DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is in response to the communication filed on 03/25/2026.
3. Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed 03/25/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
7. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to 520
consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. Claims 1-5, 8-12, 15-18 are rejected under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ostrovsky et al. (Patent No. US 12,517,704 B1; hereinafter referred to as Ostrovsky); in view of Krishna Prasad et al. (Pub. No. US 2025/0199787 A1; hereinafter referred to as Prasad).
As per claim 1, Ostrovsky discloses one or more processors, comprising: circuitry to:
cause one or more neural networks to generate one or more software programs having dependencies (See column 10, lines 5-30 – generating programs based on relationships/dependencies).
However, Ostrovsky odes not explicitly states - that conform to an indicated set of dependencies between different levels of a hierarchy of code, wherein the one or more software programs are generated based, at least in part, on one or more user prompts indicating the different levels of the hierarchy of code.
Prasad discloses - that conform to an indicated set of dependencies between different levels of a hierarchy of code, wherein the one or more software programs are generated based, at least in part, on one or more user prompts indicating the different levels of the hierarchy of code (See p. [0082-0083] – dependency hierarchy).
Ostrovsky and Prasad are directed to software program development, which are analogous prior art.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (first inventor to file provisions of the AIA ) to incorporate and combine Ostrovsky’s enterprise specific code generation using generative artificial intelligence; and further combine it with Prasad’s neural network-based context-aware code generation and optimization; thus, enables utilizing neural network models and contextual data processing to enhance accuracy and efficiency of generating code by imparting control in programming language generation with large language models, while helping the code generation models with relationships and dependencies between various tokens so that the code generation models are configured to generate the accurate and contextually relevant suggested code that is presented as the recommended code completion or leveraged (See Ostrovsky’s and Prasad’s abstracts and backgrounds).
As per claim 2, Ostrovsky and Prasad disclose the one or more processors of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the indicated set of dependencies comprises at least one of one or more namespaces, one or more modules, one or more classes, one or more functions, or one or more of lines of code (See Prasad’s p. [0142]).
As per claim 3, Ostrovsky and Prasad disclose the one or more processors of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the one or more user prompts are included in a document provided as input to the one or more neural networks (See Prasad’s p. [0131] – documentation).
As per claim 4, Ostrovsky and Prasad disclose the one or more processors of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the circuitry is to encode the one or more user prompts and previously generated code for the one or more software programs (See Prasad’s p. [0061]).
As per claim 5, Ostrovsky and Prasad disclose the one or more processors of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the circuitry is to retrieve additional information from a first codebase and a second codebase using a plurality of encoders, and encode the additional information into one or more indices (See Prasad’s p. [0056, 0085] -codebase).
Claims 8-9 are essentially the same as claims 1-2 except that they are set forth the claimed invention as a system with the inclusion of namespace (see Prasad’s table 2-3), and they are rejected with the same reasoning as applied hereinabove.
As per claim 10, Ostrovsky and Prasad disclose the system of claim 8 (See claim 8 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the one or more prompts are included in one or more documents specifying at least one of a technical design or a functional design of the one or more software programs (See Prasad’s p. [0070]).
As per claim 11, Ostrovsky and Prasad disclose the system of claim 8 (See claim 8 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the one or more processors are to cause the one or more neural networks to receive the one or more user prompts as initial input, and receive generated code in response to the initial input as additional input (See Ostrovsky’s Fig. 3, and also Prasad’s Fig. 2).
As per claim 12, Ostrovsky and Prasad disclose the system of claim 8 (See claim 8 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the one or more processors are to cause the one or more neural networks to retrieve additional information from a codebase stored at a location external to the system (See Ostrovsky’s column 4, lines 60-65, column 5, lines 1-20).
Claim 15-18 are essentially the same as claims 1-4 except that they are set forth the claimed invention as a method, and they are rejected with the same reasoning as applied hereinabove.
9. Claims 7, 14, 20-21 are rejected under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ostrovsky et al. (Patent No. US 12,517,704 B1; hereinafter referred to as Ostrovsky); in view of Krishna Prasad et al. (Pub. No. US 2025/0199787 A1; hereinafter referred to as Prasad), in further view of Badlani et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0240453 A1; hereinafter referred to as Badlani).
As per claim 7, Ostrovsky and Prasad disclose the one or more processors of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103).
However, neither Ostrovsky nor Prasad explicitly state - wherein the circuitry is to jointly train the one or more neural networks and a plurality of encoders in a retrieval block based, at least in part, on balance between retrieval loss and auto-regressive loss.
Badlani discloses - wherein the circuitry is to jointly train the one or more neural networks and a plurality of encoders in a retrieval block based, at least in part, on balance between retrieval loss and auto-regressive loss (See Badlani’s p. [0003]).
Ostrovsky, Prasad Badlani are directed to software program development, which are analogous prior art.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (first inventor to file provisions of the AIA ) to incorporate and combine Ostrovsky’s enterprise specific code generation using generative artificial intelligence; and further combine it with Prasad’s neural network-based context-aware code generation and optimization; and combine them with Badlani’s generating and suing joint representations of source code; thus, enables utilizing neural network models and contextual data processing to enhance accuracy and efficiency of generating code by imparting control in programming language generation with large language models, while helping the code generation models with relationships and dependencies between various tokens so that the code generation models are configured to generate the accurate and contextually relevant suggested code that is presented as the recommended code completion with measuring the discrepancy between predicted and actual sequential outputs (See Ostrovsky’s, Prasad’s and Badlani’s abstracts and backgrounds).
Claim 14 is essentially the same as claim 7 except that it is set forth the claimed invention as a system, and it is rejected with the same reasoning as applied hereinabove.
Claim 20 is essentially the same as claim 7 except that it is set forth the claimed invention as a method, and it is rejected with the same reasoning as applied hereinabove.
As per claim 21, Ostrovsky and Prasad disclose the one or more processors of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the one or more neural networks generate the one or more software programs to conform to the indicated set of dependencies based, at least in part, on cross-attention between the one or more user prompts and a codebase reflective of the hierarchy of code (See Badlani’s p. [0003, 0025]).
Allowable Subject Matter
10. Claims 6, 13, 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record fails to disclose the limitations: “wherein the circuitry is to cause the one or more neural networks to attend to a first set of tokens and a second set of tokens separately and in combination, wherein the first set of tokens are tokens of code at a first level of a code hierarchy in previously generated code and the second set of tokens are tokens of description at a second level of the code hierarchy… wherein the one or more processors are to cause the one or more neural networks to attend to a plurality of levels in a code hierarchy in previously generated code for the one or more software programs in a pairwise sequential manner… wherein the one or more neural networks are to attend to a plurality of levels in a code hierarchy in previously generated code for the one or more software programs in a top-down pairwise sequential manner, wherein each level and its immediately lower level are attended to as a pair ” as specified by the claims.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection. In these arguments applicant relies on the amended claims and not the original ones. See above rejections under 35 USC § 103 for response to arguments.
12. Please see M.P.E.P. 2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reasonable Interpretation [R-9]; 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-9]: III. “Plain Meaning” Refers to the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art”
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation during examination, and limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claims (See M.P.E.P. 2111 [R-I]).
Conclusion
13. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCISCO JAVIER APONTE whose telephone number is (571)270-7164. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Trujillo can be reached on 571-272-3677. 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.
/FRANCISCO J APONTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151 05/15/2026.
Prosecution Insights