DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed 09/29/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
7. Claims 1-6 are rejected under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Smith et al. (Pub. no. US 2020/0097261 A1; hereinafter referred to as Smith), in view of NPL- Zifan Guo et al. – Enabling Transformers to Understand Low-Level Programs; hereinafter referred to as Guo.
As per claim 1, Smith discloses an autocomplete apparatus comprising:
a memory (See Fig. 9); and
a processor configured to (See Fig. 9):
output a suggestion of a language code corresponding to a high-level language code when a programmer converts the high-level language code into another language code (See abstract – code suggestion and selection); and
perform learning based on whether the suggestion is adopted by the programmer (See abstract – based on user’s selection).
However, Smith does not explicitly states – receiving a learning model; converts the high-level language code into the machine code, wherein the machine code comprises low-level language code.
Guo discloses - receiving a learning model (See abstract – learning model); converts the high-level language code into the machine code, wherein the machine code comprises low-level language code (See page 2 – suggesting LLVM IR from high-level code).
Smith and Guo are directed to software program development, which are analogous prior art.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (first inventor to file provisions of the AIA ) to incorporate and combine Smith’s realizing code completion during programming and development; and further combine it with Guo’s transformers that understand low-level programs; thus, the combination allows code being transformed efficiently, the development speed increases, with quicker iterations and faster delivery of software solutions (See Smith’s and Guo’s abstracts and backgrounds/introduction).
As per claim 2, Smith and Guo disclose the autocomplete apparatus according to claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the processor performs learning the high-level language code and another code corresponding to the high-level language code as preliminary preparation (See p. [0042-0043] – preliminary preparation).
However, Smith does not explicitly states – machine code.
Guo discloses - machine code (See page 2 – learning LLVM IR).
Smith and Guo are directed to software program development, which are analogous prior art.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (first inventor to file provisions of the AIA ) to incorporate and combine Smith’s realizing code completion during programming and development; and further combine it with Guo’s transformers that understand low-level programs; thus, the combination allows code being transformed efficiently, the development speed increases, with quicker iterations and faster delivery of software solutions (See Smith’s and Guo’s abstracts and backgrounds/introduction).
As per claim 3, Smith and Guo disclose the autocomplete apparatus according to claim 2 (See claim 2 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the processor performs learning the code created for the high-level language code by a specific programmer (See p. [0019] – past usage from programmer).
However, Smith does not explicitly states – machine code.
Guo discloses - machine code (See page 2 – LLVM IR).
Smith and Guo are directed to software program development, which are analogous prior art.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (first inventor to file provisions of the AIA ) to incorporate and combine Smith’s realizing code completion during programming and development; and further combine it with Guo’s transformers that understand low-level programs; thus, the combination allows code being transformed efficiently, the development speed increases, with quicker iterations and faster delivery of software solutions (See Smith’s and Guo’s abstracts and backgrounds/introduction).
As per claim 4, Smith and Guo disclose the autocomplete apparatus according to claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the processor outputs the suggestion at a timing when the programmer starts inputting a line of the code (See p. [0060, 0137, 0146] – inputting line).
However, Smith does not explicitly states – machine code.
Guo discloses - machine code (See page 2 – LLVM IR).
Smith and Guo are directed to software program development, which are analogous prior art.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (first inventor to file provisions of the AIA ) to incorporate and combine Smith’s realizing code completion during programming and development; and further combine it with Guo’s transformers that understand low-level programs; thus, the combination allows code being transformed efficiently, the development speed increases, with quicker iterations and faster delivery of software solutions (See Smith’s and Guo’s abstracts and backgrounds/introduction).
Claim 5 is essentially the same as claim 1 except that it is set forth the claimed invention as a method, and it is rejected with the same reasoning as applied hereinabove.
Claim 6 is essentially the same as claim 1 except that it is set forth the claimed invention as a medium, and it is rejected with the same reasoning as applied hereinabove.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection. In these arguments applicant relies on the amended claims and not the original ones. See above rejections under 35 USC § 103 for response to arguments.
9. Please see M.P.E.P. 2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reasonable Interpretation [R-9]; 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-9]: III. “Plain Meaning” Refers to the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art”
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation during examination, and limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claims (See M.P.E.P. 2111 [R-I]).
Conclusion
10. 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 extension fee 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 FRANCISCO JAVIER APONTE whose telephone number is (571)270-7164. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Trujillo can be reached on 571-272-3677. 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.
/FRANCISCO J APONTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151 03/04/2026.