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 January 31st, 2024, which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined below, of which, claims 1, 8, and 15 are presented in independent form.
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.
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18/298036, filed on April 10th, 2023.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 15 contain acronym such as AI in which its intended meanings are likely to be changed over the time. Thus, such acronym should have spelled out once in the claims such as --Artificial Intelligence (AI)--.
Claims 1, 8, and 15, replace “a description for one or more functions” in lines 5, 7, and 7, with -- the description for the one or more functions --, respectively.
Claim 18, line 3, replace “a machine readable specification” with -- the machine readable specification --.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16, 17, 19 and 20 depend on claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively and not cure the deficiencies of those claims. Accordingly, they are also rejected for the same reasons.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-7 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; Claims 8-14 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category of machines; and Claims 15-20 are directed to computer readable storage medium and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. 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.
Claims 1, 8, and 15: recite the limitations of “
converting, by a generative AI system, a description for one or more functions of a software application into features for the software application, the converting comprising iterating over a chat process comprising:
receiving, from a user, a description for one or more functions for the software application;
determining one or more features for the software application that are consistent with the description for the one or more functions;
determining whether the description for the software application is complete; and
iterating over the chat process again if the description for the software application is not complete;
generating a machine readable specification that, when followed, is capable of developing the software application”
Step 2A Prong 1:
Steps (b), (c), and (d), as drafted, can be done in human mind with the aid of pen and paper (mental process).
Step 2A Prong 2 Analysis:
Claims 1, 8, and 15: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements – steps (a), (e), (f), and “a generative AI system,” “chat process,” “machine readable specification,” “displaying the prototype to the user” “computer system,” “a processor,” “a memory,” “a computer readable storage medium having data stored therein,” 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, 8, and 15 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
Claims 1, 8, and 15: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Steps (a) and (f) are recited at high level of generality and amount 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, 8, and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, they recite additional element recitation of “determining a question that, when answered, will allow the generative AI system to determine additional features for the software application” 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, 9, and 16 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, 9, and 16 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, 9, and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, they recite additional element recitation of “wherein the chat process further comprises transmitting the question to the user” 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, 10, 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 3, 10, 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 3, 10, and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, they recite additional element recitation of “determining a pre-existing template for the machine readable specification based on the determined one or more features” 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, 11, 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 4, 11, 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 4, 11, and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, they recite additional element recitation of “modifying the pre-existing template for the machine readable specification based on descriptions for the one or more functions better received during the chat process” 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, 12, 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 5, 12, 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 5, 12, and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, they recite additional element recitation of “wherein the chat process further comprises generating a prototype of at least one of the one or more features” 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, 13, 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 6, 13, 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 6, 13, and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, they recite additional element recitation of “wherein the chat process further comprises displaying the prototype to the user” 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 7, 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 7, 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 7, 14, and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 15-20 are directed to a computer readable storage medium. However, it is noted that the specification does not provide an explicit definition of what constitutes a computer readable storage medium. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable storage medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of a recordable medium, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP § 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 US.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2. Therefore, the claimed computer readable storage medium is ineligible subject matter under §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 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (Pub. No.: US 2021/0365614 – hereinafter, Sun) in view of Sheive et al. (Pub. No.: US 2014/0047413 – hereinafter, Sheive).
Regarding claim 1:
Sun discloses a method for generating a software application, the method comprising:
converting, by a generative AI system, a description for one or more functions of a software application into features for the software application (FIG. 3 and associated text, such as, “The ML models 307 learn how to model and generate new designs using a set of existing designs. Conditional variants take additional inputs that constrain the generation (e.g., generate bottles of a specific color that is specified in the input data 205). The creator module 305 can also use computer graphics techniques to aid in the generation of candidate designs. For example, the creator module 305 can use shape morphing, such as mesh morphing or image morphing to generate and/or refine a candidate design. Mesh morphing involves creating a mesh from triangulation and optimizing the conversion of one mesh to another.” (See para [0032]). FIG. 9 and associated text, such as, “Similarly, FIG. 9 depicts an illustrative example 900 for shape fine-tuning with shape morphing by a machine learning based design framework in accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention. Examples of computer graphic techniques can include shape morphing, such as mesh morphing and image morphing algorithms. Mesh morphing involves creating a mesh from triangulation and optimizing the conversion of one mesh to another” (See para [0053])), the converting comprising iterating over [[a chat process]] comprising:
receiving, from a user, a description for one or more functions for the software application (FIGS. 1-2 and associated text, such as, “a user 105 can provide input data to a design framework 160. Examples of input data include inspiration data for a design proposal such as images, audio files, keywords, an existing design, a video, a report outlining parameters or constraints for the design proposal, or the like. The design framework 160 can include a user interface or AI-driven tool configured to receive input data from the user 105. The design framework 160 can generate, using one or more ML models and techniques, a design proposal based on the input data, any identified constraints or conditions, and/or auxiliary data 110 received and/or accessed by the design framework 160. Examples of auxiliary data 110 include product descriptions 115, consumer insights 120, trend data 130, cost constraints 140, and/or historical sales data 150” (See paras [0027] – [0028]));
determining one or more features for the software application that are consistent with the description for the one or more functions (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “During the design recommendation phase 220, the design framework 160 uses the evaluation generated during the design evaluation phase 215 to provide a design proposal using candidate designs associated with the strongest or highest valuation metrics. The design proposal can then be presented to the user for iterative refinement (e.g., receiving feedback and updating candidate designs based on the feedback). The design process iterates through multiple rounds of the design process until a final design 170 (shown in FIG. 1) is identified.” (See para [0030]). FIG. 4 and associated text, such as, “The learned user preference module 410 continuously applies ML models to the iterative interactions of the designated reviewer with the design proposal and design framework throughout the design process, thus enabling the adaptive design proposal generator 320 to provide improved recommendations that include new design candidates that better match the preferences of the designated reviewer involved in the design process” (See para [0041]). Also, see para [0046]);
determining whether the description for the software application is complete (FIG. 4 and associated text, such as. “In some example embodiments, the user 105 (e.g., designated reviewer) may iteratively interact with the design framework and continue to provide feedback for the updated design proposal. In response to each interaction of the designated reviewer with the design framework and the updated design proposal, the ML models of the learned user preference module 410 are applied to the feedback and/or interactions of the user to identify or learn user preferences and design goals. The input generated by the ML models are used to update the user preference profiles of the respective designated reviewers. Each of the user preference profiles are used by the adaptive design proposal generator 320 to modify or select new design candidates to update the design proposal. The learned user preference module 410 continuously applies ML models to the iterative interactions of the designated reviewer with the design proposal and design framework throughout the design process, thus enabling the adaptive design proposal generator 320 to provide improved recommendations that include new design candidates that better match the preferences of the designated reviewer involved in the design process” (See para [0041])); and
iterating over the chat process again if the description for the software application is not complete (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “During the design recommendation phase 220, the design framework 160 uses the evaluation generated during the design evaluation phase 215 to provide a design proposal using candidate designs associated with the strongest or highest valuation metrics. The design proposal can then be presented to the user for iterative refinement (e.g., receiving feedback and updating candidate designs based on the feedback). The design process iterates through multiple rounds of the design process until a final design 170 (shown in FIG. 1) is identified.” (See para [0030]). FIG. 4 and associated text, such as. “In some example embodiments, the user 105 (e.g., designated reviewer) may iteratively interact with the design framework and continue to provide feedback for the updated design proposal. In response to each interaction of the designated reviewer with the design framework and the updated design proposal, the ML models of the learned user preference module 410 are applied to the feedback and/or interactions of the user to identify or learn user preferences and design goals. The input generated by the ML models are used to update the user preference profiles of the respective designated reviewers. Each of the user preference profiles are used by the adaptive design proposal generator 320 to modify or select new design candidates to update the design proposal. The learned user preference module 410 continuously applies ML models to the iterative interactions of the designated reviewer with the design proposal and design framework throughout the design process, thus enabling the adaptive design proposal generator 320 to provide improved recommendations that include new design candidates that better match the preferences of the designated reviewer involved in the design process” (See para [0041]));
generating a machine readable specification that, when followed, is capable of developing the software application (FIG. 1 and associated text, such as, “The design framework 160 can generate, using one or more ML models and techniques, a design proposal based on the input data, any identified constraints or conditions, and/or auxiliary data 110 received and/or accessed by the design framework 160. Examples of auxiliary data 110 include product descriptions 115, consumer insights 120, trend data 130, cost constraints 140, and/or historical sales data 150. The auxiliary data 110 can be historic data stored and maintained by the design framework 160 or can be data obtained through other means, such as third parties or scraping data from the Internet. The design proposal can be presented to the user 105. Based on feedback received from the user 105 (or other individuals involved in the design process, such as designated reviewers), the design proposal is updated or modified. In some examples, upon receiving approval from the user 105 (and/or other designated reviewers of the design process), the final design 170 is generated” (See para [0027])).
But Sun does not explicitly teach:
a chat module
However, Sheive discloses:
a chat module (“In order to facilitate collaboration within the community of developers, our framework will feature its own chat, or instant messaging, system… Each application will have a chat room in which users can discuss the application and how to best modify it, or seek help from other users in creating media or modifying code for that application.” (See paras [0245] – [0252])).
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 Sheive into the teachings of Sun because that would have provided a continuous framework with which users can interact, on one or more platforms that support web standards, and which supports the hosting of applications, the publication of hosted applications to a portal within the framework, and the creation and direct editing of files, including text files, that embody those applications and conform to web standards as suggested by Sheive (See Abstract).
Regarding claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Sun does not explicitly teach:
wherein the chat process further comprises determining a question that, when answered, will allow the generative AI system to determine additional features for the software application.
However, Sheive discloses:
wherein the chat process further comprises determining a question that, when answered, will allow the generative AI system to determine additional features for the software application (“Our framework would also contain discussion forums. These are advantageous to have alongside real-time chat because they persist and allow later users to view past conversations and see if their question has been answered before. Discussion forums are a standard feature of web communities and there exist many different software solutions for adding them to a web application. The forums have threads and sub-forums organized around topics similar to the chat rooms, such as: ‘Help me make my application’ or ‘Feature Requests’. Users are then allowed to create their threads within a forum in which new posts on that topic are listed in a conversation. The software also typically allows for moderators who either run our framework or users who are given permission to moderate, who can delete, edit, or move posts between categories.” (See para [0251])).
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 Sheive into the teachings of Sun because that would have provided a continuous framework with which users can interact, on one or more platforms that support web standards, and which supports the hosting of applications, the publication of hosted applications to a portal within the framework, and the creation and direct editing of files, including text files, that embody those applications and conform to web standards as suggested by Sheive (See Abstract).
Regarding claim 3:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, but Sun does not explicitly teach:
wherein the chat process further comprises transmitting the question to the user.
However, Sheive discloses:
wherein the chat process further comprises transmitting the question to the user (“Our framework would also contain discussion forums. These are advantageous to have alongside real-time chat because they persist and allow later users to view past conversations and see if their question has been answered before. Discussion forums are a standard feature of web communities and there exist many different software solutions for adding them to a web application. The forums have threads and sub-forums organized around topics similar to the chat rooms, such as: ‘Help me make my application’ or ‘Feature Requests’. Users are then allowed to create their threads within a forum in which new posts on that topic are listed in a conversation. The software also typically allows for moderators who either run our framework or users who are given permission to moderate, who can delete, edit, or move posts between categories.” (See para [0251])).
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 Sheive into the teachings of Sun because that would have provided a continuous framework with which users can interact, on one or more platforms that support web standards, and which supports the hosting of applications, the publication of hosted applications to a portal within the framework, and the creation and direct editing of files, including text files, that embody those applications and conform to web standards as suggested by Sheive (See Abstract).
Regarding claim 6:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Sun does not explicitly teach:
wherein the chat process further comprises generating a prototype of at least one of the one or more features.
However, Sheive discloses:
wherein the chat process further comprises generating a prototype of at least one of the one or more features (“These patterns enclose the code for a module within a block delimited either by parentheses or curly brackets. Thus that code can be parsed and displayed as a single unit along within an editor subwindow easily using a JavaScript parser and regular expressions. One can also define modules such that all of the module code is not contained in containing blocks, but rather there is a definition for the class and then separate function blocks that define functions on that module’s prototype attribute. In this case the module editor window would pull in the constructor and separate function definitions on the prototype into one window.” (See para [0155])).
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 Sheive into the teachings of Sun because that would have been advantageous when doing this to alter the central source model and overall source view to put these functions in one continuous set of lines of code to avoid complications with displaying them in that way but having to track where inserted lines actually go in the code as suggested by Sheive (See para [0155]).
Regarding claim 7:
The rejection of claim 6 is incorporated, but Sun does not explicitly teach:
wherein the chat process further comprises displaying the prototype to the user.
However, Sheive discloses:
wherein the chat process further comprises displaying the prototype to the user (“These patterns enclose the code for a module within a block delimited either by parentheses or curly brackets. Thus that code can be parsed and displayed as a single unit along within an editor subwindow easily using a JavaScript parser and regular expressions. One can also define modules such that all of the module code is not contained in containing blocks, but rather there is a definition for the class and then separate function blocks that define functions on that module’s prototype attribute. In this case the module editor window would pull in the constructor and separate function definitions on the prototype into one window.” (See para [0155])).
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 Sheive into the teachings of Sun because that would have been advantageous when doing this to alter the central source model and overall source view to put these functions in one continuous set of lines of code to avoid complications with displaying them in that way but having to track where inserted lines actually go in the code as suggested by Sheive (See para [0155]).
Regarding claim 8:
This is a computer system 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 9:
The rejection of base claim 8 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 10:
The rejection of base claim 8 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 8 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 14:
The rejection of base claim 8 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 7, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 15:
This is a computer readable storage medium 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 16:
The rejection of base claim 15 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 17:
The rejection of base claim 15 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 20:
The rejection of base claim 8 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claims 6 and 7, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Sheive as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 and further in view of Delpech de Frayssinet et al. (Pub. No.: US 2022/0276842 – hereinafter, Frayssinet).
Regarding claim 4:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Sun and Sheive do not explicitly teach:
determining a pre-existing template for the machine readable specification based on the determined one or more features.
However, Frayssinet discloses:
determining a pre-existing template for the machine readable specification based on the determined one or more features (FIG 1 and associated text, such as, “For example, a collection of libraries can be accessed, such as libraries 124 shown in FIG. 1The libraries can store parameter information for the templates includes with the template modules, such as in widgets library 142 or styles library 144 shown in FIG. 1. The libraries can be configured by the operator after deployment. Candidate parameter information can be selected from the libraries in accordance with the identified OGGs. The user can be prompted via the GUI to select from presented candidate parameter information.” (See para [0075])).
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 Frayssinet into the teachings of Sun and Sheive because that would have provided a tool to reduce the skill and time needed for drafting or modifying applications while ensuring consistency with enterprise requirements, and to address challenges associated with revising or implementing revisions to enterprise requirements as suggested by Frayssinet (See para [0004]).
Regarding claim 5:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated, but Sun does not explicitly teach:
modifying the pre-existing template for the machine readable specification based on descriptions for the one or more functions better received during the chat process.
However, Frayssinet discloses:
modifying the pre-existing template for the machine readable specification based on descriptions for the one or more functions better received during the chat process (FIG 1 and associated text, such as, “For example, a collection of libraries can be accessed, such as libraries 124 shown in FIG. 1The libraries can store parameter information for the templates includes with the template modules, such as in widgets library 142 or styles library 144 shown in FIG. 1. The libraries can be configured by the operator after deployment. Candidate parameter information can be selected from the libraries in accordance with the identified OGGs. The user can be prompted via the GUI to select from presented candidate parameter information.” (See para [0075])).
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 Frayssinet into the teachings of Sun and Sheive because that would have provided a tool to reduce the skill and time needed for drafting or modifying applications while ensuring consistency with enterprise requirements, and to address challenges associated with revising or implementing revisions to enterprise requirements as suggested by Frayssinet (See para [0004]).
Regarding claim 11:
The rejection of base claim 8 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 12:
The rejection of base claim 8 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 18:
The rejection of base claim 15 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 19:
The rejection of base claim 15 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 22nd, 2026