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 .
Claims 1-15 have been submitted for examination and are pending further prosecution by the United States Patent & Trademark Office.
Allowable Subject Matter
With respect to independent claim 1, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, either solely or in combination, the limitations "performing an identification of when an updated segment in the new version of the source file, corresponding to the marked segment, is different from the marked segment; and in response to the identification: classifying the updated segment as one of a set of change classifications according to one or more differences identified between the updated segment and the copy of the marked segment; and subject to the change classification being a member of a set of updatable changes, generating an updated source documentation object by modifying the copy of the marked segment according to the change classification and the one or more differences;" when considered in combination with the other limitations of claim 1.
With respect to independent claim 13, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, either solely or in combination, the limitations "performing an identification of when an updated segment in the new version of the source file, corresponding to the marked segment, is different from the marked segment; and in response to the identification: classifying the updated segment as one of a set of change classifications according to one or more differences identified between the updated segment and the copy of the marked segment; and subject to the change classification being a member of a set of updatable changes, generating an updated source documentation object by modifying the copy of the marked segment according to the change classification and the one or more differences;" when considered in combination with the other limitations of claim 13.
With respect to independent claim 15, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest, either solely or in combination, the limitations "third program instructions for performing an identification of when an updated segment in the new version of the source file, corresponding to the marked segment, is different from the marked segment; and fourth program instructions for in response to the identification: classifying the updated segment as one of a set of change classifications according to one or more differences identified between the updated segment and the copy of the marked segment; and subject to the change classification being a member of a set of updatable changes, generating an updated source documentation object by modifying the copy of the marked segment according to the change classification and the one or more differences;" when considered in combination with the other limitations of claim 15.
Allowability of claims 1-15 is predicated on resolution of the double patenting and 35 USC § 101 rejections described below.
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 1-5, 13 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipation-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-6 of US 11132193 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-5, 13 and 15 under examination are anticipated, respectively, by claims 2-6 of US 11132193 B1 as shown in the comparison table below where bolding is used to highlight equivalent limitations and unbolded portions signify additional limitations.
Instant Application 18/515350
US 11132193 B1
1. A method comprising:
executing in a development environment a code for:
documenting each of a plurality of marked segments in one of a plurality of source documentation objects associated therewith, each marked segment comprising at least part of one of a plurality of versions of one of a plurality of source files, where each source documentation object comprises a copy of the marked segment documented thereby;
identifying a new version of a source file of the plurality of source files, where a version of the source file has a marked segment documented by a source documentation object of the plurality of source documentation objects;
performing an identification of when an updated segment in the new version of the source file, corresponding to the marked segment, is different from the marked segment; and
in response to the identification:
classifying the updated segment as one of a set of change classifications according to one or more differences identified between the updated segment and the copy of the marked segment; and
subject to the change classification being a member of a set of updatable changes, generating an updated source documentation object by modifying the copy of the marked segment according to the change classification and the one or more differences;
wherein the source file is organized in a plurality of lines; and
wherein the copy of the marked segment comprises one or more documentation line changes between the version of the source file and a virtual file created by removing the marked segment from the version of the source file.
2. A method comprising:
executing a code in a development environment comprising a file version control system (VCS) for:
documenting each of a plurality of marked segments in one of a plurality of source documentation objects associated therewith, each marked segment comprising at least part of one of a plurality of versions of one of a plurality of source files managed by the VCS, where each source documentation object comprises a copy of the marked segment documented thereby;
identifying in the VCS a new version of a source file of the plurality of source files, where the new version was added to the VCS after a version of the source file having a marked segment documented by a source documentation object of the plurality of source documentation objects;
performing an identification of when an updated segment in the new version of the source file, equivalent to the marked segment, is different from the marked segment; and
in response to the identification:
classifying the updated segment as one of a set of change classifications according to one or more differences identified between the updated segment and the copy of the marked segment; and
subject to the change classification being a member of a set of updatable changes, generating an updated source documentation object by modifying the copy of the marked segment according to the change classification and the one or more differences;
wherein the source file is organized in a plurality of lines; and
wherein the copy of the marked segment comprises one or more documentation line changes between the version of the source file and a virtual file created by removing the marked segment from the version of the source file.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising applying the one or more documentation line changes to the version of the source file to produce the virtual file;
wherein the updated segment in the new version of the source file is identified when performing an application of the one or more documentation line changes to the version of the source file; and
wherein identifying that the updated segment is different from the marked segment is by failing to perform the application.
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising applying the one or more documentation line changes to the version of the source file to produce the virtual file;
wherein the updated segment in the new version of the source file is identified when performing an application of the one or more documentation line changes to the version of the source file; and
wherein identifying that the updated segment is different from the marked segment is by failing to perform the application.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein classifying the updated segment comprises:
computing at least one source line change between the new version of the source file and the version of the source file; and
computing the change classification by analyzing the one or more documentation line changes and the at least one source line change to identify the one or more differences between the updated segment and the copy of the marked segment.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein classifying the updated segment comprises:
computing at least one source line change between the new version of the source file and the version of the source file; and
computing the change classification by analyzing the one or more documentation line changes and the at least one source line change to identify the one or more differences between the updated segment and the copy of the marked segment.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein computing the change classification comprises:
classifying each of the one or more documentation line changes as one of a set of line--change classifications by analyzing the one or more documentation line changes and the at least one source line change to identify the one or more differences between the updated segment and the copy of the marked segment, to produce a plurality of line-change classifications; and
computing the change classification by analyzing the plurality of line-change classifications.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein computing the change classification comprises:
classifying each of the one or more documentation line changes as one of a set of line-change classifications by analyzing the one or more documentation line changes and the at least one source line change to identify the one or more differences between the updated segment and the copy of the marked segment, to produce a plurality of line-change classifications; and
computing the change classification by analyzing the plurality of line-change classifications.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein at least one documentation line change of the one or more documentation line changes is classified as "line change to lint-characters"; and
wherein computing the change classification further comprises replacing in the copy of the marked segment the at least one documentation line change with a corresponding line of the updated segment.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein at least one documentation line change of the one or more documentation line changes is classified as “line change to lint-characters”; and
wherein computing the change classification further comprises replacing in the copy of the marked segment the at least one documentation line change with an equivalent line of the updated segment.
13. An apparatus comprising at least one hardware processor configured for executing in a development environment a code for:
documenting each of a plurality of marked segments in one of a plurality of source documentation objects associated therewith, each marked segment comprising at least part of one of a plurality of versions of one of a plurality of source files, where each source documentation object comprises a copy of the marked segment documented thereby;
identifying a new version of a source file of the plurality of source files, where a version of the source file has a marked segment documented by a source documentation object of the plurality of source documentation objects;
performing an identification of when an updated segment in the new version of the source file, corresponding to the marked segment, is different from the marked segment; and
in response to the identification:
classifying the updated segment as one of a set of change classifications according to one or more differences identified between the updated segment and the copy of the marked segment; and
subject to the change classification being a member of a set of updatable changes, generating an updated source documentation object by modifying the copy of the marked segment according to the change classification and the one or more differences;
wherein the source file is organized in a plurality of lines; and
wherein the copy of the marked segment comprises one or more documentation line changes between the version of the source file and a virtual file created by removing the marked segment from the version of the source file.
2. A method comprising: executing a code in a development environment comprising a file version control system (VCS) for:
documenting each of a plurality of marked segments in one of a plurality of source documentation objects associated therewith, each marked segment comprising at least part of one of a plurality of versions of one of a plurality of source files managed by the VCS, where each source documentation object comprises a copy of the marked segment documented thereby;
identifying in the VCS a new version of a source file of the plurality of source files, where the new version was added to the VCS after a version of the source file having a marked segment documented by a source documentation object of the plurality of source documentation objects;
performing an identification of when an updated segment in the new version of the source file, equivalent to the marked segment, is different from the marked segment; and
in response to the identification:
classifying the updated segment as one of a set of change classifications according to one or more differences identified between the updated segment and the copy of the marked segment; and
subject to the change classification being a member of a set of updatable changes, generating an updated source documentation object by modifying the copy of the marked segment according to the change classification and the one or more differences;
wherein the source file is organized in a plurality of lines; and
wherein the copy of the marked segment comprises one or more documentation line changes between the version of the source file and a virtual file created by removing the marked segment from the version of the source file.
15. A software program product for a development environment, comprising:
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium;
first program instructions for documenting each of a plurality of marked segments in one of a plurality of source documentation objects associated therewith, each marked segment comprising at least part of one of a plurality of versions of one of a plurality of source files, where each source documentation object comprises a copy of the marked segment documented thereby;
second program instructions for identifying a new version of a source file of the plurality of source files, where a version of the source file has a marked segment documented by a source documentation object of the plurality of source documentation objects;
third program instructions for performing an identification of when an updated segment in the new version of the source file, corresponding to the marked segment, is different from the marked segment; and
fourth program instructions for in response to the identification:
classifying the updated segment as one of a set of change classifications according to one or more differences identified between the updated segment and the copy of the marked segment; and
subject to the change classification being a member of a set of updatable changes, generating an updated source documentation object by modifying the copy of the marked segment according to the change classification and the one or more differences;
wherein the source file is organized in a plurality of lines;
wherein the copy of the marked segment comprises one or more documentation line changes between the version of the source file and a virtual file created by removing the marked segment from the version of the source file; and
wherein the first, second, third and fourth program instructions are executed by at least one computerized processor from the non-transitory computer readable storage medium.
2. A method comprising:
executing a code in a development environment comprising a file version control system (VCS) for:
documenting each of a plurality of marked segments in one of a plurality of source documentation objects associated therewith, each marked segment comprising at least part of one of a plurality of versions of one of a plurality of source files managed by the VCS, where each source documentation object comprises a copy of the marked segment documented thereby;
identifying in the VCS a new version of a source file of the plurality of source files, where the new version was added to the VCS after a version of the source file having a marked segment documented by a source documentation object of the plurality of source documentation objects;
performing an identification of when an updated segment in the new version of the source file, equivalent to the marked segment, is different from the marked segment; and
in response to the identification:
classifying the updated segment as one of a set of change classifications according to one or more differences identified between the updated segment and the copy of the marked segment; and
subject to the change classification being a member of a set of updatable changes, generating an updated source documentation object by modifying the copy of the marked segment according to the change classification and the one or more differences;
wherein the source file is organized in a plurality of lines; and
wherein the copy of the marked segment comprises one or more documentation line changes between the version of the source file and a virtual file created by removing the marked segment from the version of the source file.
In the foregoing mapping table, claim 13 recites the additional limitations of an apparatus comprising at least one hardware processor, and claim 15 recites the additional limitations of a software program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and wherein the first, second, third and fourth program instructions are executed by at least one computerized processor from the non-transitory computer readable storage medium. However, although claims 13 and 15 are not identical to claim 2 of US 11132193 B1, claims 13 and 15 are not patentably distinct from claim 2 of US 11132193 B1 as the additional limitations simply reflect obvious computer implementations of the method of claim 2.
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 1-5 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites a method for documenting versions of source files of a software program in a plurality of source documentation objects. Given its broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 would fall under the category of mental processes as the claim features limitations performable as mental steps, with the assistance of pen & paper, but without additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. An analysis of claim 1 according to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility test follows:
Step 1: Is the claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, claim 1 is directed to a method and, therefore, a process.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon?
Yes, claim 1 recites an abstract idea as the following limitations are performable as mental processes with the assistance of pen & paper: documenting each of a plurality of marked segments in one of a plurality of source documentation objects associated therewith, each marked segment comprising at least part of one of a plurality of versions of one of a plurality of source files, where each source documentation object comprises a copy of the marked segment documented thereby; - Using pen and paper, a programmer can transcribe in a notebook page (source documentation object) a copy of a marked segment of source code printed on paper; identifying a new version of a source file of the plurality of source files, where a version of the source file has a marked segment documented by a source documentation object of the plurality of source documentation objects; - The programmer can manually identify a new version of source code, where a previous version of the source code contains a marked segment transcribed in a notebook page (source documentation object); performing an identification of when an updated segment in the new version of the source file, corresponding to the marked segment, is different from the marked segment; - The programmer can visually identify that an updated segment in the new version of source code is different from the marked segment; in response to the identification: classifying the updated segment as one of a set of change classifications according to one or more differences identified between the updated segment and the copy of the marked segment; - The programmer can manually classify differences between the updated segment and the transcribed marked segment as an addition, a deletion or a modification (change classification); and subject to the change classification being a member of a set of updatable changes, generating an updated source documentation object by modifying the copy of the marked segment according to the change classification and the one or more differences; - Based upon the change classifications being a member of a permitted set of changes, the programmer can, using a pen, revise the notebook page by adding to, deleting from, or modifying the instructions in the marked segment based upon differences between the marked segment and the updated segment; wherein the source file is organized in a plurality of lines; and wherein the copy of the marked segment comprises one or more documentation line changes between the version of the source file and a virtual file created by removing the marked segment from the version of the source file. - The marked segment transcribed in the notebook page by the programmer can include a description of line changes (documentation line changes) needed to transform a version of the source file lacking the marked segment (virtual file) to the version of the source file including the marked segment.
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Integrate The Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application?
Yes, claim 1 recites the additional element of executing in a development environment a code for: which requires the method steps to be executed as code in a development environment. However, this additional element simply amounts to mere instructions for executing the abstract idea on a computer as the development environment is described generically. Consequently, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the Claim Recite Additional Elements That Amount To Significantly More Than The Judicial Exception?
Yes, claim 1 recites the additional element of executing in a development environment a code for: which requires the method steps to be executed as code in a development environment. However, this additional element simply amounts to mere instructions for executing the abstract idea on a computer as the development environment is described generically. Consequently, the additional element is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-5 are also directed to the abstract idea as the programmer can perform the recited operations and arrive at the respective conclusions by applying mental steps, in conjunction with pen & paper, to the marked segment of source code and the updated segment. Since the claims lack additional elements indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claims are ineligible.
Claim 7 is also directed to the abstract idea as the programmer can, at least, visually determine that the file name of the new version of the source file is different than the file name of the version of the source file. Since the claim lacks additional elements indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 8 is also directed to the abstract idea as the programmer can perform the recited operations by applying mental steps, in conjunction with pen & paper, to the marked segment, the updated segment and/or the notebook page (source documentation object) to arrive at a revised notebook page (updated source documentation object). Since the claim lacks additional elements indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 9 is also directed to the abstract idea as the limitations merely elaborate upon limitations found abstract in claim 1 without additional elements indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 is also directed to the abstract idea as the programmer can manually perform the generating operations by applying mental steps, in conjunction with pen & paper, to the marked segment and the notebook page (source documentation object). Since the claim lacks additional elements indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 11 is also directed to the abstract idea as the programmer can further transcribe checksum values associated with source file versions in the notebook page (source documentation object). Since the claim lacks additional elements indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 12 is also directed to the abstract idea as the programmer can include a reference to the new version of the source code in the revised notebook page (updated source documentation object). Since the claim lacks additional elements indicative of integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, the claim is ineligible.
Claim 13 recites an apparatus for performing the method of claim 1 using the additional element of a hardware processor. However, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as it simply amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Thus, claim 13 is ineligible for this reason along with those given for analogous claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the additional element of retrieving from a version control system (VCS) different source file versions. However, retrieving a source file version from a VCS amounts to a pre-solution activity in the form of data acquisition and, therefore, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Retrieving a source file version from a VCS is also a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see US 8701084 B1; col.5:34-50) and, therefore does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites a software program product for performing the method of claim 1 using the additional elements of a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, first program instructions and at least one computerized processor. However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea as they simply amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Thus, claim 15 is ineligible for this reason along with those given for analogous claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6321378 B1 discloses an application development tool which facilitates replication of changes across similar code segments by detecting a pattern to revisions made to an archived code segment, comparing a revised code segment to an unrevised archived code segment and, upon identifying a change to an element within the revised code segment, replicating the same change to corresponding elements within a plurality of marked code segments. US 20080250394 A1 discloses a method and system for automatically updating documentation in response to marked elements within a source code being modified. The NPL document "Source Code Control System" is Wikipedia's description of an early version control system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY R ST LEGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7720. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (IFP) ~9:00-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GEOFFREY R ST LEGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights