DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This Office Action is in response to the filing date of 2/12/2024.
Claims 1-10 are pending and have been considered below.
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.
Claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim recites "A visual programming software system” which is directed to software system, where every single component of the system is a software component. Even though the claim recites “a computing device having a CPU, data storage, user input interface, and display” in the preamble of the claim, however the computing device is not part of the software system. Therefore, the claim is not directed to one of the four-eligible subject matter categories (Process, Machine, Manufacture, and Composition of Matter) and it is ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-5 directly or indirectly depend on claim 1 and therefore are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Prong 1, the claim recites “an original software program blueprint created”, “transform said original program software code into software application program code written in said second language”, “said original program software code can be translated from said second language into a new language comprising a third language”, and “export a new program” as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Prong 2, Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “a computing device having a CPU, data storage, user input interface, and display”, “software application comprising a software toolkit, a software application translator, a software application language comprising a second language, and a translator”, “an existing program”, and “a language database stored within the data storage of the computing device” are merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer, with instructions, as a tool to perform the abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.05(f), thus, not indicative of an integration into a practical application. The additional elements “communicate with and pull data from a language database…” which are merely insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data, storing data and outputting the results of the abstract idea which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional elements “a software application configured to be controlled and operated by said CPU”, “an existing program comprising original program software code comprising a first language, and original program assets”, and “said software application comprising a software toolkit, a software application translator, a software application language comprising a second language, and a translator” merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “a computing device having a CPU, data storage, user input interface, and display”, “software application comprising a software toolkit, a software application translator, a software application language comprising a second language, and a translator”, “an existing program”, and “a language database stored within the data storage of the computing device” are the mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, as discussed above, which do not amount to significantly more, thus not an inventive concept. The additional elements “communicate with and pull data from a language database…” which are merely insignificant extra solution activity of gathering data, storing data and outputting the results of the abstract idea and the courts have identified gathering data, storing data, and outputting the result is well-understood, routine and conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept. The additional elements “a software application configured to be controlled and operated by said CPU”, “an existing program comprising original program software code comprising a first language, and original program assets”, and “said software application comprising a software toolkit, a software application translator, a software application language comprising a second language, and a translator” merely recite the technological environment or field of use at a high level of generality. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a method for performing the steps recited in claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reason given for claim 1 above.
Claims 2 and 7 are also directed to the abstract idea as a human can perform “…editing said second language” in the mind including with the aid of pen and paper. The additional element “a software application language editor” merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer, with instructions, as a tool to perform the abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.05(f), thus, not indicative of an integration into a practical application.
Claims 3 and 8 are also directed to the abstract idea as a human can perform “…separate said software application program code into language parts by attaching an identifier to one or more of said plurality of software language components, thereby generating one or more said language parts” and “…create one or more software language packets from one or more of said language parts” in the mind including with the aid of pen and paper. The claim further recites additional elements “said toolkit comprising a parts creator and a packet creator” and “said software application program code comprising a plurality of software language components” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The elements merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 4 and 9 are also directed to the abstract idea as a human can perform “…organize said software language parts based upon said identifier” and “maintain and identify selected parts of said software application parts to be sent to packet creator for the creation of said one or more software application language packets” in the mind including with the aid of pen and paper. The claim also recites additional element “a software application language inventory” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The element merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 5 and 10 are also directed to the abstract idea as a human can perform “generate said language parts using an artificial intelligence knowledge base” in the mind including with the aid of pen and paper. The claim also recites additional element “an artificial intelligence” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The element merely links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Allowable Subject Matter
With respect to independent claim 1, applicant’s claimed invention is allowable over the prior arts of record as the prior arts do not teach or suggest, either solely or in any reasonable combination limitations “said software application comprising a software toolkit, a software application translator, a software application language comprising a second language, and a translator; an original software program blueprint created by said software application; said toolkit configured to transform said original program software code into software application program code written in said second language; said translator configured to communicate with and pull data from a language database stored within the data storage of the computing device such that said original program software code can be translated from said second language into a new language comprising a third language; and said software program further configured to export a new program comprising new program software code, said original program assets, and said original software program blueprint, wherein said new software program has new software code written in said third language.”
Independent claim 6 recites similar limitations as in claim 1 and therefore is allowable over the prior arts of record for the same reasons given for claim 1 above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reason for Allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/PHILLIP H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191