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. DETAILED ACTION 1. This action is in response to the application filed 12/19/2023. 2. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending in the application. Claim Objections 3. Claim s 3, 10 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: “ is a dataset is interchangeable ” (line 4 claim 3, lines 3-4 claim 10, lines 3-4 claim 17) is unclear. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 4 . Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as containing subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Applicant recites the limitation “ determining an order in which the first set of operations and the second set of operations access is a dataset is interchangeable ” in these claims . There does not appear to be a written description of the claimed limitation in the application as filed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 5 . Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-10,12-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)( 2 ) as being anticipated by Watanabe U.S Patent No. 12,468,808. As to claim 1 , Watanabe teaches one or more non-transitory computer readable media comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause the one or more hardware processors to perform operations (… a non-transitory computer-readable medium (e.g., memory 330 and/or storage component 340) may be a repository that stores a set of instructions (e.g., one or more instructions, code, software code, and/or program code) for execution by processor 320. Processor 320 may execute the set of instructions to perform one or more processes described herein. In some implementations, execution of the set of instructions, by one or more processors 320, causes the one or more processors 320 and/or the device 300 to perform one or more processes …, lines 38-47 column 15 ) comprising: analyzing a set of code to identify a first set of operations and a second set of operations to be executed by the code (… The reference source code may be obtained and the source code and the referenced source code may be decomposed to obtain multiple portions of code (e.g., multiple portions of the source code). Each portion of code may be referred to as a task and may define an operation (or action) to be performed when the portion of code is executed …, lines 29-35 column 3 ) ; determining that there are no operational dependencies between the first set of operations and the second set of operations (no dependencies between tasks, Fig. 1F and associated specifications ) ; and responsive at least to determining that there are no operational dependencies between the first set of operations and the second set of operations: generating a code modification recommendation that recommends using different threads, of a plurality of threads, for executing the first set of operations and the second set of operations (… risk dependency platform 110 may modify the source code based on the one or more risks. In some implementations, risk dependency platform 110 may implement the changes to the source code, as identified in the report. Risk dependency platform 110 may provide the modified source code to user device 105 … , lines 34-40 column 9 ; …pe rforming the action comprises modifying one or more portions of the source code to generate modified source code, wherein the one or more portions of the source code are modified based on the risks associated with performing the operations. In some implementations, performing the action comprises generating a report that includes information identifying the operations, and information identifying recommendations regarding the operations …, lines 55-63 column 16 ) . As to claim 2 , Watanabe further teaches determining that the first set of operations and the second set of operations do not access the same data set (… the plurality of extractors may be generated using a training data set that includes information regarding different tasks. In this regard, additional extractors may be generated as additional tasks and modules are developed …, lines 33-37 column 6 ) . As to claim 3 , Watanabe further teaches determining an order in which the first set of operations and the second set of operations access is a dataset is interchangeable (…the plurality of extractors may be generated using a training data set that includes information regarding different tasks. In this regard, additional extractors may be generated as additional tasks and modules are developed…, lines 33-37 column 6 ) . As to claim 5 , Watanabe further teaches identifying a first subset of code of the set of code that is configured to execute the first set of operations and a second subset of code of the set of code that is configured to execute the second set of operations (…The reference source code may be obtained and the source code and the referenced source code may be decomposed to obtain multiple portions of code (e.g., multiple portions of the source code). Each portion of code may be referred to as a task and may define an operation (or action) to be performed when the portion of code is executed…, lines 29-35 column 3) . As to claim 6 , Watanabe further teaches the first set of operations are to be executed by a first execution of a subset of the set of code, and wherein the second set of operations are to be executed by a second execution of the subset of the set of code (…The reference source code may be obtained and the source code and the referenced source code may be decomposed to obtain multiple portions of code (e.g., multiple portions of the source code). Each portion of code may be referred to as a task and may define an operation (or action) to be performed when the portion of code is executed…, lines 29-35 column 3) . As to claims 8-10 and 12-13 , note the discussions of claims 1-3 and 5-6 above, respectively. As to claims 15-17 and 19-20 , note the discussions of claims 1-3 and 5-6 above, respectively. Allowable Subject Matter 6 . Claims 4, 7, 11, 14 and 18 are 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S Patent No. 12,106,080 discloses f ast compiling source code without dependencies . U.S P atent No. 11,748,072 discloses using machine learning to identify one or more source code optimizations that can be applied to a source code to improve processing performance when a compiled code resulting from the source code is executed by a processing device. U.S Patent No. 1 1,714,616 discloses c ompilation and execution of source code as services . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andy Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-3762. A voice mail service is also available for this number. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:30 am – 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Kevin Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180 . Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2100 . Any response to this action should be mailed to: Commissioner for Patents P.O Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 Or fax to: AFTER-FINAL faxes must be signed and sent to (571) 273 - 8300. OFFICAL faxes must be signed and sent to (571) 273 - 8300. NON OFFICAL faxes should not be signed, please send to (571) 273 – 3762 /Andy Ho/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2194