [1546] a step for generating a finite input/output semantic model (FIOSM) from the path data model set.”)
using the semantics information to generate a symbolic representation of the given one of the statements. (at least: para 1840)
As per Claims 6, 14 Bucuvalas discloses:
The inputs are a type selected from the group consisting of: string, integer, and combinations of string and integer. (at least: 6950, 6865)
As per Claims 7, 15 Bucuvalas discloses:
The outputs are linear functions. (at least: para 7243, 7578, 7591)
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 3, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Bucuvalas (20160170859 ) in further view of Tomkins (20210295822).
As per Claims 3, 11, Bucuvalas teaches the machine learning model, as noted above, and Tomkins teaches:
The machine learning model is an interpretable decision tree based artificial intelligence model. (at least para 187, 325)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Bucuvalas’s existing features, with Tomkins’s feature of an interpretable decision tree based artificial intelligence model, since the tree can be used to determine action data and/or to perform other data operations – Tomkins, para 325 . Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 4, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Bucuvalas (20160170859 ) in further view of Cotichini (20070245320).
As per Claims 4, 12, Bucuvalas teaches the statements/identifying the statements, as noted above, and Cotichini teaches:
examining the software program with an annotated parser. (at least: para 43)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Bucuvalas’s existing features, with Cotichini’s feature of examining the software program with an annotated parser, to allow for data parsing/tagging – Cotichini, abstract and para 34.
Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 5, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Bucuvalas (20160170859 ) in further view of Von der Heyde ( EP3968149A1).
As per Claims 5, 13, Bucuvalas teaches the statements/identifying the statements/statements that semantics information is already known, as noted above, and Von der Heyde teaches:
Using the known semantics information to generate a symbolic representation of the respective identified statements. (at least: abstract, page 3, para 1-7, page 5, bottom 7 paras, page 7, bottom 3 paras)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Bucuvalas’s existing features, with Von der Heyde’s feature of using the known semantics information to generate a symbolic representation of the respective identified statements,
since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claims 8, 16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Bucuvalas (20160170859 ) in further view of Dong (201102468470).
As per Claims 8, 16, 20, Bucuvalas teaches the statements/identifying the statements, as well as:
Generate complete semantics for ones of the statements that are conditional statements (at least: para 7285, 7782, 7228, 1492, 1542: “The method of aspect 1326 wherein said step for generating a FIOSM for the procedure further comprises: [1543] a step for generating a parse tree; [1544] a step for generating a code path set based on the parse tree; [1545] a step for generating a path data model set using the code path set; and [1546] a step for generating a finite input/output semantic model (FIOSM) from the path data model set.”)
Dong further teaches:
Generating partial semantics information for ones of the statements that are data transformation statements (at least: para 16: “Schematron is a rule-based validation language for making assertions about the presence or absence of patterns in XML trees. Thus, the Schematron language may be utilized for representing the semantic constraints to validate XML documents. The semantic constraint registry 48 may be generated by a code generator which comprises a partial Schematron parser (not shown) to generate the semantic constraint registry 50 from semantic data i.e., Schematron files).”)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Bucuvalas’s existing features, with Dong’s feature above, to validate semantic constraints and schemas – Dong, abstract. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Bucuvalas (20160170859 ) in further view of Tomkins (20210295822) in even further view of Cotichini (20070245320).
As per Claim 19, Bucuvalas teaches the machine learning model, as noted above, and Tomkins teaches:
The machine learning model is an interpretable decision tree based artificial intelligence model. (at least para 187, 325)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Bucuvalas’s existing features, with Tomkins’s feature of an interpretable decision tree based artificial intelligence model, since the tree can be used to determine action data and/or to perform other data operations – Tomkins, para 325 . Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Bucuvalas teaches the statements/identifying the statements, as noted above, and Cotichini teaches:
examining the software program with an annotated parser. (at least: para 43)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the
invention to modify Bucuvalas’s existing features, combined with Tomkins’s existing feature, with Cotichini’s feature of examining the software program with an annotated parser, to allow for data parsing/tagging – Cotichini, abstract and para 34. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The prior art of record does not teach neither singly nor in combination the limitations of claims 2, 10, 18. Bucuvalas (20160170859 ) teaches: 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 ; identifying statements in a software program; for ones of the identified statements that semantics information is not yet known: causing values that satisfy path constraints of a given one of the statements to be developed, producing outputs by executing the given one of the statements using the generated values as inputs, determining semantics information corresponding to the given one of the statements by evaluating the generated values and corresponding outputs using a machine learning model; using the semantics information to generate a symbolic representation of the given one of the statements. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of pending claims 2/10/18. When taken as a whole, the claims are not rendered obvious as the available prior art does not suggest or otherwise render obvious the noted features nor does the available prior art suggest or otherwise render obvious further modification of the evidence at hand. Such modifications would require substantial reconstruction relying solely on improper hindsight bias, and thus would not be obvious.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Muthusamy (11089000) teaches retrieving source code of a software application and associating logs and associated semantics with the source code, comprising: retrieving, by a processor of a hardware device, source code of a software application; associating, by said processor, logs and associated semantics with said source code; parsing and analyzing, by said processor executing log builder software, said source code; automatically generating, by said processor, log statements associated with said logs and said associated semantics; identifying, by said processor based on a pattern set of a user, attributes within said source code, wherein said attributes comprise confidential and sensitive information of said user; automatically inserting, by said processor, said log statements into said source code with respect to a specified source code level of said source code, wherein said log statements inserted into said source code are configured to encrypt said attributes; presenting, by said processor to a developer, said source code comprising said log statements; receiving, by said processor from said developer in response to said presenting, a command for modifying said logs; modifying, by said processor in response to said command, said logs resulting in modified logs; and executing, by said processor, said source code comprising said log statements and said modified logs. However, it lacks the combination of claimed elements of pending independent claims 1/9/17.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alexandru Cirnu whose telephone number is (571) 272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM. 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, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
9/24/2026
Prosecution Insights