DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the filing on 07/17/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been fully examined.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 2 and 14 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are rejected under a nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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, 3-13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim is directed toward a system, therefore a product.
Step 2A Prong 1: Abstract idea
Claim 1 recites,
determine that there is an error in the target code… This limitation is a step that covers performance in the mind in the form of making an observation regarding text provided from a chatbot (see [0088] of the specification). Therefore, this limitation recites a mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
determine, via an interaction with the ML chatbot,… This limitation is a step that covers performance of this limitation in the mind in the form of making an observation regarding text provided from a chatbot (see [0091] of the specification). Therefore, this limitation recites a mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
selecting one of the plurality of options of the second step… This limitation is a step that covers performance of this limitation in the mind in the form of selecting an option, or making a determination of steps in a process to follow. See [0102]-[0105] of the specification. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
determine that the error has been fixed based upon the execution… This limitation is a step that covers performance of this limitation in the mind in the form of making an observation regarding text provided from a chatbot (see [0091] of the specification). Therefore, this limitation recites a mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 1 additionally recites,
send the target code and a prompt for code checking… This is a step that merely describes providing data. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
present the updated version of the target code to a user This is a step that merely describes providing data. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 1 further recites,
generating a first updated version of the target code … and generating a second updated version of the target code… Merely storing a commonplace algorithm, an algorithm to generate code, as a computer-readable instruction on a memory is performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
executing the first updated version… [and] execute the updated version of the target code… Merely storing a commonplace algorithm, an algorithm to execute code, as a computer-readable instruction on a memory is performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B: Significantly More
Claim 1 recites,
determine that there is an error in the target code… This limitation is a step that covers performance in the mind in the form of making an observation regarding text provided from a chatbot (see [0088] of the specification). Therefore, this limitation recites a mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
determine, via an interaction with the ML chatbot,… This limitation is a step that covers performance of this limitation in the mind in the form of making an observation regarding text provided from a chatbot (see [0091] of the specification). Therefore, this limitation recites a mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
selecting one of the plurality of options of the second step… This limitation is a step that covers performance of this limitation in the mind in the form of selecting an option, or making a determination of steps in a process to follow. See [0102]-[0105] of the specification. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
determine that the error has been fixed based upon the execution… This limitation is a step that covers performance of this limitation in the mind in the form of making an observation regarding text provided from a chatbot (see [0091] of the specification). Therefore, this limitation recites a mental processes. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong 2: Additional elements
Claim 1 additionally recites,
send the target code and a prompt for code checking… This is a step that merely describes providing data. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
present the updated version of the target code to a user This is a step that merely describes providing data. Therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 1 further recites,
generating a first updated version of the target code … and generating a second updated version of the target code… Merely storing a commonplace algorithm, an algorithm to generate code, as a computer-readable instruction on a memory is performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
executing the first updated version… [and] execute the updated version of the target code… Merely storing a commonplace algorithm, an algorithm to execute code, as a computer-readable instruction on a memory is performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites,
cause the ML chatbot to check the target code with test cases for errors.
Merely storing a commonplace algorithm as a computer-readable instruction on a memory is performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites,
(a) cause the ML chatbot to check the updated version of the target code… (b) responsive to detecting an additional error… (c) cause the ML chatbot to fix the additional error … and repeat (a) to (c)…
These limitations merely describe a commonplace computer algorithm. Merely storing a commonplace algorithm as a computer-readable instruction on a memory is performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites,
responsive to the repetition exceeding the predetermined repetition number, send the updated version of the target code and the further detected errors to a human expert.
The claim recites the step of comparing collected information to a predefined threshold, which is an act of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites,
generate the test cases based upon data collected from one or more past or current users.
Merely storing a commonplace algorithm as a computer-readable instruction on a memory is performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites,
wherein the test cases are generated by the ML chatbot.
This limitation merely describes where a commonplace computer algorithm is being executed. Merely storing a commonplace algorithm as a computer-readable instruction on a memory is performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites,
to determine that there is an error, the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to execute the target code with test cases to check for errors
The determining step recited in Claim 8 recite further elements of the abstract idea of Claims 1 and do not provide any further features. Claim 8 merely describes a computer operating in its ordinary capacity to perform the mental process recited in Claim 1.
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites,
replace the target code in the insurance application with the updated version of the target code to generate a new version of the insurance application.
This limitation merely describes the data on which a commonplace computer algorithm is then executed. Merely storing a commonplace algorithm as a computer-readable instruction on a memory is performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites,
initiate an integration test to check for errors or unintended consequences with implanting the new version of the insurance application. This step recite further elements of the abstract idea of Claims 1 and 9 and do not provide any further features. The steps of checking a new version for errors repeat the mental process abstract idea, in conjunction with a commonplace computer algorithm that does not provide significantly more.
implement the new version of the insurance application; This limitations merely describe a commonplace computer algorithm. Merely storing a commonplace algorithm as a computer-readable instruction on a memory is performing the above step on a computer in its ordinary capacity for tasks or merely adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites,
cause the ML chatbot to check the new version of the insurance application for errors or unintended consequences. This step recite further elements of the abstract idea of Claims 1 and 9 and do not provide any further features. The steps of checking a new version for errors repeat the mental process abstract idea, in conjunction with a commonplace computer algorithm that does not provide significantly more.
send the new version of the insurance application to the ML chatbot; This limitation merely describes sending data, and is therefore mere data gathering. This claim is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites,
cause the ML chatbot to evaluate the new version of the insurance application for security risks. This step recite further elements of the abstract idea of Claims 1 and 9 and do not provide any further features. The steps of checking a new version for errors repeat the mental process abstract idea, in conjunction with a commonplace computer algorithm that does not provide significantly more.
send the new version of the insurance application to the ML chatbot; This limitation merely describes sending data, and is therefore mere data gathering. This claim is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites,
send, to the user, a file presenting the solution, the file is in at least one of (i) an audio format and (ii) a video format.
This limitation merely describes sending data, and is therefore mere data gathering. This claim is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 15-19 recite a shift in statutory category and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 on the same grounds of rejection as Claims 1, 3-4, and 8-9, respectively, above.
Claim 20 recites a shift in statutory category and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 on the same grounds of rejection as Claim 1, above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 15, and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 and 5 of copending Application No. 18/462, 071 (reference application). Although the claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim language of the instant application is anticipated or broader than the claim language of the copending application.
An analysis of Claim 1 is exemplary:
Claim 1 of instant application
Claims 1 and 5 of copending ‘071 application
send the target code and a prompt for code checking to a machine learning (ML) chatbot to cause the ML chatbot to check the target code for errors,
[Claim 1; 5/27/25] send the target code and a prompt for code checking to a machine learning (ML) chatbot to cause the ML chatbot to check the target code for errors
determine that there is an error in the target code based at least partially on a response from the ML chatbot,
[Claim 1: 5/27/25] determine whether there is an error in the target code based upon a response from the ML chatbot
determine, via an interaction with the ML chatbot, that there is a solution to fix the error, wherein the solution includes a first step and a second step, the second step includes a plurality of options,
[Claim 1; 5/27/25] determine, via an interaction with the ML chatbot, a solution to fix the error,
And
[Claim 5; 5/27/25] wherein the solution includes a first step and a second step, the second step comprising a plurality of action options
cause the ML chatbot to generate an updated version of the target code based upon the solution, including: generating a first updated version of the target code based upon the first step of the solution,
[Claim 5; 05/27/25] generate an updated version of the target code
executing the first updated version to generate a first implementation result,
[Claim 5; 05/27/25] executing the updated version of the target code in connection with a test case in a test environment to generate an implementation result
selecting one of the plurality of options of the second step based upon the first implementation result,
[Claim 5; 05/27/25] select an action option from the plurality of action options based upon the intermediate implementation result
and generating a second updated version of the target code based upon the selected option of the second step of the solution, wherein the updated version of the target code is generated based upon the second updated version of the target code,
[Claim 5; 05/27/25] implement the action option to generate the updated version of the target code.
execute the updated version of the target code in a test environment to generate an implementation result,
See obviousness type, with secondary reference, below.
determine that the error has been fixed based upon the execution of the updated version of the target code,
[Claim 1; 05/27/25] determining that the implementation result complies with the expected result
and present the updated version of the target code to a user.
See obviousness type, with secondary reference, below.
Claims 1 and 5 of the ‘071 copending application contain all teachings of the instant Claims 1, 15, and 20, except teaching execute the updated version of the target code in a test environment to generate an implementation result, and present the updated version of the target code to a user.
Plawecki (U.S. PGPub No. 20220269583) teaches the model may repeat simulation and execution of the build code after each iteration (code under test) to repeatedly test for errors [0034]; the examiner notes, thus re-executing the now second updated version. Plawecki additionally teaches the system may update the target code to correct ("fix") the error [0030].
One of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Plawecki with those of Claims 1 and 5 of the ‘071 copending application because the ‘071 copending application teaches a ML chatbot system and determination processes. The resulting combination allows for a system that can provide real-time assessment, thus reducing software certification times and costs, while improving accuracy and confidence that a program code is acceptable [Plawecki; 0043].
Claims 3-4, 6-12, and 16-19 are provisionally rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 and 5 of copending application No. 18/462, 071 in view of Plawecki (U.S. PGPub No. 20220269583). The obviousness analysis for the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection are the same as those for corresponding rejections of Claims 3-4, 6-12, and 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 below. In the rejections below, Plawecki is relied upon to teach each and every limitation of Claims 3-4, 6-12, and 16-19 and in the case of the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection, the reference application Claims 1 and 5 supplant the teachings of Lozano.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 13 is provisionally rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1 and 5 of copending application No. 18/462, 071 in view of Plawecki (U.S. PGPub No. 20220269583), further in view of Renard (U.S. PGPub No. 20180173999). The obviousness analysis for the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection are the same as those for corresponding rejections of Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 below. In the rejections below, Renard and Plawecki are relied upon to teach each and every limitation of Claim 13 and in the case of the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection, the reference application Claims 1 and 5 supplant the teachings of Lozano.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 3-4, 6-12, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lozano et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11693726) in view of Plawecki (U.S. PGPub No. 20220269583).
Regarding Claim 1, Lozano teaches,
A computer system for checking errors for a target code to be used in an insurance application, the computer system comprising: one or more processors [Col. 6, line 63- Col. 7, line 2]; and a memory storing executable instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
send the target code and a prompt for code checking to a machine learning (ML) chatbot to cause the ML chatbot to check the target code for errors (the system receives data [Col. 4, lines 29-31] and a user query ("prompt") to a chatbot [Col. 5, lines 46-50]; where the chatbot may be associated with a defect-detecting ML model [Col. 2, lines 33-49]),
determine that there is an error in the target code based at least partially on a response from the ML chatbot (the ML model may be trained to correlate input ("target code") to identified defects ("an error") [Col. 21, lines 24-26]),
determine, via an interaction with the ML chatbot, that there is a solution to fix the error wherein the solution includes a first step and a second step, the second step includes a plurality of options, (the chatbot determines a solution to the error [Col. 5, lines 46-50]),
Lozano does not appear to disclose and Plawecki teaches,
cause the ML chatbot to generate an updated version of the target code based upon the solution, including: generating a first updated version of the target code based upon the first step of the solution (an updated version of the code is generated [0035]),
executing the first updated version to generate a first implementation result (the updated version of the code is executed and returned [0036]),
selecting one of the plurality of options of the second step based upon the first implementation result (the updated and executed version of the code is assessed for further coding failures [0037]; when a failure in the code is detected, the ML chatbot may be configured to evaluate the build code based on a library of coding errors and the corresponding solution ("one of the options") [0073]),
and generating a second updated version of the target code based upon the selected option of the second step of the solution, wherein the updated version of the target code is generated based upon the second updated version of the target code (the updated and executed version of the code may then be further updated to account for further coding failures [0039]; the examiner notes, thus generating a second updated version),
execute the updated version of the target code in a test environment to generate an implementation result (the model may repeat simulation and execution of the build code after each iteration (code under test) to repeatedly test for errors [0034]; the examiner notes, thus re-executing the now second updated version),
determine that the error has been fixed based upon the execution of the updated version of the target code (the now updated code is programmed to alert the user if the updated code is acceptable [0039]; therefore determining if the error has been fixed),
and present the updated version of the target code to a user (the system may update the target code to correct ("fix") the error [0030]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the ML-based insurance query system to determine defects of Lozano with the error-testing method and correction of target code as taught by Plawecki. The resulting combination allows for a system that can provide real-time assessment, thus reducing software certification times and costs, while improving accuracy and confidence that a program code is acceptable [Plawecki; 0043].
Regarding Claim 3, Lozano does not appear to disclose and Plawecki teaches,
The computer system of claim 1, wherein to determine that there is an error, the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: cause the ML chatbot to check the target code with test cases for errors (the model may test the target code with test cases during execution [0091-0092]).
The same motivation for Claim 1 also applies to Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 4, Lozano does not appear to disclose and Plawecki teaches,
The computer system of claim 3, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to:(a) cause the ML chatbot to check the updated version of the target code for additional errors with additional test cases, (b) responsive to detecting an additional error, send the additional error to the ML chatbot and cause the ML chatbot to generate an additional solution to fix the additional error, (c) cause the ML chatbot to fix the additional error based upon the additional solution (the model may repeat simulation and execution of the build code after each iteration (code under test) to repeatedly test for errors [0034]; where the process of testing for errors determines a resolution ("solution") [0034-0035]),
and repeat (a) to (c) until no error is detected and/or a number of repeating (a) to (c) exceeds a predetermined repetition number (the simulation module (model) will repeatedly simulate and execute the build code after each iteration, and provide the output code to the output module after a given number of simulations ("predetermined repetition number") [0034]; the examiner notes that by repeating the testing process, steps (a) to (c) are repeated).
The same motivation for Claim 1 also applies to Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 6, Lozano does not appear to disclose and Plawecki teaches,
The computer system of claim 3, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: generate the test cases based upon data collected from one or more past or current users (generated test cases ([0090]) may include data based on a library of learned test cases [0082] from the ML history [0090]).
The same motivation for Claim 1 also applies to Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, Lozano does not appear to disclose and Plawecki teaches,
The computer system of claim 3, wherein the test cases are generated by the ML chatbot (the ML test case generator is configured to generate and provide test cases [0096]).
The same motivation for Claim 1 also applies to Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 8, Lozano does not appear to disclose and Plawecki teaches,
The computer system of claim 1, wherein to determine that there is an error, the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to execute the target code with test cases to check for errors (the code may be executed to check for errors [0033].
The same motivation for Claim 1 also applies to Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9, Lozano does not appear to disclose and Plawecki teaches,
The computer system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: replace the target code in the insurance application with the updated version of the target code to generate a new version of the insurance application (the system is configured to update the build code ("insurance application") with updated code [0030]; furthermore the code may be tested and executed with test cases [0091-0092]).
The same motivation for Claim 1 also applies to Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10, Lozano does not appear to disclose and Plawecki teaches,
The computer system of claim 9, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: implement the new version of the insurance application (the build code (input code) may be updated after a simulation fixing errors [0034]);
and initiate an integration test to check for errors or unintended consequences with implanting the new version of the insurance application (the updated build code may be re-tested to fix further errors with implementing the new version [0034]; code may also be tested for unintended consequences [0029]).
The same motivation for Claim 1 also applies to Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11, Lozano does not appear to disclose and Plawecki teaches,
The computer system of claim 9, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: send the new version of the insurance application to the ML chatbot; and cause the ML chatbot to check the new version of the insurance application for errors or unintended consequences (the build code (input code) may be updated after a simulation fixing errors [0034]; the updated build code may be re-tested to fix further errors with implementing the new version [0034]; code may also be tested for unintended consequences [0029]).
The same motivation for Claim 1 also applies to Claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12, Lozano does not appear to disclose and Plawecki teaches,
The computer system of claim 9, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: send the new version of the insurance application to the ML chatbot; and cause the ML chatbot to evaluate the new version of the insurance application for security risks (after determining updated code, the system may perform a risk assessment on the code to determine a confidence [0031]).
The same motivation for Claim 1 also applies to Claim 12.
Claims 15-19 recite a shift in statutory category and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by the same grounds of rejection as Claims 1, 3-4, and 8-9, above.
Claim 20 recites a shift in statutory category and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 by the same grounds of rejection as Claim 1, above.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Lozano in view of Plawecki, further in view of Renard (U.S. PGPub No. 20180173999).
Regarding Claim 13, Lozano in view of Plawecki do not appear to disclose and Renard teaches,
The computer system of claim 1, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: send, to the user, a file presenting the solution, the file is in at least one of (i) an audio format and (ii) a video format (an engine may output human recognizable speech with relevant information [0025, 0046, or 0052]).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the ML-based insurance query system to determine defects of Lozano wit the audio output of Renard. The resulting combination allows for a model that may provide advantages over other systems in terms of accurately understanding and acting accordingly [Renard; 0042].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/17/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), pg. 10, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of remaining Claims 1, 3-13, and 15-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, pg. 11-13, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art of record, Lozano and Plawecki fail to disclose the newly amended subject matter of independent Claim 1 and similarly Claims 15 and 20. Applicant argues that paragraphs [0082-0083] of Plawecki fail to disclose these features, however these paragraphs are not relied upon in the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103. Further search and consideration has revealed that paragraphs [0034-37; 0039; and 0073] of Plawecki teach the newly amended subject matter, see rejection above. No further evidence or argument is provided by the applicant to support that the relied upon portions of Plawecki does not teach these limitations.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, pg. 13-15, have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Claim 1, and similarly Claims 15 and 20, recite a technical improvement to the technology of using machine learning or artificial intelligence techniques to fix errors in code. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed invention cannot demonstrate an improvement to the technology because they do not provide a particular solution to a specific problem, specifically claiming a particular solution to a problem as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, see MPEP 2106.05(a). The claimed products and method does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they include mental processes on a generic computer without creating a novel, significant improvement or change to the computer. Recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result beyond generic computer algorithms operating in their ordinary capacity and mere data in conjunction with the abstract ideas, do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application or provide significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant additionally argues that “a plausible solution to the technical problem of AI hallucinations inherently excludes the participation of a human” on pg. 15. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite one or more processors interacting with the ML chatbot. The mental process of: a determination that there is an error based at least partially on a response from the ML chatbot, a determination that there is a solution via an interaction with the ML chatbot, and determining that an error has been fixed based on execution of the updated version of the target code are all steps that may very practically be performed by a human. Further, the mental process of selecting an option may be performed by a human. The act of generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular environment of curing AI hallucinations does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor provide significantly more. See 2106.04(d). Furthermore, a plausible solution to the technical problem of AI hallucinations does not inherently exclude the participation of a human, as evidenced by: checking code for errors “usually require” human expertise [specification; 0004], training this particular model using a human labeler feedback optimization [specification; 0074], and particularly responsive to determining that the number if implementations exceeds a predetermined threshold sending the code and error to a human expert [specification; 0119, and Claim 5].
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 AUDREY E WHITESELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4767. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm MST.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 5712723655. 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.
/A.E.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2113 /BRYCE P BONZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2113