DETAILED ACTION
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 office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 09/02/2025.
Claims 1-7 are pending and examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 09/02/2025 have been fully considered.
Per 101 rejection, applicant first argued Claim 1 explicitly requires that the processing is done by “each of a plurality of disparate classifiers,” and that each classifier is “trained by a supervised training method to identify one or more software code defects, such that each classifier identifies a set of features as indicative of a software code defect.” Furthermore, claim 1 requires that “intersections between a predetermined number of the sets of features identified by the classifiers are indicated as prospective code defects.” These things cannot be performed in the human mind, nor can they be done by a human with a pen and paper. However, the utilization of classifiers trained by a supervised training method to identify code defects is considered as an additional element in the claim. Furthermore, it is a well-known and routine practice in the field of the art. This is evidenced by Chandra et al. (US PGPUB 2010/0333069; paragraphs [0004][00037]; utilizing multiple code analysis tools/classifiers to process features(patterns) of the code to detect defects in the code). The classifiers are considered as generic software components utilized to perform a mental process. See the updated 101 abstract idea rejection below.
Applicant then argued that Claims do not recite a mental process when they do not contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, for instance when the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations. See SRZ Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (declining to identify the claimed collection and analysis of network data as abstract because “the human mind is not equipped to detect suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets as recited by the claims”). the human mind is not equipped to process extracted features of candidate software code, by each of a plurality of disparate classifiers each trained by a supervised training method to identify one or more software code defects. The method of claim 1 also can be analogized to the claims in Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., (Fed. Cir. 2016), in which “a claim to a specific data encryption method for computer communication involving a several- step manipulation of data” was found to not recite a mental process because it could not be practically performed in the human mind. In instant claim 1, a specific method of updating software code in a code management system, involving multiple specific operations on candidate code, including extracting, processing, and selectively merging specific parts of the candidate code, is recited and could not practically be performed in the human mind. The examiner respectfully disagrees. A human mind can perform the steps of extracting and processing features of software code to identify one or more software code defects, which basically involves analyzing software code, and grouping (classifying) code patterns (features) from the software code to detect defects. This is different from the Cisco Systems, Inc case, because a human mind cannot practically decipher and analyze network packets. This is also different from Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp case, as a human mind cannot practically encrypt communication between computing devices. Claim 1 also contains other steps are considered as additional elements, see the updated 101 abstract idea rejection.
Applicant then argued that The Office mistakenly concluded that “responsive to the identified code defects introduced by the selective merging, performing a remediation process on the software code in the code management system” in claim 1 is “a post solution activity.” Office Action, p.5. The MPEP defines such “’extra-solution activity’... as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim.” § 2106.05(g). But in claim 1, it is not merely “nominal or tangential” to remediate identified code defects that were introduced into software code. “Performance of software depends on the suitability, accuracy, efficiency and correctness of the code constituting the software,” such that it can be critical to not only identify but also remediate “defects affecting the performance of software.” Application as filed, paras. [0005]-[0006] (citing to the paragraphs numbered in US 2024/0168755, the publication of the instant application as filed). The examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation of “performing a remediation process” is broad in scope. For example, after code defects are identified, a remediation process could be sending a notification of the identified code defects to a user for fixing. In this case the remediation process is merely outputting the result of a mental process (identifying defects in software code), which makes the remediation process a post solution activity.
The examiner is available for a phone interview with applicant for further discussion on the 101 rejection.
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 1-7 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.
Statutory Category: Claim 1 recites a method comprising: receiving candidate code for merging with the software code in the code management system; extracting each of a plurality of features of the candidate code, each feature being based on one or more predetermined metrics of the candidate code;
processing at least a subset of the extracted features by each of a plurality of disparate classifiers, each classifier being trained by a supervised training method to identify one or more software code defects, such that each classifier identifies a set of features as indicative of a software code defect, wherein intersections between a predetermined number of the sets of features identified by the classifiers are indicated as prospective code defects; selectively merging the candidate code with the software code in the code management system based on the prospective code defects;
for each of before and after the selective merging: extracting each of a plurality of features of the software code in the code management system, each feature being based on one or more predetermined metrics of the software code in the code management system, and processing at least a subset of the extracted features from the software code in the code management system by each of the plurality of disparate classifiers such that each classifier identifies a set of features indicative of a software code defect, wherein intersections between a predetermined number of the sets of features identified by the classifiers are indicated as code defects in the software code in the code management system, so as to generate indications of code defects in the software code in the code management system before and after the selective merging; comparing the indications of code defects in the software code in the code management system before and after the selective merging to identify code defects introduced by the selective merging; and responsive to the identified code defects introduced by the selective merging, performing a remediation process on the software code in the code management system.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Claim 1 recites: extracting each of a plurality of features of the candidate code, each feature being based on one or more predetermined metrics of the candidate code (a mental step of analyzing and extracting from a code); processing at least a subset of the extracted features, to identify one or more software code defects, wherein intersections between a predetermined number of the sets of features identified are indicated as prospective code defects (a mental step of data processing and identification); comparing the indications of code defects in the software code in the code management system before and after the selective merging to identify code defects introduced by the selective merging (a mental step of comparison). These limitations as drafted, is a process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers an abstract idea of performance of the limitation in the mind or manually. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed mentally or using pen and paper. 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, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under step 2A prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as “receiving candidate code for merging with the software code in the code management system”. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering for the mental process, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as processing at least a subset of the extracted features by each of a plurality of disparate classifiers, each classifier being trained by a supervised training method to identify one or more software code defects, such that each classifier identifies a set of features as indicative of a software code defect. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, the utilization of classifiers trained by a supervised training method to detect code defects is a Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional (WURC) Activity in the field of the art. This is evidenced by Chandra et al. (US PGPUB 2010/0333069; paragraphs [0004][00037]; utilizing multiple code analysis tools/classifiers to process features(patterns) of the code to detect defects in the code). The classifiers are considered as generic software components utilized to perform a mental process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Prong II step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as “selectively merging the candidate code with the software code in the code management system based on the prospective code defects”. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to committing a code when no defect is found, which is a Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional (WURC) Activity, as evidenced in Felisatti et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0182182, paragraphs [0015][0017]; performing a validation test on a code update, if the validation test passes (no defect), the code update is merged with a base code in a repository, if the validation test fails (defect detected), the code update is not merged with a base code in a repository). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Prong II step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as “responsive to the identified code defects introduced by the selective merging, performing a remediation process on the software code in the code management system”. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to a post solution activity, which a Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional (WURC) Activity, as evidenced in Huang et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0201573; Fig. 4; analyzing code to detect if a code modification (code merge) creates potential defects, suggests a solution to resolve the defects, send a notification to a developer (a remediation process)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Prong II step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-5 do 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 element of dependent claims 2-5 recite more steps of a mental process (applying a clustering method to defects, which is more mental analysis) which can be performed mentally or using pen and paper. The additional element of dependent claims 2-5 also recite more steps of a post solution Activity, such as performing a remediation process. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 6 (a computer a system with components to perform the steps of claim 1) is rejected under the similar rational as claim 1. The additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than generic hardware component with instructions to apply the exception, which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Independent claim 7 (code stored in a memory to perform the steps of claim 1) is rejected under the similar rational as claim 1. The additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than generic hardware component with instructions to apply the exception, which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HANG PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7667. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 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, 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.
/HANG PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193