DETAILED ACTION
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 communication filed on 7/31/2026.
The instant application having application No. 18/465,267 filed on September 12, 2023, has no priority information.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 5, 8, 10-11, 15, and 18 are amended, claims 4, 13, and 21 are canceled, claim 20 was previously canceled, claims 22-24 are added. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-19 and 22-24 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
(A). Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection: The amended claims are still abstract idea without significantly more; the rejections are maintained as set forth in the following office action.
(B). Regarding art rejection: In regard to pending claims, Applicant's amendments necessitated further search, but no good art was found to reject the amended claims, art rejections are withdrawn.
(C). Regarding Notice of Reference Cited: The Garg et al. publication (US2021/0342654) was included on the PTO-892 form with the Non-Final Rejection dated 5/12/2026.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures 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 their 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-12, and 14-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 20, - PR-.
Claims 11-12, and 14-17 are objected to for the same reason because they depend from claim 10.
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 1-3, 5-12, 14-19 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 10, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a method claim under Step 1.
Under Prong 1, Step 2A:
However, the limitations of claim 10,
“determining, […] that receives and the documentation set as input, an impact score indicating a degree to which the change to the codebase impacts the documentation set
identifying, […], an impacted portion of the documentation set based on the impact score satisfying an impact threshold;
automatically generating, […], […], and based on identifying the impacted portion of the documentation set, a […] pull request (PR) to the code repository
wherein the is executed […] to update[[ for]] the impacted portion of the documentation set without user intervention; and
adjusting, […], the machine learning model based on feedback information associated with an edited PR, the edited PR comprising one or more changes made by a user to the device-generated PR, wherein adjusting the machine learning model is based on the one or more changes made by the user to the device-generated PR, such that a subsequent device- generated PR reflects the one or more changes.”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually an impact score as defined in the claim, can manually identify an impacted portion of the documentation set as defined in the claim, can automatically generate a pull request as defined in the claim, can manually update the impacted portion of the documentation set based on the pull request as defined in the claim, and can manually adjust the machine learning model as defined in the claim. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under Prong 2, Step 2A:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements
“a system”, “am impact model”, “a machine learning model”, “a device”, “a code repository” and
“receiving, by a system and automatically from a code repository upon the change to the codebase, information associated with the change to the codebase, the information including one or more original lines of code prior to the change to the codebase and one or more updated lines of code;
retrieving, by the system, the documentation set, the documentation set being associated with the codebase”
Wherein “a system”, “am impact model”, “a machine learning model”, “a device”, “a code repository” are cited as a generic computer or computer software components, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The “receiving” and “retrieving” processes are insignificant extra-solution activities, such as data gathering, according to MPEP 2106.05(g); thus, not indicative of an integration into a practical application.
Under Step 2B:
The claim does 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 system”, “am impact model”, “a machine learning model”, “a device”, “a code repository” that are mere use of generic computer and software to implement the abstract idea, thus, are not an inventive concept. The “receiving”, and “retrieving” are insignificant extra-solution activities such as gathering data which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. for retrieving and storing data. Symantec for receiving and transmitting data. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claim 1, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a system claim under Step 1.
This claim recites a system to implement a method that is disclosed in claim 10 and therefore recites the same abstract idea as claim 10, please see the office action analysis regarding claim 10.
Claim 1 recites additional elements, i.e. one or more memories, and one or more processors. But these elements are generic computer elements in the computer system, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
With respect to claim 18, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim under Step 1.
This claim recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium to implement a method that is disclosed in claim 10 and therefore recites the same abstract idea as claim 10, please see the office action analysis regarding claim 10.
Claim 18 recites additional elements, i.e. a non-transitory computer-readable medium, one or more memories, and one or more processors. But these elements are generic computer elements in the computer system, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
With respect to claim 2, “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
provide a message including information associated with the code change and information associated with the impacted portion of the documentation set.” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “the one or more processors,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “the one or more processors” language, “provide a message” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performs the action defined in the claim. The one or more processors are cited as generic computer components, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
With respect to claims 3, 12, and 19, “wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
generate a suggested documentation set update based on the code change, and
provide a message including information associated with the suggested documentation set update.” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “the one or more processors,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “the one or more processors” language, “generate …” and “provide …” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performs the processes as defined in the claim. The one or more processors are cited as generic computer components, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
With respect to claim 5, “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
provide a message including information associated with the impacted portion of the documentation set.” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “the one or more processors,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “the one or more processors” language, “provide …” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performs the process as defined in the claim. The one or more processors are cited as generic computer components, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
With respect to claims 6, 16, and 22, “wherein the documentation set comprises a set of markdown files.” Further limits the documentation set, and is the same abstract idea as that of claim 1.
With respect to claims 7, 17, and 23, “wherein the documentation set is an end user documentation set.” Further limits the documentation set, and is the same abstract idea as that of claim 1.
With respect to claims 8 and 24, “wherein ” Further limits the action, and is the same abstract idea as that of claim 1.
With respect to claim 9, “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive information associated with a proposed change to the documentation set; and
perform, based on a ruleset associated with the documentation set, an action associated with updating the documentation set based on the proposed change to the documentation set.” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “the one or more processors,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “the one or more processors” language, “receive …” and “perform …” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performs the processes as defined in the claim. The one or more processors are cited as generic computer components, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
With respect to claim 11, “wherein identifying the impacted portion comprises:
identifying the impacted portion of the documentation set based on determining that the impacted portion of the documentation set is to be updated based on the change to the codebase.” Further defines the identifying and determination result of claim 10, and is the same abstract idea as that of claim 10 because the user can manually perform the processes.
With respect to claim 14, “further comprising:
generating an updated documentation set based on the change to the codebase, and
providing information associated with the updated documentation set.” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. E.g. “generating …” and “providing …” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performs the processes as defined in the claim.
With respect to claim 15, “further comprising:
updating the documentation set based on the impacted portion of the documentation set.” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. E.g. “updating …” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performs the process as defined in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 101 abstract idea rejection filed on 7/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At p11 second from last to p12 first paragraphs of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “Considered as a whole, these recitations integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application because the claims do not stop at determining or identifying an impacted portion of a documentation set; rather, they recite a specific, ordered combination that culminates in an automatic, machine-executed remedial action-the device-generated pull request is provided to, and executed by, the code repository to update the impacted portion of the documentation set without user intervention-and a closed-loop adjustment of the machine learning model based on an edited pull request so that a subsequent device-generated pull request reflects the user's changes. This is a particular technical mechanism for automatically maintaining a documentation set in synchronization with a changing codebase, not a generic instruction to determine, in the abstract, whether a document should be updated.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as set forth in the office action, the user can manually generate the pull request, can manually update the impacted portion of the documentation set based on the pull request, and can manually adjust the machine learning model based on an edited pull request, so these are all mental processes. The machine/device and code repository are generic computer and software components, merely used as tools to implement/automate the mental processes, and thus, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
At p12 second paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “This is precisely the type of claim that the USPTO found patent eligible in Example 47, Claim 3 (Anomaly Detection), .... The USPTO reasoned that the additional limitations of Claim 3, steps (d)- (f) "detecting a source address associated with the one or more malicious network packets in real time," "dropping the one or more malicious network packets in real time," and "blocking future traffic from the source address"- "cannot be practically performed in the human mind" and, …. The USPTO further emphasized that (i) the specification set forth a technical improvement (real-time, automatic remediation of network intrusions without the delay of waiting for a network administrator), and (ii) the claim reflected that improvement in its specific action-taking steps.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, In Example 47, Claim 3, "detecting a source address associated with the one or more malicious network packets in real time," "dropping the one or more malicious network packets in real time," and "blocking future traffic from the source address"- "cannot be practically performed in the human mind". The instant claims do not recite any similar features, thus, In Example 47, Claim 3 is not applicable here.
At p13 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “The amended claims present a similar category of improvement. Just as steps (d)-(f) of Example 47, Claim 3 took the output of the anomaly analysis and automatically acted upon a technical system-dropping malicious packets and blocking future traffic in real time, without action by a network administrator-the amended claims take the output of the impact determination and automatically act upon a technical system: the device-generated pull request is provided to the code repository and is executed by the code repository to update the impacted portion of the documentation set without user intervention. As in Example 47, Claim 3, this action "cannot be practically performed in the human mind." Contrary to the Examiner's assertion that a user could manually perform the recited functions, the human mind is not equipped to receive code-change information automatically from a code repository upon a change to a codebase and to cause the code repository to execute a pull request that updates the impacted portion of the documentation set without user intervention. See Example 47, Claim 3 analysis (citing SRI Int'l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2019)). The subsequent adjustment of the machine learning model based on an edited pull request, such that a subsequent device-generated pull request reflects the changes, provides a further, self- improving technical mechanism that likewise cannot be performed in the human mind.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as explained above, Example 47, Claim 3 does not apply here. In Example 47, Claim 3, the detecting, dropping, and blocking can not be practically performed in the human mind. In the instant claims, human can receive code-change information, e.g. reading the information, can update the impacted portion of the documentation set, and can adjust the machine learning model based on an edited pull request. The machine/device and code repository are generic computer and software components, merely used as tools to implement/automate the mental processes, and thus, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
At p13 last to p14 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “This analysis is further consistent with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., …. Here, likewise, the amended claims recite a specific, ordered combination-automatic receipt of code-change information upon a change to the codebase, determination of an impact score using an impact model, identification of an impacted portion based on the impact score satisfying an impact threshold, generation of a device- generated pull request using a machine learning model, execution of that pull request by the code repository to update the impacted portion without user intervention, and adjustment of the machine learning model based on an edited pull request-that improves the technological process of maintaining documentation associated with a codebase.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, In McRO case, the animation is not automation of a manual task, the improved animation process can not be performed by human. Because no evidence that previous animation process is the same as that in McRo. The instant claims do not recite any similar features. Thus, McRO case is not applicable here. As explained above, the instant claims recite machine/device and code repository as generic computer and software components, merely used as tools to implement/automate the mental processes, and thus, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
At p14 second to p15 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “The specification confirms that these features provide a specific improvement to a technology or technical field. The specification describes the technical problem: conventionally, determining whether a documentation set requires updating, and any update itself, is performed manually and is often a low-priority task, so that a documentation set is frequently out of date, "[a]s a result ... the product may perform or be executed inefficiently, or may not be usable at all, due to outdated documentation," which "waste[s] resources of a device (e.g., processing resources, power resources, network resources, or the like)" and increases ticket volume for an associated support system. See Specification, [0012]. The specification then describes the technical improvement reflected in the amended claims: "a determination of whether a documentation set needs to be updated after a code change can be performed automatically (e.g., without user intervention) and, if needed, an action associated with updating the documentation set can be automatically initiated," thereby "improving performance or execution of a product that uses the codebase ... [and] reduc[ing] resource wastage (e.g., processing resources, power resources, network resources, or the like)" and decreasing support-system ticket volume. See Specification, [0014], [0032]. The specification further describes that the impact determination device may "provide the PR to the code repository device 220 and the PR may be executed by the code repository device 220 so that the portion of the documentation set is updated automatically (e.g., without user intervention)," and that the model used to generate the pull request may be "adjust[ed] ... based on the information associated with the edited PR." See Specification, [0029], [0031]. As in Example 47, Claim 3, the specification sets forth the technical improvement and the amended claims reflect that improvement in their specific, action- taking limitations.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, these paragraphs from the instant spec describe the technical problem. However, the spec does not describe that human can not manually solve the problem. The spec describes an automatic solution, which is merely using computers and software to implement mental processes involved in the solution.
At p15 second paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “Accordingly, claims 1, 10, and 18, as amended, and the claims that depend therefrom, integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application by reciting a specific improvement to a technology or technical field, and are therefore patent eligible under Step 2A, Prong Two.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as set forth in the office action, and as explained above, the additional elements recited in the claims are either insignificant extra-solution activities or generic computer and software components, and thus, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
At p15 last to p16 second paragraphs of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “This ordered combination is directly analogous to Example 47, Claim 3, which the USPTO found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by improving the technical field, and which for the same reasons would provide an inventive concept. As in Example 47, Claim 3, the amended claims do not recite a processor or device in isolation performing generic functions; rather, they recite a specific, ordered combination in which the output of an impact determination is used to automatically generate and cause execution of a device-generated pull request that updates an impacted portion of a documentation set without user intervention, and in which the underlying machine learning model is adjusted based on an edited pull request. This ordered combination is a particular application that improves the technological process of maintaining a documentation set in synchronization with a changing codebase, and is not a mere instruction to apply an idea using a generic computer, nor mere insignificant extra-solution data gathering or output.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as explained above, Example 47, Claim 3 provide technical improvement by "detecting a source address associated with the one or more malicious network packets in real time," "dropping the one or more malicious network packets in real time," and "blocking future traffic from the source address", these processes "cannot be practically performed in the human mind". The instant claims do not recite any similar features. Thus, Example 47, Claim 3 is not applicable here. The additional elements recited in the instant claims are either insignificant extra-solution activities or generic computer and software components. Thus, even viewed as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
At p16 last to p17 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “Moreover, this ordered combination is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. As described in the specification, conventional approaches perform the determination and any documentation update manually, resulting in outdated documentation that causes a product to "perform or be executed inefficiently, or . . not be usable at all," wasting device resources and increasing support-system ticket volume. See Specification, [0012]. The claimed ordered combination-automatically receiving code-change information upon a change to the codebase, determining an impact score with an impact model, and causing the code repository to execute a machine-learning-generated pull request to update the impacted portion without user intervention, together with a feedback-driven adjustment of the machine learning model provides a specific technical mechanism that goes well beyond the conventional, manual determination and updating of documentation.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as set forth in the office action, only the additional elements “receiving”, and “retrieving” processes are analyzed as insignificant extra-solution activities such as gathering data which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. As explained above, see e.g. paragraph 32 above, the spec describes an automatic solution, which is merely using computers and software to implement mental processes involved in the solution.
At p17 second to fourth paragraphs of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and withdraw the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as set forth in the office action, and as explained above, the claims are abstract idea without significantly more, do not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Zhang et al. US 20220391311 A1 teaches code change request aggregation for a continuous integration pipeline. Snyder et al. US 10872206 B2 teaches system and framework for dynamic regulatory change management including determining impact values.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 Zengpu Wei whose telephone number is 571-270-1302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets, can be reached on 571-272-3338. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ZENGPU WEI/Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights