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
Status of Claims
Applicant’s Remarks dated April 22nd, 2026 responding to the Office Action provided in the rejection of claims 1-20.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 1, 12, and 15-16 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are remain pending in the application and which have been fully considered by the examiner.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 are in independent form.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are finally rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 9th, 2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on January 22nd, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Prior Art’s Arguments - Rejections
The Claim Interpretation has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments of the claims.
The 35 USC § 112(a) and (b) rejections of claims 16-20 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments of the claims
The 35 USC § 101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments of the claims.
Examiner’s Interview summary
On May 28, 2026, for compact prosecution, examiner contacted Mr. Bennin to propose some amendments to put the application in condition for allowance, such as: incorporating claim 9 into each independent claims 1, 10, and 16 without canceling any limitation of the independent claims, amending claims 1, 6 and 15 to obviate any potential antecedent basis, amending claims 12 and 18 to mirror claim 3, and amending claims 13 and 19 to mirror claim 4. On June 9, 2026, Mr. Bennin emailed examiner a proposed amendment to incorporate claim 9 into independent claims 1, 10, and 16, but canceling two limitations in the claims. Later, examiner emailed Mr. Bennin drafted claims. On June 15, 2026, examiner called Mr. Bennin to follow up; however, no reply received. Therefore, prompting this Office Action.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following claims 1, 10, and 16 drafted by the examiner and considered to distinguish patentably over the art of record in this application, are presented to applicant for consideration:
Claim 1. (Currently Amended) A method of combinatoric code generation for training artificial intelligence systems, comprising:
decomposing, by one or more processors, a plurality of code files into a plurality of code portions;
forming, by the one or more processors, a plurality of code portion combinations by recombining code portions from the plurality of code portions;
reducing, by the one or more processors, the plurality of code portion combinations to a subset of code portion combinations that satisfy one or more constraints using a combinatorial reduction;
generating, by the one or more processors, one or more synthetic programs using the subset of code portion combinations;
compiling, by the one or more processors, the one or more synthetic programs with a compiler;
executing, by the one or more processors, at least one of the one or more synthetic programs that compiled successfully; and
training, by the one or more processors, an artificial intelligence system using the executed at least one of the one or more synthetic programs,
wherein training the artificial intelligence system comprises training the artificial intelligence system using code portion combinations of the subset of code portion combinations used to generate the one or more synthetic programs while excluding one or more other code portion combinations from being used to train the artificial intelligence system.
Claim 10. (Currently Amended) A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, wherein the non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises computer program instructions that, when executed:
decompose a plurality of code files into a plurality of code portions;
form a plurality of code portion combinations by recombining code portions from the plurality of code portions;
reduce the plurality of code portion combinations to a subset of code portion combinations that satisfy one or more constraints using a combinatorial reduction;
generate one or more synthetic programs using the subset of code portion combinations;
compile the one or more synthetic programs with a compiler;
execute at least one of the one or more synthetic programs that compiled successfully; and
train an artificial intelligence system using the executed at least one of the one or more synthetic programs,
wherein the artificial intelligence system is trained using code portion combinations of the subset of code portion combinations used to generate the one or more synthetic programs while excluding one or more other code portion combinations from being used to train the artificial intelligence system.
Claim 16 (Currently Amended) An apparatus comprising:
one or more processors; and
memory operatively coupled to the one or more processors, wherein the memory stores computer program instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to:
decompose a plurality of code files into a plurality of code portions;
form a plurality of code portion combinations by recombining code portions from the plurality of code portions;
reduce the plurality of code portion combinations to a subset of code portion combinations that satisfy one or more constraints using a combinatorial reduction;
generate one or more synthetic programs using the subset of code portion combinations;
compile the one or more synthetic programs with a compiler;
execute at least one of the one or more synthetic programs that compiled successfully; and
train an artificial intelligence system using the executed at least one of the one or more synthetic programs,
wherein the artificial intelligence system is trained using code portion combinations of the subset of code portion combinations used to generate the one or more synthetic programs while excluding one or more other code portion combinations from being used to train the artificial intelligence system.
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 15 recite the limitation “selecting code portion combinations for the subset whereby each code portion is included in at least one code portion combination of the subset” in lines 4-5 and 5-6, respectively. They should be -- selecting the code portion combinations for the subset of code portion combinations whereby each code portion is included in at least one code portion combination of the subset --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 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.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 recite the limitation “training, by the one or more processors, an artificial intelligence system using the at least one of the one or more synthetic programs” in lines 16-17, 13-14, and 15-16, respectively. It is unclear if the synthetic programs refers to the compiled or executed synthetic programs.
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 1-8 and 10-20 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:
decomposing, by one or more processors, a plurality of code files into a plurality of code portions (“producing program code portions that can be part of one or multiple program files.” (See para [0001]). FIG. 3 and associated, “The application stage 304 receives (at 306) a program code, which can be a program file (or multiple program files). A portion of the received program code is selected (at 308), where the selected portion can be less than the entirety of the received program code” (See para [0030]));
forming, by the one or more processors, a plurality of code portion combinations by recombining code portions from the 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]));
reducing, by the one or more processors, the [[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, by the one or more processors, 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;
compiling, by the one or more processors, the one or more synthetic programs with a compiler;
executing, by the one or more processors, at least one of the one or more synthetic programs that compiled successfully;
training, by the one or more processors, an artificial intelligence system using the at least one of the one or more synthetic programs.
However, Lambert discloses:
reducing, by the one or more processors, the [[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:
compiling, by the one or more processors, the one or more synthetic programs with a compiler (FIG. 4 and associated text, such as, “As another example, the one or more portions of code may be identified by detecting one or more compatibility or compilation issues resulting from replacing the selection 404 of code with the suggested code 410. Continuing with this example, assume that the selection 404 of code is a portion of a file written in a first programming language version. Further assume that the natural language task 406 is to migrate the selection 404 of code to a second version of the programming language. Were only the selection 404 of code migrated, this may introduce compatibility or compilation issues with the remaining code in the file and with other files of code in the same program. Accordingly, the remainder of the file and other related files in the program may be selected for migration, with their migrated code being reflected in the additional suggested code 704” (See para [0078]));
executing, by the one or more processors, at least one of the one or more synthetic programs that compiled successfully (FIG. 4 and associated text, such as, “In some embodiments, in response to identifying one or more portions of code in other files for which additional suggested code 704 should be generated, a notification or message may be presented to a user (e.g., via the IDE 112) indicating that applying the natural language task 406 to the selection 404 of code may necessitate modification to other portions of code. Such a notification may be presented prior to or after generating 408 the suggested code 410. For example, such a notification may be presented with the suggested code 410 in the IDE 112. Such a notification may request confirmation as to whether additional suggested code 704 should be automatically generated 702 for the other portions of code, or may indicate that, should a user accept the suggested code 410 to replace the selection 404 of code, the additional suggested code 704 will be automatically generated and/or applied.” (See para [0079]));
training, by the one or more processors, an artificial intelligence system using the at least one of the one or more 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 but Weiner and Flaherty do not explicitly teach:
further comprises: identifying one or more code portion combinations that result in the at least one of the one or more synthetic programs compiling
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 synthetic 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, but Winer does not explicitly teach:
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
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 having
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 having (“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 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.
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Helyar et al. (Pub. No.: US 2024/0152624) discloses a data structure is based on examples that include respective program code portions associated with corresponding tags that indicate content of the respective program code portions. A tagger determines at least one tag to associate with a first program code portion based on the data structure. An updated version of the data structure is received, The tagger, which remains unmodified, determines at least one tag to associate with a second program code portion based on the updated version of the data structure.
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 June 25th, 2026
Prosecution Insights