DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to claims 1 - 20 filed in this application Rappo et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 18/301,814, (Filed April 17, 2023).
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 5/16/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. The references listed therein have been considered and placed in the application file.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to for the following informality: “comprising;” should read “comprising:”. Appropriate correction 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.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a “Mental Processes” abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites identifying a repeated segment of text in the first set of documentation and the second set of documentation; replacing the repeated segment of text in the second set of documentation with a first token that references the repeated segment of text in the first set of documentation, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed in the mind or by pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting generic computer components as well as pre and post-solution data transmission and displaying, nothing in the claim elements precludes the identifying and replacing, from being performed by a user. See MPEP 2106.05(g). As drafted, the claimed process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components and routine pre solution data transmission, which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recite additional elements of generic computing components, pre and post-solution data transmission and displaying. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the 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 identified additional elements that use generic computer components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claims 2 – 20 contains the same abstract idea as claim 1 and do not contain any additional limitations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 – 13 and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al., United States Patent No. 6,163,780 (Patented December 19, 2000, filed April 1, 1998) (“Ross”) in view of Graber, Applicant Provided Art in IDS 5/16/2023 NPL Ref #2 (2021) (“Graber”) and Coutinho et al., PCT publication WO2022/093172A1 (Published May 5, 2022, filed October 26, 2020) (“Coutinho”).
Claims 1, 19, and 20
With respect to claims 1, 19, and 20, Ross teaches the invention as claimed one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations comprising:
obtaining (a) a first set of [documentation] associated with a first element of source code and (b) a second set of [documentation]associated with a second element of source code …replacing the repeated segment of text in the second set of [documentation]with a first token that references the repeated segment of text in the first set of [documentation]; {To reduce program file size the elements of program files such as classes, methods, fields, constants, are automatically analyzed by a code condensing program to identify where such elements have duplicates where for each element in the file which has a duplicate the element is removed and an index (link) to a copy of the element is placed in the file and when the program is to be used each index is utilized to retrieve a string for each element pointed to by each index. Ross at Abstract; id. at col. 12 ll. 17 – 37; id. at col. 14 ll. 18 – 29; id. at col. 15 ln. 25 – col. 16 ln. 29.}
However, Ross doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
documentation…[source code element] that inherits functionality from the first element of source code;… documentation…such that when presenting the second set of documentation, the first token is replaced with the repeated segment of text. {Graber does teach this limitation. Graber teaches that condensing computer program code elements, as taught in Ross, may include where the duplicate elements to be condensed are comments found in classes that inherit from parent classes and where an inheritdoc token may be added to the child classes to replace duplicate comments and where when the child classes with the inheritdoc token are used in an IDE the parent documentation pointed to by the inheritdoc token are retrieved and displayed at the point of the token in the child classes, including where when the parent documentation is updated the updated documentation is displayed at the token location in the child classes. Graber at pgs. 1 – 3.
Ross and Graber are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software development, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to condense a program file.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine automatically condensing similar computer program code elements, as taught in Ross with where the similar elements are documentation, as taught in Graber. Graber teaches that using inheritdoc allows for writing less documentation and automatic updates when versions change. Id. at pg. 3. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine automatically condensing similar computer program code elements, as taught in Ross with where the similar elements are documentation, as taught in Graber, for the purpose of using a known code element condenser that reduces program file sizes with a documentation code element to reduce program file sizes.}
However, Ross and Graber doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
identifying a repeated segment of text in the first set of [documentation]and the second set of [documentation]; {Coutinho does teach this limitation. Coutinho teaches that condensing computer program code elements, as taught in Ross and Graber, may include where a similarity analyzer is used to identify similar code sections that are repeated files of a program, deem them duplicates when the similarity is beyond a threshold, delete the duplicates, and insert a pointer (link) at the duplicate’s locations in the code to point to a copy of the deleted duplicate section where the copy is then later imported back into the program files when the pointer is followed. Coutinho at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0022 – 0026; id. at ¶¶ 0036 – 0039; id. at ¶¶ 0044 - 0049.
Ross, Graber, and Coutinho are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software development, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to condense a program file.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine automatically condensing similar computer program code elements, as taught in Ross and Graber with where the similar elements are repeated duplicates, as taught in Coutinho. Coutinho teaches that removing repeated code reduces code duplication in a repository. Id. at ¶ 0026. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine automatically condensing similar computer program code elements, as taught in Ross and Graber with where the similar elements are repeated duplicates, as taught in Coutinho, for the purpose of using a known code element condenser that reduces program file sizes with a method requiring removing repeated code elements to reduce program file size.}
Claim 2
With respect to claim 2, Ross, Graber, and Coutinho teaches the invention as claimed including:
storing, in the first set of documentation, a revised version of the repeated segment of text, such that when presenting the second set of documentation, the first token is replaced with the revised version of the repeated segment of text. {When the parent documentation is updated the updated documentation is displayed at the token location in the child classes. Graber at pgs. 1 – 3.}
Claim 3
With respect to claim 3, Ross, Graber, and Coutinho teaches the invention as claimed including:
presenting the second set of documentation, at least by replacing the first token with the repeated segment of text. {Duplicate elements to be condensed are comments found in classes that inherit from parent classes and where an inheritdoc token may be added to the child classes to replace duplicate comments and where when the child classes with the inheritdoc token are used in an IDE the parent documentation pointed to by the inheritdoc token are retrieved and displayed at the point of the token in the child classes, including where when the parent documentation is updated the updated documentation is displayed at the token location in the child classes. Graber at pgs. 1 – 3.}
Claim 4
With respect to claim 4, Ross, Graber, and Coutinho teaches the invention as claimed including:
replacing, in the second set of documentation, a second token that references a context-specific value with the context-specific value. {Duplicate elements to be condensed are comments found in classes that inherit from parent classes and where an inheritdoc token may be added to the child classes to replace duplicate comments and where when the child classes with the inheritdoc token are used in an IDE the parent documentation pointed to by the inheritdoc token are retrieved and displayed at the point of the token in the child classes, including where when the parent documentation is updated the updated documentation is displayed at the token location in the child classes. Graber at pgs. 1 – 3.}
Claim 5
With respect to claim 5, Ross, Graber, and Coutinho teaches the invention as claimed including:
wherein the context-specific value is one of (a) a name of a module described by the second set of documentation, (b) a name of a package described by the second set of documentation, (c) a name of a class described by the second set of documentation, (d) a name of an interface described by the second set of documentation, (e) a name of a constructor described by the second set of documentation, (f) a name of a method described by the second set of documentation, or (g) a name of a field described by the second set of documentation. {To reduce program file size the elements of program files such as classes, methods, fields, constants, are automatically analyzed by a code condensing program to identify where such elements have duplicates where for each element in the file which has a duplicate the element is removed and an index (link) to a copy of the element is placed in the file and when the program is to be used each index is utilized to retrieve a string for each element pointed to by each index. Ross at Abstract; id. at col. 12 ll. 17 – 37; id. at col. 14 ll. 18 – 29; id. at col. 15 ln. 25 – col. 16 ln. 29.}
Claim 6
With respect to claim 6, Ross, Graber, and Coutinho teaches the invention as claimed including:
wherein identifying the repeated segment of text in the first set of [documentation] and the second set of [documentation] comprises: generating a similarity score for the first set of [documentation] and the second set of [documentation]. {The similarity analyzer is used to identify similar code sections that are repeated files of a program, deem them duplicates when the similarity is beyond a threshold, delete the duplicates, and insert a pointer (link) at the duplicate’s locations in the code to point to a copy of the deleted duplicate section where the copy is then later imported back into the program files when the pointer is followed. Coutinho at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0022 – 0026; id. at ¶¶ 0036 – 0039; id. at ¶¶ 0044 - 0049.}
Documentation {Duplicate elements to be condensed are comments found in classes that inherit from parent classes and where an inheritdoc token may be added to the child classes to replace duplicate comments and where when the child classes with the inheritdoc token are used in an IDE the parent documentation pointed to by the inheritdoc token are retrieved and displayed at the point of the token in the child classes, including where when the parent documentation is updated the updated documentation is displayed at the token location in the child classes. Graber at pgs. 1 – 3.}
Claim 7
With respect to claim 7, Ross, Graber, and Coutinho teaches the invention as claimed including:
determining that the similarity score satisfies a threshold criterion; wherein responsive to determining that the similarity score satisfies the threshold criterion,… [replacing] is performed without human intervention. {The similarity analyzer is used to identify similar code sections that are repeated files of a program, deem them duplicates when the similarity is beyond a threshold, delete the duplicates, and insert a pointer (link) at the duplicate’s locations in the code to point to a copy of the deleted duplicate section where the copy is then later imported back into the program files when the pointer is followed. Coutinho at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0022 – 0026; id. at ¶¶ 0036 – 0039; id. at ¶¶ 0044 - 0049.}
replacing the repeated segment of text in the second set of documentation with the first token {Duplicate elements to be condensed are comments found in classes that inherit from parent classes and where an inheritdoc token may be added to the child classes to replace duplicate comments and where when the child classes with the inheritdoc token are used in an IDE the parent documentation pointed to by the inheritdoc token are retrieved and displayed at the point of the token in the child classes, including where when the parent documentation is updated the updated documentation is displayed at the token location in the child classes. Graber at pgs. 1 – 3.}
Claim 8
With respect to claim 8, Ross, Graber, and Coutinho teaches the invention as claimed including:
determining that the similarity score does not satisfy a threshold criterion; wherein responsive to determining that the similarity score does not satisfy the threshold criterion, replacing the repeated segment of text in the second set of documentation with the first token is performed contingent on user approval. {Duplicate elements to be condensed are comments found in classes that inherit from parent classes and where an inheritdoc token may be added to the child classes, potentially at the discretion of a user, to replace duplicate comments and where when the child classes with the inheritdoc token are used in an IDE the parent documentation pointed to by the inheritdoc token are retrieved and displayed at the point of the token in the child classes, including where when the parent documentation is updated the updated documentation is displayed at the token location in the child classes. Graber at pgs. 1 – 3.}
Claim 9
With respect to claim 9, Ross, Graber, and Coutinho teaches the invention as claimed including:
wherein generating the similarity score comprises computing a string similarity metric that measures a distance between respective segments of the first set of documentation and the second set of documentation. {The similarity analyzer is used to identify similar code sections that are repeated files of a program, deem them duplicates when the similarity is beyond a threshold, delete the duplicates, and insert a pointer (link) at the duplicate’s locations in the code to point to a copy of the deleted duplicate section where the copy is then later imported back into the program files when the pointer is followed. Coutinho at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0022 – 0026; id. at ¶¶ 0036 – 0039; id. at ¶¶ 0044 - 0049.}
Claim 10
With respect to claim 10, Ross, Graber, and Coutinho teaches the invention as claimed including:
obtaining (a) a third set of documentation associated with a third element of source code and (b) a fourth set of documentation associated with a fourth element of source code that inherits functionality from the third element of source code; determining that the fourth set of documentation is dissimilar from the third set of documentation; responsive to determining that the fourth set of documentation is dissimilar from the third set of documentation: generating a recommendation to incorporate at least part of the third set of documentation into the fourth set of documentation. {Duplicate elements to be condensed are comments found in classes that inherit from parent classes and where an inheritdoc token may be added to the child classes, potentially at the discretion of a user, to replace duplicate comments and where when the child classes with the inheritdoc token are used in an IDE the parent documentation pointed to by the inheritdoc token are retrieved and displayed at the point of the token in the child classes, including where when the parent documentation is updated the updated documentation is displayed at the token location in the child classes. Graber at pgs. 1 – 3.}
Claim 11
With respect to claim 11, Ross, Graber, and Coutinho teaches the invention as claimed including:
detecting, in the repeated segment of text, a context-specific value that differs between the first set of documentation and the second set of documentation; replacing, in the repeated segment of text, the context-specific value with a second token that references the context-specific value. {Duplicate elements to be condensed are comments found in classes that inherit from parent classes and where an inheritdoc token may be added to the child classes, potentially at the discretion of a user, to replace duplicate comments and where when the child classes with the inheritdoc token are used in an IDE the parent documentation pointed to by the inheritdoc token are retrieved and displayed at the point of the token in the child classes, including where when the parent documentation is updated the updated documentation is displayed at the token location in the child classes. Graber at pgs. 1 – 3.}
Claim 12
With respect to claim 12, Ross, Graber, and Coutinho teaches the invention as claimed including:
wherein the context-specific value is one of (a) a name of a module described by the second set of documentation, (b) a name of a package described by the second set of documentation, (c) a name of a class described by the second set of documentation, (d) a name of an interface described by the second set of documentation, (e) a name of a constructor described by the second set of documentation, (f) a name of a method described by the second set of documentation, or (g) a name of a field described by the second set of documentation. {To reduce program file size the elements of program files such as classes, methods, fields, constants, are automatically analyzed by a code condensing program to identify where such elements have duplicates where for each element in the file which has a duplicate the element is removed and an index (link) to a copy of the element is placed in the file and when the program is to be used each index is utilized to retrieve a string for each element pointed to by each index. Ross at Abstract; id. at col. 12 ll. 17 – 37; id. at col. 14 ll. 18 – 29; id. at col. 15 ln. 25 – col. 16 ln. 29.}
Claim 13
With respect to claim 13, Ross, Graber, and Coutinho teaches the invention as claimed including:
obtaining a third set of documentation associated with a third element of source code that inherits functionality from the first element of source code; determining that the third set of documentation lacks the repeated segment of text; responsive to determining that the third set of documentation lacks the repeated segment of text: generating a warning that the third set of documentation may be inaccurate. {The similarity analyzer is used to identify similar code sections that are repeated files of a program and notifications to the user of such detected code sections may be presented to the user. Coutinho at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0023 – 0025, 0033, 0034, & 0042.}
Claim 17
With respect to claim 17, Ross, Graber, and Coutinho teaches the invention as claimed including:
wherein the first element of source code is in a first class and the second element of source code is in a second class that is a subclass of the first class. {Duplicate elements to be condensed are comments found in classes that inherit from parent classes and where an inheritdoc token may be added to the child classes, potentially at the discretion of a user, to replace duplicate comments and where when the child classes with the inheritdoc token are used in an IDE the parent documentation pointed to by the inheritdoc token are retrieved and displayed at the point of the token in the child classes, including where when the parent documentation is updated the updated documentation is displayed at the token location in the child classes. Graber at pgs. 1 – 3.}
Claim 18
With respect to claim 18, Ross, Graber, and Coutinho teaches the invention as claimed including:
wherein the first element of source code is in an interface and the second element of source code is in a class that implements the interface. {Duplicate elements to be condensed are comments found in classes that inherit from parent classes and where an inheritdoc token may be added to the child classes, potentially at the discretion of a user, to replace duplicate comments and where when the child classes with the inheritdoc token are used in an IDE the parent documentation pointed to by the inheritdoc token are retrieved and displayed at the point of the token in the child classes, including where when the parent documentation is updated the updated documentation is displayed at the token location in the child classes. Graber at pgs. 1 – 3.}
Claim 14 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross, Graber, Coutinho, and Balasubramanian et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0261241 (Published August 18, 2022, filed January 31, 2022) (“Balasubramanian”).
Claim 14
With respect to claim 14, Ross, Graber, and Coutinho teaches the invention as claimed including:
However, Ross, Graber, and Coutinho doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
wherein identifying the repeated segment of text in the first set of documentation and the second set of documentation comprises applying a machine learning model to the first set of documentation and the second set of documentation. {Balasubramanian does teach this limitation. Coutinho teaches condensing using supervised machine learning to identify similarities for program code documentation. Balasubramanian at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0063 – 0069, 0072 - 0074.
Ross, Graber, Coutinho, and Balasubramanian are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software development, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to refactor a program file.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine automatically condensing similar computer program code documentation, as taught in Ross, Graber, and Coutinho with using machine learning to identify the similarities as taught in Balasubramanian. Coutinho teaches that removing repeated code reduces code duplication in a repository. Id. at ¶ 0026. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine automatically condensing similar computer program code documentation, as taught in Ross, Graber, and Coutinho with using machine learning to identify the similarities as taught in Balasubramanian, for the purpose of using a known tool for identifying similarities with a method requiring identifying documentation similarities.}
Claim 15
With respect to claim 15, Ross, Graber, and Coutinho teaches the invention as claimed including:
However, Ross, Graber, and Coutinho doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
training the machine learning model to detect similarities in source code documentation. {Balasubramanian does teach this limitation. Coutinho teaches condensing using supervised machine learning to identify similarities for program code documentation. Balasubramanian at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0063 – 0069, 0072 - 0074.
Ross, Graber, Coutinho, and Balasubramanian are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software development, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to refactor a program file.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine automatically condensing similar computer program code documentation, as taught in Ross, Graber, and Coutinho with using machine learning to identify the similarities as taught in Balasubramanian. Coutinho teaches that removing repeated code reduces code duplication in a repository. Id. at ¶ 0026. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine automatically condensing similar computer program code documentation, as taught in Ross, Graber, and Coutinho with using machine learning to identify the similarities as taught in Balasubramanian, for the purpose of using a known tool for identifying similarities with a method requiring identifying documentation similarities.}
Claim 16
With respect to claim 16, Ross, Graber, and Coutinho teaches the invention as claimed including:
However, Ross, Graber, and Coutinho doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
obtaining user input that approves or disapproves replacing the repeated segment of text in the second set of documentation with the first token; updating the machine learning model based at least on the user input. {Balasubramanian does teach this limitation. Coutinho teaches condensing using supervised machine learning to identify similarities for program code documentation. Balasubramanian at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0063 – 0069, 0072 - 0074.
Ross, Graber, Coutinho, and Balasubramanian are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software development, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to refactor a program file.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine automatically condensing similar computer program code documentation, as taught in Ross, Graber, and Coutinho with using machine learning to identify the similarities as taught in Balasubramanian. Coutinho teaches that removing repeated code reduces code duplication in a repository. Id. at ¶ 0026. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine automatically condensing similar computer program code documentation, as taught in Ross, Graber, and Coutinho with using machine learning to identify the similarities as taught in Balasubramanian, for the purpose of using a known tool for identifying similarities with a method requiring identifying documentation similarities.}
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE E HEBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1409. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m..
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 on 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.
//T.H./ September 5, 2026
Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights