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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Fig. 5A-B L21 and L31;
Fig. 10, K1 and K2.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Figure 10 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Specifically the claim set numbering follows a first claim 13 with a second claim 12 duplicating claims 12 and 13.
Misnumbered claims 12 (2nd)-16 been renumbered 14-18.
Claim 1-6, 13 and 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “configured to analyze each of the source codes and classifies the source codes”. It is believed this should read “configured to analyze each of the source codes and classify the source codes”.
Claim 6 recites “drilling down the selected and input patterns”. It is believed this should read “drilling down the selected pattern”.
Claims 13 and 18 (previously 16) recite language similar to that of claim 6 and are similarly objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6, 13 and 18 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 6 recites the limitation " the patterns displayed on the display unit ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. More specifically, parent claim 1 recites displaying an alignment between source codes. Presumably the selected pattern is initially shown on a separate display or indicated in some, unclaimed, way on the claimed display.
Claims 13 and 18 (previously 16) recite language similar to that of claim 6 and are thus rejected similarly.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 4 recites:
… classify each of the source code patterns of a preceding processing part, a parameter repacking part, and an API execution part and replace the patter of the parameter packing part with a symbol.
Here the terms “preceding processing part”, “parameter repacking part” and “API extraction part” do not appear to be specific terms of art. Accordingly the claim is understood in light of the specification, particularly paragraphs [0024]-[0026] reproduced below for emphasis.
[0024]
… The preceding processing parts L1 and L11 perform setting of time-outs and checking of existing resources.
[0025]
The parameter repacking parts L2 and L12 take out parameters from orders for a northbound IF and repack or convert them into structures for southbound API execution.
[0026]
The API execution parts L3 and Ll3 execute APIs by using the parameters created by the parameter repacking parts L2 and L12.
This is the understanding that will be used in this examination.
Claims 11 and 14 recite similar language and are thus understood similarly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-10, 13-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2011/0246968 to Zhang et al. (Zhang).
Claims 1 and 7-8: Zhang discloses a pattern extraction visualization device for extracting and visualizing patterns included in a plurality of source codes, comprising:
a syntax analysis unit, including one or more processors, configured to analyze each of the source codes and classifies the source codes into a plurality of patterns (par. [0040] “finds and identifies … code snippets in functions that are identical … near clones as well”);
a preprocessing unit, including one or more processors, configured to abstract each of the patterns classified by the syntax analysis unit (par. [0037] “generates a token map for the normalized, parsed statements … identifiers and constants are mapped to the same token”);
an alignment derivation unit, including one or more processors, configured to derive an alignment between the source codes for each of the abstracted patterns included in each of the source codes (par. [0097] “identifies statements … that are exactly matched, similarly matched, unmatched …, disordered … and/or extra or missing”);
a visualization unit, including one or more processors, configured to generate an image indicating the alignment in a predetermined format (par. [0047] “leverages clone visualizer 114 to show the clone difference”, par. [0079] “GUI 600 that he clone visualizer 114 may generate”, Figs. 4 and 6); and
a display unit, including one or more processors, configured to display the image indicating the alignment (par. [0101] “cause to be presented the ranked clone code snippets on a computer monitor or display”).
Claims 2, 9 and 14 (previously 12): Zhang discloses the pattern extraction visualization device according to claims 1 and 8, wherein the predetermined format is at least one of a diff format and a graph format (see e.g. Fig. 4).
Claims 3, 10 and 15 (previously 13): Zhang discloses the pattern extraction visualization device according to claim 1, 7 wherein the preprocessing unit is configured to perform lexical analysis on the patterns and mask at least one of a variable name and an identifier included in the patterns (par. [0037] “the identifies and constates are mapped to the same token”).
Claims 6, 13 and 18 (previously 16): Zhang discloses the pattern extraction visualization device according to claim 1, 7, 8 wherein when a selection input is performed on the patterns displayed on the display unit, the visualization unit is configured to generate an image obtained by drilling down the selected and input patterns and display the image on the display unit (par. [0048] “indicates her interest … by selection of code, click of a button, selection of a particular interface”, par. [0049] “it becomes the subject code snippet 220 and clone detection functionality of the clone detection core 140 is initiated”, par. [0079] “GUI 600 that he clone visualizer 114 may generate”, Figs. 4 and 6).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 11-12 and 16-17 (previously 14-15) are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2016/0055196 to Collins et al. discloses alternate methods of aligning a difference display.
US 2016/0266896 to Fan et al. discloses alternate methods of drilling down on an aligned difference display.
US 11,809,841 to Zhang et al., US 2022/0137959 to Neves et al. and US 2021/0182703 to Velammal et al. disclose alternate methods of detecting patterns; and
US 2021/0027136 to Hwang et al. discloses identifying patterns with reference to a data dependent diagram.
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