DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Status of the application
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's Application filed on 10/12/2023. Claims 1-17 are pending for this examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/23/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Examiner Interview
Examiner contacted the attorney Ms. Jessica Li (reg # 78,504) regarding some examiner’s amendment and make the application allowable for the sake of compact prosecution. The attorney contacted her client. However, client did not agree to accept the proposed amendments.
Objection to the abstract
Abstract recites in the last sentence “The generated code may exhibit context patterns, action patterns, user interface patterns and/or other features”. The sentence does not end with a period. Appropriate correction or amendment is required.
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 1-6 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of Application No. 17/232,444.
Below is a comparison of the claims from the examining application and the existing application.
Claim
Lim
Examining Claims (18/286,575)
Claim
Existing application claims (17/232,444)
1
A method for generating code from a model of an application and a data store, comprising:
1
A method for generating code from a model of an application and a data store, wherein the model includes a schema for the data store, comprising:
1
analyzing the model to determine two or more anomalies therein wherein the anomalies are data quality metrics selected from a group consisting of at least relational, normalization, or naming conventions;
analyzing the model to determine two or more anomalies therein, wherein the two or more anomalies are data quality attributes selected from a group consisting of at least one of relational, normalization, or naming conventions;
2
determining a quality metric based on the two more anomalies; and
determining a quality metric based on the two or more anomalies; and
3
generating code from the model only when the quality metric is above a predetermined threshold, wherein the code is selected from scripted code solutions for resolving the anomalies discovered during the analyzing step.
generating code from the model only when the quality metric is above a predetermined threshold, wherein the code is selected from scripted code solutions for resolving the anomalies discovered during the analyzing step.
2
The method of claim I wherein the two or more anomalies are selected from a group consisting of relational, normalization, column normalization, table convention, column convention, incongruence, duplication, pluralization, or imprecise data type description.
2
The method of claim 1 wherein the two or more anomalies are further selected from a group consisting of column normalization, table convention, [[ or]] column convention, incongruence, duplication, pluralization, or imprecise data type description.
3
The method of claim I additionally comprising:determining one or more resolutions that resolve the anomalies in the model; andapplying the one or more resolutions to the model.
3
The method of claim 1 additionally comprising:determining one or more resolutions that resolve the anomalies in the model; andapplying the one or more resolutions to the model.
4
substantially similar to corresponding claim of the existing application
4
substantially similar to corresponding claim of the examining application
5
substantially similar to corresponding claim of the existing application
5
substantially similar to corresponding claim of the examining application
6
substantially similar to corresponding claim of the existing application
6
substantially similar to corresponding claim of the examining application
Claims 7-10 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of Application No. 17/232,487.
Claim
Lim
Examining Claims (18/286,575)
Claim
Existing application claims (17/232,487)
7
A method for generating code from a model of a database, comprising:
1
A method for generating code from a model of a database, comprising:
automated authoring of base application code from the model using artificial intelligence;
generating base application code from the model;
generating an extended application code structure for subsequent placement of extended application code, wherein components of the extended application code may include one or more code extensions, attributes, properties or rules that are specified other than by generating from the model;
generating an extended application code structure for subsequent placement of extended application code, wherein components of the extended application code include one or more code extensions to the base application code, and one or more attributes, properties or rules that are specified other than by generating from the model;
storing the extended application code structure separately from the base application code;
storing the extended application code structure separately from the base application code;
exposing the base application code and extended application code structure for developer review;
exposing the base application code and extended application code structure for developer review, with a warning that the base application code may be regenerated;
accepting developer modifications, if any, to the base application code;
accepting developer modifications to the base application code;
accepting developer modifications, if any, to the components of the extended application code structure;
accepting developer modifications, if any, to the components of the extended application code structure;
accepting developer modifications to the model to provide a revised model; and regenerating code by:
accepting developer modifications to the model to provide a revised model; and regenerating code by:
overwriting any developer modifications to the base application code by regenerating the base application code from the revised model; and
overwriting any developer modifications to the base application code by regenerating the base application code from the revised model; and
otherwise preventing any overwriting of the components of the extended application code structure after such developer modification are made to the components of the extended application code.
otherwise preventing any overwriting of the components of the extended application code structure after such developer modification§. are made to the components of the extended application code.
8
substantially similar to claim 2 of 17/232,487
2
substantially similar to claim 8 of the examining application
9
substantially similar to claim 3 of 17/232,487
3
substantially similar to claim 9 of the examining application
10
substantially similar to claim 4 of 17/232,487
4
substantially similar to claim 10 of the examining application
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.
Claims 1-5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1, limitation 1 recites “analyzing the model to determine two or more anomalies therein wherein the anomalies are data quality metrics…”. It is unclear how anomalies can be data quality metrics. Cambridge dictionary defines metrics as “a set of numbers that give information about a particular process or activity”. It is unclear anomalies can be metrics. Possibly the limitation should be “analyzing the model to determine two or more anomalies therein wherein the anomalies are in data quality metrics…” or “analyzing the model to determine two or more anomalies therein wherein the anomalies are data quality [[metrics]] attributes…”
Claim 1, limitation 2 recites “determining a quality metric based on the two more anomalies;”. Here “the two more anomalies” means these anomalies are different from the anomalies mentioned in the claim, i.e., relational, normalization, or naming conventions. However, “the” refers to the two anomalies which were mentioned before. There is no mention of “two anomalies” in the claim. As such, it is not clear which two anomalies the claim is referring to.
These issues make claim 1 indefinite. Claims 2-5 and 16 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claims 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 11, last limitation, recites, “wherein the base application code structure”. There is not antecedent basis for “base application code structure”. As such, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 13 recites in the preamble “the contextual elements”. There is no antecedent basis for “contextual elements”.
Claim 15, first limitation recites “the code tiers”. There is no antecedent basis for “code tiers”.
Claim 16 recites “the step of generating code” and “the data model”. There is no antecedent basis for these two items.
Claim 17 recites “the step of generating base application code” and “the data model”. There is no antecedent basis for these two items.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim 11.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSSAIN MORSHED whose telephone number is (571)272-3335. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday12:00 PM – 9 PM Eastern Time. The email address for the examiner is hossain.morshed@uspto.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui can be reached on (571)272-3708.
/HOSSAIN M MORSHED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191 August 30, 2025