Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responding to the amendment filed on 6/23/2026.
Claims 1-10, 12-21 and 27-34 are pending in the application.
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 1-10, 12-21 and 27-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Specifically, claims 1-10, 12-21 and 27-34 are directed to an abstract idea.
Per claim 1, the claim is directed to an idea of itself, mental processes that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The steps of generating second input data, a prompt, applying a beam search and static analysis and outputting the set of samples can be pure mental processes. The claim does not recite how the generating, applying and outputting steps are performed or implemented in a particular manner. Particularly, the beam search is a mere heuristic search algorithm and static analysis are mere examination of code without executing the code based on the generated samples, therefore, they can be performed by a human (e.g. a developer). For a non-deterministic beam search to generate output samples at the same time, this can be conceptualized as a mental heuristic for making decisions under uncertainty with limited random choices as data does not need to be large. As all k beams progress together at each step and k complete samples at the end from a single pass can be achieved; for a small k, and a short sequence, this can be done mentally. The additional limitations, at least one memory, processor are described at a high level of generality for applying or performing the abstract idea and do not indicate any integration of the abstract idea into a practical application as the mental steps are merely applied with a generic computing component(s). See MPEP see MPEP 2106.05(f) /2106.05(h). It is noted that employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. Therefore, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components or insignificant extra solution activities (e.g. processors, devices, program instructions), then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1: Abstract idea grouping? Yes, Mental Process). Viewing the limitations individually and as a combination, the additional elements perform the mental steps using generic computing components as tools without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. For at least these reasons, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Per claims 2-10, these claims are directed to the same idea itself as in claim 1, reciting details of the data (claim 2) and mental steps (claim 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9) without adding any other additional element that is significantly more. The additional limitations, the step of retrieving computer code mere data gathering for the mental steps in claim 5, while the edge device, a cloud device in claim 10 is described at a high level of generality for applying or performing the abstract idea and do not indicate any integration of the abstract idea into a practical application as the mental steps are merely applied with a generic computing component(s). See MPEP see MPEP 2106.05(f) /2106.05(h). Therefore, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components or insignificant extra solution activities (e.g. processors, devices, program instructions), then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1: Abstract idea grouping? Yes, Mental Process). At most, the retrieving step is not found to include anything more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. In this case, it is noted that the claimed extra-solution of data gathering is acknowledged to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity court recognized as WURC examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), for example, data gathering and retrieving, storing data, transmitting/displaying a result - Symantec, Versata Dev, Content extraction, Electric Power Group). Insignificant extra solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewing the limitations individually and as a combination, the additional elements merely perform data gathering for the mental steps and perform the mental steps using generic computing components as tools without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. For at least these reasons, claims 2-10 are not patent eligible.
Per claims 12-21, the claim is directed to the same idea itself as in claims 1-10, reciting only the same mental steps without adding any other additional element that is significantly more. Therefore, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as in claims 1-10.
Per claims 27-34, these claims are directed to the same idea itself as in claims 1-10, reciting details of data and the mental steps without adding any other additional element that is significantly more. Therefore, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as in claims 1-10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10, 12-21 and 27-34 are allowed over the prior arts.
While Zheng et al. teach outputting a predetermined dimension for the current batch of n where the vectors are arranged together in parallel according to a training sample dimension, Duan teaches code completion with combined code segment context with input into a beam search engine, Luzhnica teaches a sampling engine can use a random sampling technique, Logozzo teaches a static analysis to infer and repair syntactic errors within code of a program, the prior arts of record, taken alone or in combination, do not teach … apply a beam search with sampling on the prompt to generate a set of output samples, wherein the beam search with sampling is nondeterministic, and wherein the set of output samples comprises a plurality of output samples for the prompt that are generated at a same time by batching in a sample dimension; apply a static analysis to the set of output samples to generate a set of samples, wherein the static analysis comprises identification of syntax errors in the set of output samples and correction of the syntax errors; and output the set of samples.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s statement that the amendments are not directed to statutory subject matter, as shown above, the beam search is a mere heuristic search algorithm and static analysis are mere examination of code without executing the code based on the generated samples, therefore, they can be performed by a human (e.g. a developer).
Conclusion
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 INSUN KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3724. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 9am-5pm.
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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/INSUN KANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
