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 2/6/2026.
The instant application having application No. 18/465,267 filed on September 12, 2023, has no priority information.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/6/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 10, and 18 are amended, claim 20 is canceled, claim 21 is added, claims 1-19 and 21 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
(A). Regarding objections to claims: Applicant's amendment to claims appropriately addressed the objections to claims 1-9, the objections are withdrawn.
(B). 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.
(C). Regarding art rejection: In regards to pending claims Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive; further, Applicant's amendments necessitated new grounds of rejections presented in the following art rejection.
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 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 1-19 and 21 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, … based on the documentation set and the information associated with the change to the codebase, an impacted portion of the documentation set; and
automatically generating, … based on determining the impacted portion of the documentation set, an updated portion of the documentation set based on the change to the codebase,
wherein the updated portion of the documentation set comprises a … pull request (PR) that includes a documentation set update for .”
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 limitation “determining, …”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually determines whether the documentation set is to be updated as defined in the claim element. Similarly, The limitation “automatically generating, …”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually performs an action of generating/updating the documentation and generating a pull request as defined in the claim element. The “wherein the updated portion of the documentation set …” further defines the action and is the same mental process as performing the action. 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”, “a device” and
“receiving, by a system, information associated with the change to the codebase;
retrieving, by the system, the documentation set, the documentation set being associated with the codebase;”
Wherein “a system” and “a device” are cited as a generic computer system, does 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” and “a device” that are mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, thus, is 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 claims 4 and 13, “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to adjust a machine learning model used to generate the suggested documentation set update based on feedback 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, “adjust …” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually adjusts a model 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 updated 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 and 16, “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 and 17, “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 claim 8, “wherein automatically generating the updated portion of the documentation set is performed based on style information associated with the documentation set.” 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 automatically generating the updated portion of the documentation set comprises:
automatically generating the updated 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 generating 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 updated 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.
With respect to claim 21, “wherein the updated portion of the documentation set is generated using a machine learning model; and
wherein the one or more processors are further configured to adjust the machine learning model based on feedback information associated with an edited PR.” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic machine learning model and one or more processors. That is, other than reciting “a machine learning model” and “one or more processors”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a machine learning model” and “one or more processors” language, “generate…” and “adjust …” in the context of this claim encompass the user manually performs the processes as defined in the claim. “a machine learning model” and “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.
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 of this title, 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 1-2, 10-11, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being unpatentable over Bennani et al. (US 20230062965 A1 – hereinafter Bennani) in view of ROSENBAUM et al. (US 20220206789 A1 – hereinafter ROSENBAUM) and GARG et al. (US 20210342654 A1 – hereinafter GARG).
With respect to claim 1 (Currently Amended), Bennani discloses A system for updating a documentation set based on a code change, the system comprising (e.g. Fig. 1):
one or more memories; and
one or more processors, communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, configured to (e.g. Fig. 6, para [0062], “Connected to system bus 604 is central processing unit (CPU) 606. Also attached to system bus 604 are one or more random-access memory (RAM) modules 608. …”):
receive information associated with the code change, the code change being a change to a codebase associated with a code repository (e.g. para [0038], “… First, at step 302, a CMS delta fetch process obtains changed localized source code files. These source code files are stored, with link resolution, to the container store infrastructure, specifically in the primary container store 236.”);
retrieve the documentation set, the documentation set being associated with the codebase (e.g. para [0045], “At step 370, delta build process 350 calculates the list of deliverables that should be built. In this embodiment, a rules-based algorithm scans the source code files and any metadata to determine if any changes are present. If changes are detected, the deliverable (e.g., consumable documentation 108) is rebuilt. …” this paragraph suggests that the consumable documentation 108 is available and was retrieved.);
Bennani does not appear to explicitly disclose
automatically generate, based on determining [[the ]]an impacted portion of the documentation set based on the information associated with the code change and the documentation set, an updated portion of the documentation set based on the code change, wherein the updated portion of the documentation set comprises a device- generated pull request (PR) that includes a documentation set update for corresponds to the impacted portion of the documentation set.
However, in analogous art, ROSENBAUM discloses
automatically generate, based on determining [[the ]]an impacted portion of the documentation set based on the information associated with the code change and the documentation set, an updated portion of the documentation set based on the code change, wherein the updated portion of the documentation set [comprises a device- generated pull request (PR) that includes a documentation set update for] corresponds to the impacted portion of the documentation set (e.g. para [0095], “… Optionally, the dynamic patch file comprises an array of hunk containers, each computed using one of the set of description objects and organizing one or more of: the plurality of line-change classifications, the one or more documentation line changes, and the one or more source line changes.” Fig. 9, para [0146], “… When the change classification is a member of the set of updatable changes, in 930 processing unit 201 optionally generates an updated source documentation object. Optionally, processing unit 201 generates the updated source documentation object by modifying the at least one text-extract in the textual description according to the change classification and the one or more differences.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Bennani with the invention of ROSENBAUM because it provides techniques for synchronous updating documentation with modification to the source file. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for synchronous updating documentation with modification to the source file as suggested by ROSENBAUM (See at least para [0006-0007]).
Bennani as modified by ROSENBAUM does not appear to explicitly discloses
…, wherein the updated portion of the documentation set comprises a device- generated pull request (PR) that includes a documentation set update …; however, this is taught in analogous art, GARG (e.g. para [0089], “… The online documentation management service 1102 contains a pull request generation module
1106 that interacts with an online document repository 1108 and the example generation system 1104. The pull request generation module 1106 inserts examples generated by the example generator 1104 at each update cycle by submitting pull
requests to include the updated examples into the online documentation
repository 1108.”)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of GARG because it provides techniques for automatically generating correct usage examples to update online documentation to assist users. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for automatically generating correct usage examples to update online documentation to assist users as suggested by GARG (See at least para [0002, 0004]).
With respect to claim 2 (Previously Presented), Bennani discloses 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 (e.g. para [0095], “… Optionally, the dynamic patch file comprises an array of hunk containers, each computed using one of the set of description objects and organizing one or more of: the plurality of line-change classifications, the one or more documentation line changes, and the one or more source line changes.” Wherein the dynamic patch file reads on a message).
With respect to claim 10 (Currently Amended), it is directed to a method disclosed in the system of claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 10.
With respect to claim 11 (Previously Presented), Bennani as modified by ROSENBAUM discloses The method of claim 10, ROSENBAUM discloses wherein automatically generating the updated portion of the documentation set comprises:
automatically generating the updated 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. (e.g. para [0146], “… When the change classification is a member of the set of updatable changes, in 930 processing unit 201 optionally generates an updated source documentation object. Optionally, processing unit 201 generates the updated source documentation object by modifying the at least one text-extract in the textual description according to the change classification and the one or more differences.” for motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 1).
With respect to claim 15 (Previously Presented), Bennani as modified by ROSENBAUM discloses The method of claim 10, ROSENBAUM discloses further comprising:
updating the documentation set based on the updated portion of the documentation set (e.g. para [0010], “… and subject to the change classification being a member of a set of updatable changes, generating an updated source documentation object by modifying the at least one text-extract in the textual description according to the change classification and the one or more differences.” for motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 1).
With respect to claim 18 (Currently Amended), it is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium to implement the method disclosed in the system of claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 18.
Claims 3, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennani in view of ROSENBAUM and Garg as applied to claims 1, 10, and 18 respectively, in further view of Mercer et al. (US 20130268827 A1 -- hereinafter Mercer).
With respect to claim 3, Bennani as modified by ROSENBAUM and Garg discloses The system of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action associated with the updating the documentation set, 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.
However, in analogous art, Mercer discloses wherein the one or more processors, to perform the action associated with the updating the documentation set, are configured to:
generate a suggested documentation set update based on the code change (e.g. Fig. 2, step 207. para [0020], “… Furthermore, by linking the user interface code to the corresponding sections of the user interface specification, appropriate modifications
to the user interface specification can be recommended or implemented based on the modifications to the corresponding sections of the user interface code, which reflect the changes to the corresponding objects on the user interface. …”), and
provide a message including information associated with the suggested documentation set update (e.g. Fig. 2, step 206, notify user that user interface specification needs to be updated, and step 207).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Mercer because it provides efficient techniques for ensuring a user interface specification accurately describes its corresponding user interface. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing efficient techniques for ensuring a user interface specification accurately describes its corresponding user interface as suggested by Mercer (See at least ¶ [0006-0007]).
With respect to claim 12 (Currently Amended), it recites same features as claim 3, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 19, it recites same features as claim 3, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennani in view of ROSENBAUM, Garg and Mercer as applied to claims 3 and 12 respectively, in further view of KANG et al. (US 20210365640 A1 -- hereinafter KANG).
With respect to claim 4 (Previously Presented), Bennani as modified by ROSENBAUM, Garg and Mercer discloses The system of claim 3, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to adjust a machine learning model used to generate the suggested documentation set update based on feedback information associated with the suggested documentation set update. However, this is taught in analogous art, KANG (e.g. para [0090], “… For example, in the example shown in FIG. 3, when a user sequentially selects a part of a plurality of documents as a document subjected to analysis in the document selection region 310 to modify prediction results of each of at least one natural language processing model for each selected document subjected to analysis, and to then selects a retraining button 380 to request retraining, the re-trainer 123 may retrain at least one natural language processing model based on the user feedback acquired for each document subjected to analysis by the time of the retraining request.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of KANG because it provides techniques for customizing a natural language processing model to improve user experience. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for customizing a natural language processing model to improve user experience as suggested by KANG (See at least ¶ [0004-0005]).
With respect to claim 13 (Previously Presented), it recites same features as claim 4, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 5, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennani in view of ROSENBAUM and Garg as applied to claims 1 and 10 respectively, in further view of Hieb et al. (US 20100131939 A1 -- hereinafter Hieb).
With respect to claim 14 (Previously Presented), Bennani as modified by Rosenbaum and Garg discloses The method of claim 10, but does not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising:
generating an updated documentation set based on the change to the codebase, and
providing information associated with the updated documentation set.
However, in analogous art, Hieb discloses further comprising:
generating an updated documentation set based on the change to the codebase (e.g. para [0006], “In accordance with an example, a customized
documentation generation apparatus is provided for generating documents relevant to a software update or upgrade of a particular process control system. …”), and
providing information associated with the updated documentation set (e.g. Fig. 4, step 480, para [0079], “… At 480, the customized release notes are documented (e.g., as the custom release notes 390 discussed above in relation to FIG. 3)” wherein the release notes read on the information).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Hieb because it provides techniques for customizing documentation for software updates or upgrades for a process control system that save time and efforts. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for customizing documentation for software updates or upgrades for a process control system that save time and efforts as suggested by Hieb (See at least ¶ [0004-0005]).
With respect to claim 5, it recites similar features as claim 14, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 6, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennani in view of ROSENBAUM and Garg as applied to claims 1 and 10 respectively, in further view of Wellinghoff et al. (US 20210232391 A1 -- hereinafter Wellinghoff).
With respect to claim 6, Bennani as modified by Rosenbaum and Garg discloses The system of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the documentation set comprises a set of markdown files. However, this is taught in analogous art, Wellinghoff (e.g. para [0057], “… In this example, the documentation
from the java file appears first, followed by the Markdown file.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Wellinghoff because it provides techniques for simplifying the creation of documentation, and especially software documentation. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for simplifying the creation of documentation, and especially software documentation as suggested by Wellinghoff (See at least ¶ [0006]).
With respect to claim 16, it recites same features as claim 6, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 7, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennani in view of ROSENBAUM and Garg as applied to claims 1 and 10 respectively, in further view of Silverstein et al. (US 20230281008 A1 -- hereinafter Silverstein).
With respect to claim 7, Bennani as modified by Rosenbaum and Garg discloses The system of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the documentation set is an end user documentation set. However, this is taught in analogous art, Silverstein (e.g. para [0046], “… For example, the modified patch note
generator 220 can be configured to extract sections of text corresponding to keywords associated with frequently used software features and compile the extracted text sections into a new patch document. However, any suitable manner of generating
personalized patch notes for the user based upon their historical software usage can be completed. The modified patch note transmitter 225 then presents the personalized patch notes to the user.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Silverstein because it provides techniques for increasing adoption of software updates, and consequently reducing security concerns associated with users not adopting new software updates. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for increasing adoption of software updates, and consequently reducing security concerns associated with users not adopting new software updates as suggested by Silverstein (See at least ¶ [0018]).
With respect to claim 17, it recites same features as claim 7, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennani in view of ROSENBAUM and Garg as applied to claim 1, in further view of Roman et al. (US 20040111424 A1 -- hereinafter Roman).
With respect to claim 8 (Previously Presented), Bennani as modified by Rosenbaum and Garg discloses The system of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein automatically generating the updated portion of the documentation set is performed based on style information associated with the documentation set. However, this is taught in analogous art, Roman (e.g. para [0153], “… The format to the documentation 195 can be modified by changing the documentation style template or the documentation generators 190
(document customization 300). ...”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Roman because it provides techniques for reducing the cost of developing and maintaining a robust, scalable, secure, high performance web site that has a common look and feel and functionality that meets user requirements and takes full advantage of the underlying database management system. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques reducing the cost of developing and maintaining a robust, scalable, secure, high performance web site that has a common look and feel and functionality that meets user requirements and takes full advantage of the underlying database management system as suggested by Roman (See at least ¶ [0012]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennani in view of ROSENBAUM and Garg as applied to claim 1, in further view of Haberstroh (US 20200151279 A1 -- hereinafter Haberstroh).
With respect to claim 9, Bennani as modified by Rosenbaum and Garg discloses The system of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose 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.
However, in analogous art, Haberstroh discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
receive information associated with a proposed change to the documentation set (e.g. para [0057], “At operation 502, the web application system receives a request to modify a web application document 104, 104A, 104B, 104N or master document 105 from an administrator computing device 126. For example, an administrator user 130 can enter data describing a modification to the web application document 104, 104A, 104B, 104N or master document 105 via the administrator UI 128. …”); 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. (e.g. para [0057], “… If the modification is permitted, the web application system modifies the web application document to implement the modification at operation 506.. ...”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Haberstroh because it provides techniques for managing web application document with superior configurability and cost effectiveness. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for managing web application document with superior configurability and cost effectiveness as suggested by Haberstroh (See at least ¶ [0026]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennani in view of ROSENBAUM, Garg as applied to claim 1, in further view of KANG et al. (US 20210365640 A1 -- hereinafter KANG).
With respect to claim 21 (New), Bennani as modified by ROSENBAUM and Garg discloses The system of claim 1, Garg discloses PR for the updated portion of the documentation set (e.g. para [0089] as cited for claim 1 above, for motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 1 above), but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the updated portion of the documentation set is generated using a machine learning model; and wherein the one or more processors are further configured to adjust the machine learning model based on feedback information associated with an edited PR. However, this is taught in analogous art, KANG (e.g. para [0090], “… For example, in the example shown in FIG. 3, when a user sequentially selects a part of a plurality of documents as a document
subjected to analysis in the document selection region 310 to modify prediction results
of each of at least one natural language processing model for each selected document
subjected to analysis, and to then selects a retraining button 380 to request retraining, the re-trainer 123 may retrain at least one natural language processing model based on
the user feedback acquired for each document subjected to analysis by the time of the retraining request.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of KANG because it provides techniques for customizing a natural language processing model to improve user experience. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for customizing a natural language processing model to improve user experience as suggested by KANG (See at least ¶ [0004-0005]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to 101 abstract idea rejection and art rejections filed 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At p10 last to p11 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “This limitation of claim 1, as amended, also cannot practically be performed in the human mind. For example, Applicant respectfully submits that a human mind cannot practically "automatically generate, based on determining an impacted portion of the documentation set based on the information associated with the code change and the documentation set, an updated portion of the documentation set based on the code change, wherein the updated portion of the documentation set comprises a device-generated pull request (PR) that includes a documentation set update for the impacted portion of the documentation set," as recited in claim 1, as amended. Automatically generating an updated portion of a documentation set, wherein the updated portion of the documentation set comprises a device-generated pull request (PR) simply cannot be done in the human mind, and inherently requires technology.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as set forth in the office action above, other than reciting generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a device” language, “automatically generate …” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually generate an updated portion of the documentation and a pull request as defined in the claim element. “a device” is cited as generic computer, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
At p11 second and third paragraphs of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “Accordingly, for at least the reasons provided above, claim 1, as amended, is patent eligible under Step 2A, Prong One.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as explained, and as set forth in the office action above, claim 1 recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
At p11 fourth paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “Independent claims 10 and 18, as amended, recite similar features. Therefore, independent claims 1, 10, and 18, and the claims that depend thereon, are patent eligible under Step 2A, Prong One.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as explained above, claim 1 recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A. claims 10 and 18, and dependent claims similarly recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
At p11 fifth paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner reconsider and withdraw the rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as explained above, the independent claims recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A. The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more, the independent claims do not appear to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The dependent claims similarly recite abstract idea without significantly more and do not appear to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
At p11 last two paragraphs and p12 first two paragraphs of the Remarks, Applicant argued with respect to art rejections, these arguments are moot upon new ground of rejections made in the office action above.
Conclusion
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