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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial office action based on the application filed on December 27th, 2023, which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined below, of which, claims 1, 10, and 16 are presented in independent form.
Internet E-mail
A written authorization by Applicant is required for the Examiner to respond via
internet e-mail to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the
confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U3.0. 122, such as proposed Examiner’s
Amendments or interview agenda items (MPEP 502.03; See Internet Usage Policy, 64
PR 33056 (June 21, 1999)). To authorize e-mail communications from the Examiner
(e.g. proposed Examiner’s Amendments), the Applicant must place a written
authorization in the record. Applicant may authorize electronic and email communication
by the Examiner via PTO Automated Interview Request web service. To schedule an
interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request
(AER) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on September 29th, 2025 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. The complied IDS have been placed in the application file and the information referred to therein has been considered as to the merits.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that claims 10-15 recite “ A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium, wherein the computer readable storage medium comprises computer program instructions…” and does not explicitly exclude transitory signals per se. However, application’s specification discloses “A computer readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals communicated through a wire, and/or other transmission media.” (See para [0045]). As such, the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC § 101 for at least the reasons noted above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “processing device in claim 16.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. “processing device” in claim 16 is interpreted under 112(f). However, the specification does not disclose equivalent structures for “processing device”.
Claims 17-20 depend on the rejected claim and inherit the same issue.
Claims 16-20 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. “processing device”in claim 16 is interpreted under 112(f). However, the specification does not disclose equivalent structures.
Claims 17-20 depend on the rejected claim and inherit the same issue.
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 invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-9 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; Claims 10-15 are directed to computer program product and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture; and Claims 16-20 are directed to apparatus and fall within the statutory category of machines. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1 Analysis:
Claims 1, 10 and 16: recite the limitations of
“reducing a plurality of code portion combinations to a subset of code portion combinations that satisfy one or more constraints using a combinatorial reduction” this is a mental process, the human mind can take away some code with the aid of pen and paper.
“generating one or more synthetic programs using the subset of code portion combinations” this is a mental process, the human mind can create programs with the aid of pen and paper.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 10 and 16 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis:
Claims 1, 10 and 16: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements - “training artificial intelligence systems,” “synthetic program,” “compile,” “runnable program,” “large language model,” “computer readable storage medium,” “apparatus,” “processing device,” and “memory,” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely applying the abstract idea using (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 10 and 16 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception have not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
Claims 1, 10 and 16: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite the limitations:
“generating one or more synthetic programs using the subset of code portion combinations” this limitation is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than generic computing components merely applying the abstract idea and field of use/technological environment.
“training an artificial intelligence system using the synthetic programs” this limitation is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than generic computing components merely applying the abstract idea and field of use/technological environment.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 10 and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 17, they recite additional element recitations of “performing an n-wise reduction of the plurality of code portion combinations” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 2, 11, and 17 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 2, 11, and 17 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 2, 11, and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 18, they recite additional element recitations of “identifying one or more code portion combinations that compile successfully” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 3, 12, and 18 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 3, 12, and 18 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 3, 12, and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 19, they recite additional element recitations of “identifying one or more code portion combinations that result in one or more runnable programs” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 4, 13, and 19 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 4, 13, and 19 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 4, 13, and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 5, 14 and 20, they recite additional element recitations of “identifying one or more code portion combinations that, when executed, produce one or more expected results” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 5, 14, and 20 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 5, 14, and 20 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 5, 14, and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, they recite additional element recitations of “selecting code portion combinations for the subset whereby each code portion is included in at least one code portion combination of the subset” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 6 and 15 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 6 and 15 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 6 and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 7, it recites additional element recitation of “including, in the subset, a code portion combination that has a particular set of code portions” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 7 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 7 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 8, it recites additional element recitation of “training a large language model used by the artificial intelligence system” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 8 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 8 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claim 9, it recites additional element recitation of “training the artificial intelligence system using the code portion combinations of the subset of code portion combinations while excluding one or more other code portion combinations from the training” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claim 9 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 9 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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, 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wiener et al. (Pub. No.: US 2016/0259641 – hereinafter, Wiener) in view of Flaherty et al. (Pub. No.: US 2025/0208837 – hereinafter, Flaherty) and further in view of Lambert (Pub. No.: US 2004/0181713 – hereinafter, Lambert).
Regarding claim 1:
Weiner discloses a method of combinatoric code generation for training artificial intelligence systems, comprising:
reducing a plurality of code portion combinations to a subset [[of code portion combinations that satisfy one or more constraints using a combinatorial reduction]] (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “The program examples 108 include respective program code portions and associated tags. A program code portion in a given program example can be associated with one or multiple tag… parses the program examples in the collection 108… rewrite text in a program example into words according to specified coding conventions” (See paras [0019] – [0021]));
generating one or more synthetic programs using the subset of code portion combinations (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “The examples index 104 is an index that associates sets of tokens (words produced by the index creator 106) with respective one or multiple tags. For example, the examples index 104 can include multiple entries, where each entry contains a respective set of tokens, and associated one or multiple tags” (See para [0023]). FIG. 2 and associated text, such as, “FIG. 2 is a flow diagram of a tagging process according to some implementations. The process of FIG. 2 can be performed by the tagger 102, according to some implementations. The tagger 102 receives (at 202) a data structure (e.g., the examples index 104 of FIG. 1) created based on program examples that include respective program code portions associated with corresponding tags” (See para [0025])); and
But Winer does not explicitly teach:
a subset of code portion combinations that satisfy one or more constraints using a combinatorial reduction;
training an artificial intelligence system using the synthetic programs.
However, Lambert discloses:
reducing a plurality of code portion combinations to a subset of code portion combinations that satisfy one or more constraints using a combinatorial reduction (“Accordingly, test case generator 206 can implement algorithms to reduce the number of combinations of input values used for generating test cases. It may be that test case generator 206 implements an algorithm for randomly generating a specified number of combinations of input values… Test case generator 206 can also implement an N-wise (where N equals any integer from 1 to the smallest k value for a test input field) algorithm to reduce the number of combinations of input values used for generating test cases. N-wise algorithms guarantee that for each N test input fields (e.g., each pair of input fields or each triple of input fields) every combination of input values for the N test input fields will be covered in at least one test case. For example, a pair-wise algorithm (N=2) would guarantee that for each pair of test input fields every combination of input values for the pair of test input fields is covered in at least one test case” (See paras [0069] – [0070])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lamber into the teachings of Wiener because that would have utilized pair-wise test case generation techniques to reduce the number of generated test cases and also to reduce the amount of time needed to run all of the test cases as suggested by Lambert (See para [0017].
However, Flaherty discloses:
training an artificial intelligence system using the synthetic programs (FIG. 3 and associated text, such as, “The code generation model(s) 118 may generate 310 suggested code 316 … by receiving an initial code snippet (or even a natural language description of a code) in the form of input tokens 306 and predicting the next token in the sequence … In such an example, the code generation model(s) 118 may generate 310 suggested code 316 in the form of tokens that are generated one by one, taking into account the context provided by the preceding tokens” (See para [0050])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Flaherty into the teachings of Wiener and Lamber because that would have improved the overall user experience of the IDE 112 and accelerated code modification tasks that may be otherwise laborious, error prone, or complicated when performed manually by a software developer as suggested by Flaherty (See para [0061]).
Regarding claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Weiner and Flaherty do not explicitly teach:
wherein reducing the plurality of code portion combinations to the subset of code portion combinations using the combinatorial reduction further comprises: performing an n-wise reduction of the plurality of code portion combinations.
However, Lambert discloses:
performing an n-wise reduction of the plurality of code portion combinations (“Accordingly, test case generator 206 can implement algorithms to reduce the number of combinations of input values used for generating test cases. It may be that test case generator 206 implements an algorithm for randomly generating a specified number of combinations of input values… Test case generator 206 can also implement an N-wise (where N equals any integer from 1 to the smallest k value for a test input field) algorithm to reduce the number of combinations of input values used for generating test cases. N-wise algorithms guarantee that for each N test input fields (e.g., each pair of input fields or each triple of input fields) every combination of input values for the N test input fields will be covered in at least one test case. For example, a pair-wise algorithm (N=2) would guarantee that for each pair of test input fields every combination of input values for the pair of test input fields is covered in at least one test case” (See paras [0069] – [0070])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lamber into the teachings of Wiener and Flaherty because that would have utilized pair-wise test case generation techniques to reduce the number of generated test cases and also to reduce the amount of time needed to run all of the test cases as suggested by Lambert (See para [0017]).
Regarding claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Weiner and Flaherty disclose wherein reducing the plurality of code portion combinations to the subset of code portion combinations using the combinatorial reduction, but Weiner and Flaherty do not explicitly teach:
further comprises: identifying one or more code portion combinations that compile successfully.
However, Lambert discloses:
identifying one or more code portion combinations that compile successfully (“source code can be compiled into language independent portable executables that include metadata describing the types and members (e.g., methods, fields, properties, events) defined in the source code. Binary test case template 201 can be a portable executable representing the results of compiling a corresponding object-oriented source code version of a test case template.” (See para [0044])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lamber into the teachings of Wiener and Flaherty because that would have utilized pair-wise test case generation techniques to reduce the number of generated test cases and also to reduce the amount of time needed to run all of the test cases as suggested by Lambert (See para [0017]).
Regarding claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Weiner and Flaherty disclose wherein reducing the plurality of code portion combinations to the subset of code portion combinations, but Weiner and Flaherty do not explicitly teach:
further comprises: identifying one or more code portion combinations that result in one or more runnable programs.
However, Lambert discloses:
identifying one or more code portion combinations that result in one or more runnable programs (“Alternately, binary test case template 201 can be generated when instructions in the source code version of the test case template are interpreted by an appropriate interpreter, such as, for example, a Python or Perl interpreter.” (See para [0044])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lamber into the teachings of Wiener and Flaherty because that would have utilized pair-wise test case generation techniques to reduce the number of generated test cases and also to reduce the amount of time needed to run all of the test cases as suggested by Lambert (See para [0017]).
Regarding claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Winer and Lamber do not explicitly teach:
wherein reducing the plurality of code portion combinations to the subset of code portion combinations further comprises: identifying one or more code portion combinations that, when executed, produce one or more expected results.
However, Flaherty discloses:
wherein reducing the plurality of code portion combinations to the subset of code portion combinations further comprises: identifying one or more code portion combinations that, when executed, produce one or more expected results (“In other words, given some sample code, applying the forward natural language task and the reverse natural language task (e.g., applying the modifications described therein) should result in the original sample code or code substantially similar to the original sample code.” (See para [0067])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Flaherty into the teachings of Wiener and Lamber because that would have improved the overall user experience of the IDE 112 and accelerated code modification tasks that may be otherwise laborious, error prone, or complicated when performed manually by a software developer as suggested by Flaherty (See para [0061]).
Regarding claim 6:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, Wiener further discloses:
wherein the plurality of code portion combinations are generated using a plurality of code portions (“A program code portion can refer to a subset that is less than an entirety of a program file that contains the program code. Alternatively, a program code portion can refer to an entirety of the program file. A program code portion can also be referred to as a program code snippet.” (See para [0007])), and [[wherein reducing the plurality of code portion combinations to the subset further comprises: selecting code portion combinations for the subset whereby each code portion is included in at least one code portion combination of the subset]].
But Winer does not explicitly teach:
selecting code portion combinations for the subset whereby each code portion is included in at least one code portion combination of the subset
However, Flaherty discloses:
selecting code portion combinations for the subset whereby each code portion is included in at least one code portion combination of the subset (“The selection 404 of code may be received from the IDE 112. A selection 404 of code is a particularly identified or distinguished amount of code from a file, a computer program, a code base, and the like. Here, the selection 404 of code includes the portion of code described above for printing the listing of files in a file store.” (See para [0052])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Flaherty into the teachings of Wiener because that would have improved the overall user experience of the IDE 112 and accelerated code modification tasks that may be otherwise laborious, error prone, or complicated when performed manually by a software developer as suggested by Flaherty (See para [0061]).
Regarding claim 7:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Winer does not explicitly teach:
wherein reducing the plurality of code portion combinations to the subset of code portion combinations further comprises: including, in the subset, a code portion combination that has a particular set of code portions.
However, Flaherty discloses:
wherein reducing the plurality of code portion combinations to the subset of code portion combinations further comprises: including, in the subset, a code portion combination that has a particular set of code portions (“The selection 404 of code may be received from the IDE 112. A selection 404 of code is a particularly identified or distinguished amount of code from a file, a computer program, a code base, and the like. Here, the selection 404 of code includes the portion of code described above for printing the listing of files in a file store.” (See para [0052])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Flaherty into the teachings of Wiener because that would have improved the overall user experience of the IDE 112 and accelerated code modification tasks that may be otherwise laborious, error prone, or complicated when performed manually by a software developer as suggested by Flaherty (See para [0061]).
Regarding claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Winer does not explicitly teach:
wherein training the artificial intelligence system includes training a large language model used by the artificial intelligence system.
However, Flaherty discloses:
wherein training the artificial intelligence system includes training a large language model used by the artificial intelligence system (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “the retrieval model(s) 120 depicted in FIG. 1 may be embodied, for example, as machine learning models used for generating responses or recommendations based on retrieving and selecting relevant pre-existing content from a database or knowledge base (depicted herein as data source 122). The retrieval model(s) 120 may therefore leverage existing data or content to provide responses that are contextually appropriate and accurate. Such retrieval model(s) 120 may therefore rely on a database or knowledge base that contains a pre-existing data that serves as a source of information for generating responses” (See para [0019])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Flaherty into the teachings of Wiener because that would have improved the overall user experience of the IDE 112 and accelerated code modification tasks that may be otherwise laborious, error prone, or complicated when performed manually by a software developer as suggested by Flaherty (See para [0061]).
Regarding claim 9:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Winer does not explicitly teach:
wherein training the artificial intelligence system comprises training the artificial intelligence system using the code portion combinations of the subset of code portion combinations while excluding one or more other code portion combinations from the training.
However, Flaherty discloses:
wherein training the artificial intelligence system comprises training the artificial intelligence system using the code portion combinations of the subset of code portion combinations while excluding one or more other code portion combinations from the training (FIG. 4 and associated text, such as, “the natural language task 406 may describe a modification to the selection 404 of code based on some analysis of the selection 404 of code to be performed by the code modification model 118, such as to perform bug fixes based on some bug analysis. As a further example, the natural language task 406 may describe a refactoring of the selection 404 of code whereby the structure of the selection 404 of code may be modified without modifying the original functionality. Readers will appreciate that these example natural language tasks 406 are merely illustrative and that other natural language tasks 406 are also contemplated within the scope of the present disclosures.” (See para [0053])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Flaherty into the teachings of Wiener because that would have improved the overall user experience of the IDE 112 and accelerated code modification tasks that may be otherwise laborious, error prone, or complicated when performed manually by a software developer as suggested by Flaherty (See para [0061]).
Regarding claim 10:
This is a computer program product version of the rejected method claim 1 above, wherein all the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 11:
The rejection of base claim 10 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 12:
The rejection of base claim 10 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 3, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 13:
The rejection of base claim 10 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 14:
The rejection of base claim 10 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15:
The rejection of base claim 10 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 16:
This is an apparatus version of the rejected method claim 1 above, wherein all the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17:
The rejection of base claim 16 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 2, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18:
The rejection of base claim 16 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 3, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 19:
The rejection of base claim 16 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 4, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 20:
The rejection of base claim 16 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH THI MINH BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7-3.
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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/HANH THI-MINH BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192 January 9th, 2025