DETAILED ACTION
Claims 21-40 are pending in the current application.
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
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose (Argument 1; Remarks pg. 10 lines 25-29) applying differential library data identified according to the specified release version and compiling according to the specified release version, and (Argument 2; Remarks pg. 31-34) wherein the compiled code comprises one or more accesses to interfaces of the release version of the library
With respect to applicant’s arguments examiner respectfully disagrees. As to argument 1, while the term release version was not used in the cited references in the last Non-Final rejection, it is viewed that the specified release version is the target release version of the programming platform that the compiled code is released to, and the rejection did map how the specifics of the targeted platform/environment are viewed as comparable to the specific release version and as seen in the teachings of Elliot Col. 6 lines 12-15 and Col. 11 lines 3-9 disclose the code compiled to a specific targeted language specific version/specific program language version which is viewed as the specified release version of a programming language supported by the compiler and the teachings of Trofin [0014] lines 1-17, [0018] lines 1-6, [0021] lines 1-23, [0022] lines 1-19 and [0024] lines 1-14 shows the code compiled to a single universally portable executable where the source code is compiled into platform/version agnostic portion and platform/version specific portion, and that when the software is executed on the device it deployed on the agnostic and appropriate platform/version specific portion are bound together, for the single/individual execution, for that specific environment and thus viewed together that the specific portion is viewed as the target/release compiled language version of the specific version/platform/environment/device that the source code is compiled as the claim language does not indicate how the targeted/specified release version is used to specify/target or identify just that the compiled code is generated targeted to/according to a specified release version thus the compiler being able to generate a plurality of platform/version specific portions for target/specific platform versions for the compiled source code each targeted to a specific release platform/version can be viewed as compiling source code to generate compiled code according to/targeted to a specified release version/platform. It is also noted here that the claim language does not include any other details into how source code is compiled other than “according to the specified release version” thus no specifics of how release library data is used other than being targeted to and the claim language also does not limit the code to be compiled into only the single/one targeted specific release version thus the compiling to source code to compiled code that is compatible with/targeted to a plurality of target/release version/platforms by multi-compiling platform/version specific portions of code to specific/targeted compiled platform/version portions as seen in the teachings of Trofin would meet the current claimed limitation of generating/compiled source code to compiled code targeted/according to specific/targeted output/release version/platform limitations as currently claimed. Where the teachings Trofin [0014] lines 1-17, [0018] lines 1-6, [0021] lines 1-23, [0022] lines 1-19 and [0024] lines 1-14 show that the generated binary, viewed as library, including plurality of potions including code and non-code portions where the portions can include a platform/version agnostic portion of the code, viewed as the baseline and portion that are version/platform specific code portions, viewed as type of differential data, where based on the targeted device/platform/version for code execution the appropriate platform/version specific binary is applied/bound to the platform/version agnostic portion thus viewed that the differential library data is identified/determined based on the specific targeted version/platform as claimed as the claim language does not specify how s specified release version is used in applying the differential data other than the differential data being identified according to the specified release version thus Trofin use of platform/version specific/target output/release portion that are bound/applied to baseline/platform/version agnostic portion based on the targeted version/platform/device the code is executed on is viewed as meeting this claim limitation. Thus together showing applying differential library data identified according to the specified release version and compiling according to the specified release version.
As to argument 2, Greifender [0125] lines 1-8 is used to disclose the specifics of script libraries being able to handle different version specific programming interfaces and being able to provide those independent interface thus having library script/code data elements that include/provide interfaces where the claim language does not specify what is meant by the compiled code comprises one or more accesses to interfaces of the release version of the library thus viewed that compiled code incorporating/using associated library data to produce/generate the final compiled code can be viewed as access to the data including the specific library thus in light of the teachings of Trofin[0014] lines 1-17, [0018] lines 1-6, [0021] lines 1-23, [0022] lines 1-19 and [0024] lines 1-14 showing the binary/reference library that is based on the compiled source code, thus a type of script reference library where the compiling of the source code also include generation of an abstraction layer, viewed as type of interface, for each type of platform/version based on platform/version specific code encountered where the single compiled binary with multiple supported platform/version when it is deployed and executed on the associated target/specified platform/version will bind the platform/version agnostic version of the compiled code to the platform/version specific version thus generating the final compiled code that is targeted to/uses/incorporates the release version of the library, viewed as the bound platform/version agnostic portion and platform/version specific portion and as seen in Greifender the library data can provide/include interface thus incorporating the library data into the compiled code is viewed as allowing the compiled code accesses/includes the interfaces in the library data and thus viewed as together showing wherein the compiled code comprises one or more accesses to interfaces of the release version of the library.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 21, 28 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trofin et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0339928 A1), in view of Greifeneder et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0185643 A1), and further in view of Elliott et al. (Patent No. US 8,930,909 B1).
As to claims 21 and 28 Trofin discloses a method, comprising: generating, by one or more processors implementing a compiler, compiled code targeting a specified release version, wherein the specified release version is a version of a plurality of versions of the programming language supported by the compiler, and wherein the generating comprises (Trofin [0018] lines 1-6, [0021] lines 1-23, [0022] lines 1-19 and [0024] lines 1-14; which shows a compiler element that implemented by a processor/computer element, that is able to generate compiled code from source code where the compiled code can be specific/targeted to specific platforms/versions of a plurality of platforms and versions supported by the compiler, where the version/platform specific portions are designated a resources, viewed as including type of program language resources associated with specific platform/version information ):
applying differential library data, identified according to the specified release version, of a library data repository to baseline library data of the library data repository to generate a release version of a library, the release version different from a baseline version of the library corresponding to the baseline library data of the library data repository (Trofin [0014] lines 1-17, [0018] lines 1-6, [0021] lines 1-23, [0022] lines 1-19 and [0024] lines 1-14; which shows the ability to append/applying together into a single binary/library the platform agnostic source code, viewed as a type of baseline library data and the platform specific portions, viewed as the differential data for a specific/target platform/version, where the platform specific portion to be applied is determined/identified based on the specific platform/version that is appropriate for the device it is deployed on, viewed as a type of identified according to the specified release version/platform );
compiling source code into the compiled code targeted to the release version of the library, wherein the source code, compiled code and the release version of the library are different from each other (Trofin [0018] lines 1-6, [0021] lines 1-23, [0022] lines 1-19 and [0024] lines 1-14; which shows the source code for the platform agnostic/baseline and the platform specific/differential can be compiled together into a single compiled code for the specific platform/version of the library, where additional details from the source code, such as platform abstraction layer generated as part of the compile chain of code, but separate from the bound together platform agnostic and specific binary/library which is viewed as the release version of the library, and where the abstraction layer is associated with the platform specific binary and implemented at run time thus viewed as part of compiled code and thus showing that the source code, the release version of the library and the compiled code are different from each other),
outputting the compiled code targeted to the specified release version (Trofin [0024] lines 4-21; which shows the outputting/deploying of the single compiled code version targeted with specific platform/version data viewed as outputting the compiled coded targeted to the specified release version ).
Trofin does not specifically disclose the compiled code comprises one or more accesses to interfaces of the release version of the library.
However, Greifeneder discloses the compiled code comprises one or more accesses to interfaces of the release version of the library (Greifeneder [0125] lines 1-8; which shows how the specific library information can provided/handle different version specific programming interfaces thus in light of Trofin disclosed above compiled code for specific version/platform information can be viewed as including access to interfaces of the specified/target version of the library).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Greifeneder showing the specifics of the access of interfaces into the target version of code of Trofin for the purpose of showing additional actions that can be taken by compiled code, where the code can further handle version specific programming interfaces, as taught by Greifeneder [0125] lines 1-8.
Trofin as modified by Greifeneder do not specifically disclose the specifics of the compiled code targeting a specified release version of a programming language and compiling, according to the specified release version.
However, Elliott discloses the specifics of the compiled code targeting a specified release version of a programming language and compiling, according to the specified release version (Elliott Col. 6 lines 12-15 and Col. 11 lines 3-29; which shows the specifics of a compiler being used to target a specific/targeted programming language, viewed as a type of specific version information for the compiler, where the compiler is able to output/compile according to its associated target program language/specified release version).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Elliott showing the specifics of compiling to a target/specified programming language into the compiler being able to multicompiler to target a plurality of different versions and platforms of Trofin as modified by Greifeneder for the purpose of increasing ease of use of code by being able to compile code to specific/targeted supported language thus having code is a desired language for use as Elliott Col. 5 line 65- Col. 6 line 11.
As to claim 35, Trofin discloses a system, comprising: at least one processor (Trofin [0018] lines 2-6);
a memory, comprising program instructions that when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to implement a compiler configured to (Trofin [0018] lines 2-13):
The remaining limitation of the claim are comparable to claim 21 above and rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 22-23, 27, 29-30, 34, 36-37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trofin, Greifeneder and Elliott as applied to claims 21, 28 and 35 above, and further in view of Goetz et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0174133 A1).
As to claims 22, 29 and 36 Trofin discloses receiving a compile command to compile the source code, wherein the specified release version is one of a plurality of versions of a programming language supported by a compiler performing the compiling and outputting (Trofin [0024] lines 4-21; which shows the compiling instruction for compiling the source code into a combined baseline/version agnostic with version specific/targeted version information where one or more platform/version specific option can be compiled thus viewed that the specified/target release version is one of a plurality of version of a programming language supported by a compiler performing the compiling and outputting).
Trofin as modified by Greifeneder and Elliott does not specifically disclose the compile command comprising a version option indicating the specified release version.
However, Goetz discloses the compile command comprising a version option indicating the specified release version (Goetz [0035] lines 1-8; which shows that as part of the command line for the compilation manager that performs the compiling includes an invocation parameter specifics the version to be used in compiling thus viewed as a version option indicating the specified/target information)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Goetz showing the compiling including a version specifying parameter into the specific version compilation of Trofin as modified by Greifeneder and Elliott for the purpose of increasing user control of the compilation by allowing for a developer to specific the target compilation environment, as taught by Goetz [0035] lines 1-8.
As to claims 23, 30 and 37 Trofin discloses wherein the programming language is the Java Programming Language (Trofin [0021] lines 1-7 and lines 14-17 and [0032] lines 1-11; which shows that the source code language can be java programming language).
As to claims 27, 34 and 40 Trofin discloses receiving a compile command to compile the source code (Trofin [0024] lines 4-21; which shows the compiling instruction for compiling the source code into a combined baseline/version agnostic with version specific/targeted version information where one or more platform/version specific option can be compiled thus viewed that the specified/target release version is one of a plurality of version that could be viewed as a null type version resulting in a compile command for only one target baseline/agnostic version);
compiling source code into compiled code targeted to the baseline release version (Trofin [0024] lines 1-14; which shows the source code for the platform agnostic/baseline version that can be compiled into a specific target version, thus viewed as targeted to only the baseline/version agnostic version);
outputting the compiled code targeted to the baseline release version (Trofin [0024] lines 4-21; which shows the outputting/deploying of the single compiled code version targeted with specific platform/version data viewed as outputting the compiled coded targeted to the specified release version).
Trofin does not specifically discloses the compiled code comprising one or more accesses to interfaces of the baseline release version of the library.
However, Greifeneder discloses the compiled code comprising one or more accesses to interfaces of the baseline release version of the library (Greifeneder [0125] lines 1-8; which shows how the specific library information can provided/handle different version specific programming interfaces thus in light of Trofin disclosed above compiled code for specific version/platform information can be viewed as including access to interfaces of the specified/target/baseline version of the library).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Greifeneder showing the specifics of the access of interfaces into the target version of code of Trofin for the purpose of showing additional actions that can be taken by compiled code, where the code can further handle version specific programming interfaces, as taught by Greifeneder [0125] lines 1-8.
Trofin as modified by Greifeneder and Elliott do not specifically disclose the compile command comprising a version option indicating a baseline release version different from the specified release version.
However, Goetz discloses the compile command comprising a version option indicating a baseline release version different from the specified release version (Goetz [0035] lines 1-8; which shows that as part of the command line for the compilation manager that performs the compiling includes an invocation parameter specifics the version to be used in compiling thus viewed as a version option indicating the specified/target information, viewed as including a baseline/version agnostic seen specifically disclosed above in Trofin)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Goetz showing the compiling including a version specifying parameter into the specific version compilation of Trofin as modified by Greifeneder and Elliott for the purpose of increasing user control of the compilation by allowing for a developer to specific the target compilation environment, as taught by Goetz [0035] lines 1-8
Claims 24, 31 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trofin, Greifeneder, Elliott and Goetz as applied to claims 22, 29 and 36 above, and further in view Garbers et al. (Pub. No. US 2010/0235823 A1).
As to claims 24, 31 and 38 Trofin as modified by Greifeneder, Elliott and Goetz do not specifically disclose wherein the one or more accesses to interfaces of the specified release version of the library are generated according to application programming interface (API) information of the specified release version of the library accessed from a location within the library data repository identified by the version option.
However, Garbers discloses wherein the one or more accesses to interfaces of the specified release version of the library are generated according to application programming interface (API) information of the specified release version of the library accessed from a location within the library data repository identified by the version option (Garbers [0017] lines 5-16, [0023] lines 3-8 and [0024] lines 1-12; which shows the use of API for library calls includes where the API information can include specific version information, where it is seen specifically disclosed above in Greifeneder the specifics of the specific script library to be used/called and thus associated with a location/place/area within the data ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Garbers showing the specifics of specific API version information for specific library calls, into the version specific information of Trofin as modified by Greifeneder, Elliott and Goetz for the purpose of increasing ease of use by being able to track changes and help in accommodating users interested in updating to different versions, as taught by Garbers [0024] lines 14-20).
Claims 25 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trofin, Greifeneder, Elliott and Goetz as applied to claims 22 and 29 above, and further in view Porter (Patent No. US 6,532,588 B1).
As to claims 25 and 32, Trofin as modified by Greifeneder, Elliott and Goetz does not specifically disclose installing the compiler and library data including the baseline library and respective differential library data for the plurality of versions in the library data repository, wherein the compiler and the library data for the plurality of versions are installed as part of a single installation.
However, Porter discloses installing the compiler and library data including the baseline library and respective differential library data for the plurality of versions in the library data repository, wherein the compiler and the library data for the plurality of versions are installed as part of a single installation (Porter Col. 6 lines 55-59; which shows the installation of the compiler and non-limited library data, where it is seen disclosed above in Trofin the specifics of the baseline and differential data, where this information is seen as being installed in an installation action viewed as a type of part single installation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Porter showing the installation of the compiler and library data of the compiling system of Trofin as modified by Greifeneder, Elliott and Goetz for the purpose of helping to ensure correct functionality by helping to ensure compatibility of installed information, as taught by Porter Col. 1 lines 34-39 lines 60-52, and Col. 6 lines 55-59.
Claims 26 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trofin, Greifeneder and Elliott as applied to claims 21 and 35 above, and further in view Sharma et al. (Patent No. US 10,983,981 B1).
As to claim 26 and 39, Trofin as modified by Greifeneder and Elliott do not specifically disclose wherein the baseline library data corresponds to an earlier version of a programming language as compared to a version of the programming language to which the differential library data corresponds.
However, Sharma discloses wherein the baseline library data corresponds to an earlier version of a programming language as compared to a version of the programming language to which the differential library data corresponds (Sharma Col. 4 lines 24-45 and Col. 5 lines 30-32; which shows that in the process of altering data elements can include a baseline/previous version of the data value and a delta elements that represents the differential data value, where the specifics of the data being library data elements are seen specifically disclosed above in Trofin).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Sharma showing the specifics of baseline data being older version data into the differential/specific targeted update of Trofin as modified by Greifeneder and Elliott for the purpose of showing how the differential data is able to act as an update for a previous/baseline version of the data and thus increase the ease of adaptability by providing on the specific delta of data between elements, as taught by Sharma Col. 5 lines 30-32.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trofin, Greifeneder and Elliott as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view Chaturvedi et al. (Patent No. US 9,038,029 B2).
As to claim 33, Trofin as modified by Greifeneder and Elliott do not specifically disclose wherein the baseline library data corresponds to a later version of a programming language as compared to a version of the programming language to which the differential library data corresponds.
However, Chaturvedi discloses wherein the baseline library data corresponds to an later version of a programming language as compared to a version of the programming language to which the differential library data corresponds (Chaturvedi Col. 7 lines 11-21 and claim 1; which shows the ability to set a specific baseline version of information, thus can be set to the latest version of information, which in light of information discloses above in Trofin can be set to a latest version of programming language to which the differential data corresponds).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Chaturvedi showing the ability to define a version as the baseline version, into the version setting information of Trofin as modified by Greifeneder and Elliott, for the purpose of increasing user control by allowing the user to identify a specific version of information as the baseline version, as taught by Chaturvedi Col. 7 lines 11-21.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD F WHEATON whose telephone number is (571)270-1779. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/BRADFORD F WHEATON/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights