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 .
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)
Claim 1:
The examiner found claim 1 indefinite because it did not indicate what is being iterated. The amended claim explicitly states "for each analysis equation among a plurality of analysis equations," making clear that the selection and learning steps apply to each analysis equation in turn.
The examiner’s concern stems from a lack of clarity regarding what the “analysis equations” were “processing”. More specifically, there does not appear to be anything recited in the claim which could be described as having a “top” or “bottom” from which to begin “processing for the … analysis equation”. The current amendment does not address this concern. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Claims 2 and 6:
The objection cited the indefinite term "sophistication status." Both claims have been amended to remove that term. …
These changes eliminate the vague relative term and instead simply recite the processing step as supported by the specification. The specification explicitly teaches performing top-down or bottom-up processing on a given equation, so the claims remain supported and are now definite.
The amendment overcomes the previous aspect of the rejection based on the “sophistication status”. However, claims 2 and 6 were additionally rejected based on a lack of clarity regarding the claimed “clause”. For example, the claim does not appear to recite anything from which this “clause” is “selected”. Further the term “clause” implies a portion of a larger thing. The claims do not provide any indication what this larger thing is or how the smaller portion is selected. Accordingly, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b).
Claim 8:
See the discussion of claim 1 above.
Claims 9-11, 13-15:
Claim 9 recites selecting a “clause” and is unclear for the reasons discussed above regarding claim 2. The amendment to claim 10 introduces new clarity issues (discussed below). The amendment to claim 13 is acceptable. Claim 14 recites a “clause” and is thus unclear for the reasons discussed above. The amendment to claim 15 corrects the previous issue.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
Step 1:
Claim 1 recites a machine (a "program analysis device" with specific components), which is a statutory category under 35 U.S.C. §101. Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and likewise recite machines or components thereof. Claim 15 recites a method and was amended to depend on method claim 8.
The claim does not, in fact, recite a machine “with specific components” (e.g. processor and memory). Instead the claim is understood to include implementations in software (see e.g. applicant’s specification, par. bridging pp. 3-4). Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
However, the claimed inventions are specifically tailored to improve computer technology. The invention is a specialized program analysis system that intelligently chooses between top-down and bottom-up analysis for static program analysis and thereby generates "analysis equations" for program verification and repair.
The claims are, at least in part, directed to “selecting” between a “top-down” and “bottom” up processing to be performed. Such a selection appears to recite no more than providing a “judgement” or “opinion” (presumably based on some unclaimed observation and/or analysis) and thus is reasonably considered an abstract mental process (see e.g. MPEP §2106.04(a) “3) Mental processes --- … observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)”).
Whether or not this abstract mental process is integrated into practical application or provides an improvement to a technology is discussed below.
Step2A, Prong 2:
The claims recite multiple concrete elements that integrate the algorithmic steps into a practical computing environment. Claim 1 (and similarly claim 8) explicitly recites a selection unit and first and second learning units. These are not generic functions; they correspond to concrete modules in a computer system for performing the analysis.
The specification emphasizes that these units can be implemented in hardware or software. The selection unit "may repeatedly select the top-down processing (4J_top) or bottom-up processing (4J_bot)" based on the status of analysis, which is a tangible operation controlling program execution. Each step of the method claims involves data structures (analysis equations, logical clauses, feature sets) and algorithmic functions (GEN2SPEC, SPEC2GEN routines) that are performed by a processor.
As acknowledged by the applicant, the recited “selection” and “learning” units are disclosed as hardware or software for performing the recited functionality but are only claimed and disclosed at a high level of generality and recite no more than basic computer functionality (i.e. the execution of software). The selection unit performs the abstract mental process of selecting top-down or bottom-up processing, and thus amounts to no more than instruction to implement the abstract mental process using a computer. The learning units merely apply the selection of the processing type at a similarly high level of generality and thus amount to no more than using a computer to perform extra solution activity (see e.g. MPEP §2106.05(f), 2106.05(g)).
Furthermore, the claims achieve a technological improvement: they allow a computer to analyze programs more efficiently by automatically generating and applying analysis equations with an intelligent strategy. The specification explains that this yields "fast and accurate analysis" and saves computational cost and time. This is a real-world technical effect.
This does not appear to describe a particular solution or way to achieve the desired outcome of selecting a processing direction. Instead, the claim appears to describe only the outcome of the abstract solution (i.e. selecting between processing directions). Accordingly, this appears to only tie the abstract mental process to a technological field of program analysis by invoking the “learning units” merely as a tool (see e.g. MPEP §2106.05(a)).
Step 2B:
See the discussion above.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 recites: “select[ing]” and “perform[ing]” “top-down” and/or “bottom-up” processing for “each analysis equation”, but does not indicate what is being processed. More specifically, no structure has been identified which would have a “top” or “bottom” from which to direct processing. Accordingly, the claim language does not particularly or distinctly describe the claim’s scope.
For the purposes of this examination the claim will be treated as directed to iterating over components of an application or program presumably represented in some form of a tree structure (see e.g. pg. 1, par. 1, pg. 9, 2nd par.).
Claim 2 recites “select and acquire at least one clause and generalize the at least one clause”. Here, particularly because the claim(s) do not indicate what is being analyzed, it is not clear what constitutes a “clause” or how one is “generalized”.
Claim 6 recites language similar to that of claim 2 and is thus similarly rejected.
Claim 8 recites language similar to that of claim 1 and is rejected similarly.
Claim 9 recites language similar to that of claim 2 and is thus similarly rejected.
Claim 10 recites “acquiring a more generalized analysis equation for the at least one generalized analysis equation”. This language does not indicate when the “more generalized analysis equation” is generated, from what the “more generalized analysis equation” is generated, how the “more generalized analysis equation” is generated, what is done with the generated “more generalized analysis equation” and/or what makes the equation “more generalized”.
Claim 14 recites language similar to that of claim 2 and is thus similarly rejected.
All dependent claims inherit the objection of their respective parent claims.
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 1-7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because, e.g., the terms “selection unit” and “learning unit” are understood to describe software alone. Accordingly, the claim recites software per se. (see e.g. applicants pg. 3, last partial par.).
Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract mental process without significantly more1.
Claim 8 recites:
8. A program analysis method comprising:
selecting one of top-down processing and bottom-up processing for each analysis equation among a plurality of analysis equations; and
in response to selecting the bottom-up processing, performing bottom-up processing for the at least one analysis equation on the basis of a second learning algorithm and acquiring at least one second learned analysis equation.
The claim recites abstract mental processes capable of being performed in the human mind (i.e. selecting a processing direction and performing analysis according to the selection).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite any additional elements.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not recite any additional elements.
Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract mental process.
Claims 9-14 further describe the analysis (at best reciting a mathematical equation) and introduce no additional elements. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 6,029,002 to Afifi discloses selecting a traversal direction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)272-3728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 7:00am - 4:30pm and alternate Fridays 7:00am 3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lewis Bullock can be reached at (571)272-3759. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON D MITCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
1 If claims 1-7 and 15 were amended to recite one of the four statutory categories, they would likely be rejected as directed to an abstract mental process as with claims 8-14.