Response to Amendment
1. This action is in response to the request for reconsideration filed on 2/15/2026.
2. As per applicant’s request claims 1, 8 and 1-20 have been amended.
3. As per applicant’s request claims 1-26 has been considered but they are not persuasive.
4. Claims 25-26 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.
5. Claims 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fairweather et al US 2018/0013579 in view of Weigert US 2010/0242028 (see previous office action mailed on (12/30/2025).
In remarks applicant argues,
keyword identifies the programming language construct as requiring review from a reviewer user and that, during compilation, a message is sent to the reviewer user requesting review of the programming language construct.
In response to an applicant’s arguments,
It was noted that cited reference Fairweather et al fairly discloses keyword identifies the programming language construct as requiring review from a reviewer user and that, during compilation, a message is sent to the reviewer user requesting review of the programming language construct [0012] in an embodiment, a method is disclosed. The method comprises using at least one hardware processor to compile a script into a virtual-machine program by: whenever an assignment construct is detected in the script that uses an assign-and-wait-while-pending operator to assign a value to a device property for a device, compiling the assignment construct into one or more instructions that assign the value to the device property and wait until a status associated with the device property indicates that a driver that communicates with the device has acknowledged that the assigned value represents an actual value for the device property before proceeding to any other instruction compiled from the script; whenever a trigger construct is detected in the script, compiling the trigger construct into one or more instructions that perform a body of the trigger construct whenever a transition occurs from a first state in which a condition of the trigger construct is not satisfied to a second state in which the condition of the trigger construct is satisfied; whenever an every construct is detected in the script, compiling the every construct into one or more instructions that perform a body of the every construct after each of a plurality of consecutive lapses of a time interval defined in the every construct; whenever a pause construct is detected in the script, compiling the pause construct into one or more instructions that pause for a length of a time period defined in the pause construct before proceeding to any other instruction compiled from the script; and, whenever an activation construct is detected in the script, compiling the activation construct into one or more instructions that activate a script identified in the activation construct as a child script to the script being compiled. When the activation construct is detected in the script with a predetermined keyword, the one or more instructions that are compiled from the activation construct may activate the child script to execute in parallel with the script being compiled, and, when the activation construct is detected in the script without the predetermined keyword, the one or more instructions that are compiled from the activation construct may activate the child script to execute to completion before proceeding to any other instruction compiled from the script being compiled];
In remarks applicant argues
during compilation
In response to an applicant’s arguments,
It was noted that cited reference Fairweather et al fairly teaches during [0335]iIn an embodiment, compiler 220 compiles scripts in the base scripting language into VM programs which can be loaded and executed within VM 230. Scripts may be automatically compiled into the equivalent VM program as they are loaded into VM 230. The compilation process may be performed according to an identical language specification as the base-language parser described herein. The only difference with the base-language parser is that, instead of executing a script as it is parsed, compiler 220 converts the entire script into VM form prior to any execution. Scripts in VM form may look similar to programs in assembly language and comprise a number of basic op-codes that are understood by VM 230. Listing 7 below illustrates the VM program for the script in Listing 6 (which was, in turn, derived from the GUI script in Listing 5), output by compiler 220, according to an embodiment: compilation...]
In remarks applicant argues
review from a reviewer user
In response to an applicant’s arguments, it was noted that cited reference Weigert fairly discloses review from a reviewer user [0011] according to one aspect of the invention, the system may include a workflow engine that a compliance officer or other authorized reviewer can use to direct, manage, or otherwise participate in due diligence review for software components under review. The workflow engine may be configured to track one or more workflows and/or sub-workflows that define the due diligence review process (e.g., a SWAMP workflow that may include various different people working on different process steps). As such, the compliance officer or other authorized reviewer may monitor the workflow to manage remediation of the compliance issues (e.g., using a web-based interface created from a workflow definition file for a particular software component). The workflow may guide users through the remediation process, send notifications where required, assemble overview pages over running processes, schedule time-critical workflow paths, or provide other features useful in managing the review process for software under review];
In remarks applicant argues,
a message is sent to the reviewer user requesting review of the programming language construct.
In response to an applicant argument,
In response to an applicant’s arguments, it was noted that cited reference Weigert fairly [0060…the web-based SWAMP workflow may then be displayed via the graphical user interface 160, wherein the SWAMP workflow may guide different users through the remediation process, send notifications where required, assemble overview pages over running processes, schedule time-critical workflow paths, or provide other features useful in managing the review process for software under review] and [0067… the compliance officer or other authorized reviewer may send a description of the issue to one or more developers responsible for the software. Similarly, at earlier stages of the manual review process, the compliance officer or other authorized reviewer may send out requests for information, report defects to the development team, or otherwise coordinate aspects of the review process. The license review system 105 may be configured to track communication and any other aspects of the manual review and defect resolution process, which may then be stored for subsequent review]. Therefore, examiner interprets that cited references teaches cited limitations of keyword, compilation programming language construct and sending message or notification under code review and optimization as inventor is concern with.
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 Anil Khatri whose telephone number is (571)272-3725. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Wei Zhen can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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.
/ANIL KHATRI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191