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
This action is in response to the application filed on 02/23/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner’s Note
Please note that Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirely as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-7 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 20240303415 by Wilde et al.
Per claim 1:
Wilde discloses:
1. A method implemented using one or more processors, comprising:
detecting, in first rendered generative model (GM) output comprising an instance of source code generated using one or more GMs, a modification made to one of either a source code comment or a snippet of the source code that is referenced by the source code comment (receiving edited versions of content which includes edits of AI generated content like program code/comments/snippets, see Fig. 2C-2D shows detection of user edits such as additions/deletions Paragraph [0035, 0037] “user selecting the submit option 220 in the user interface 205… user may directly edit the collaborative content included in the content pane 240, and the edited content is provided as a subsequent prompt to the generative model to further refine the generated content… The strikethrough text indicates text that has been deleted from the collaborative content by the user, while bold text indicates text that has been added to the collaborative content by the use”);
assembling a first GM prompt to include data indicative of the modification and one or both of the source code comment and the snippet of the source code that is referenced by the source code comment (Paragraph [0036] “user may both edit the collaborative content and provide a textual prompt in the prompt field 215 to provide as an input to the generative mode… activate the submit option 220 to cause the revised collaborative content and/or the textual prompt from the prompt field 215 to be submitted to the generative model” note here the edited version is inputted including the modification of original content);
processing the first GM prompt using one or more of the GMs to generate a first GM response (Paragraph [0038] “three entries 230 a, 230 b, and 230 c, which reflect the prompts that the user provided to the generative model to refine the collaborative content… updated collaborative content is shown in the content pane 240”); and
providing the first GM response to a client application (Paragraph [0038] “updated collaborative content is shown in the content pane 240… user may click on or otherwise activate an entry in the history section to cause the user interface to show the state of the collaborative content when that prompt was submitted to the generative model”), wherein the first GM response is operable by the client application to provide second rendered GM output (Paragraph [0038] “user interface also includes a delete 235 that allows the user to delete the most recent prompt and revert to the prior version of the collaborative content”), and wherein the second rendered GM output comprises a new version of the source code in which the modification to the one of either the source code comment or the snippet of the source code is reflected in the other of the source code comment or the snippet of the source code (Paragraph [0040] “user submits this as a prompt to the generative model, and the history section of the user interface 225 is updated to add the prompt 230d indicating that the user has edited (i.e., new version) the collaborative content”).
Per claim 2:
Wilde discloses:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the modification is made to the source code comment (Paragraph [0015] “edit content generated by a generative model, such as but not limited to the Generative Pre-trained Transformer 3… textual content includes formatted textual content in some implementations, such as but not limited to lists and tables”), and the snippet of the source code that is referenced by the source code comment is altered syntactically or functionally to reflect the modification made to the source code comment (Paragraph [0016] “edited content is provided as an input to the generative model and provided to the LLM for additional refinement… edits are incorporated in the response generated by the generative model… user edits the content generated by the AI directly rather than attempting to refine the content generated by the AI by refining a prompt to the AI to generate the desired content” note here the generative model refines content to incorporate edits, altering structure/function).
Per claim 3:
Wilde discloses:
3. The method of claim 2, wherein at least one instance of the snippet of the source code is contained in the first rendered GM output (Paragraph [0015] “generated content includes other types of content, such as but not limited to diagrams, that may be edited by a human user before being sent back to the generative model for further refinement”).
Per claim 6:
Wilde discloses:
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the instance of source code comprises one source code file of a plurality of source code files generated using one or more of the GMs (Paragraph [0017] “collaboration platform enables users to collaborate with one another in a cohesive manner to create, prepare, review, and/or format various types of electronic content… collaboration platform enables the user to organize electronic content into project-specific workspaces. A workspace can be associated with electronic content referred to as project collateral.” note here multiple section/sessions/workspaces for plural collateral items like code files).
Per claim 7:
Wilde discloses:
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the modification is made to the snippet of source code referenced by the source code comment, and the source code comment is altered semantically to reflect the modification made to the snippet of the source code (Paragraph [0026] “automatically conducts a search for the candidate collateral items in response to the user adding or modifying textual content of the textual description field 142… keywords identified in the textual content added to the textual description field 142”).
Claim 19 is/are the apparatus/system claim corresponding to method claim 1 and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claim 1 as noted above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 20240303415 by Wilde et al. in view of USPN 12153874 to Potash.
Per claim 4:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and further, Wilde does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one instance of the snippet of the source code is contained outside of the first rendered GM output.
However, Potash discloses in an analogous computer system wherein at least one instance of the snippet of the source code is contained outside of the first rendered GM output (Col. 4, lines 40-45 “the search engine 122 identifies webpage(s), instant answer(s), entity information, etc. that are related to the user input received by the computing system 100 from the client computing device 102… a content extractor module 124 that extracts contents from sources identified by the search engine 122 (such as webpages)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the method of wherein at least one instance of the snippet of the source code is contained outside of the first rendered GM output as taught by Potash into the method of editing/modifying content using generative models as taught by Wilde. The modification would be obvious because of one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add/incorporate the features of wherein at least one instance of the snippet of the source code is contained outside of the first rendered GM output to provide an efficient technique that code can be incorporated from outside the GM model so as to avoiding misleading results from GM model and output an accurate result as suggested by Potash (col. 1, lines 31-52).
Per claim 5:
The rejection of claim 4 is incorporated and further, Wilde does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one instance of the snippet that is contained outside of the first rendered GM output is contained in another instance of source code that was generated using one or more of the GMs.
However, Potash discloses in an analogous computer system wherein the at least one instance of the snippet that is contained outside of the first rendered GM output is contained in another instance of source code that was generated using one or more of the GMs (Col. 4, lines 59-65 “generative model 120 generates output based upon the prompt. The output generated by the generative model 120 can include text, an image, a video, etc.… output generated by the generative model 120 can include a citation to the first webpage 104 from which the webpage content 126 was extracted by the content extractor module 124”).
The feature of providing wherein the at least one instance of the snippet that is contained outside of the first rendered GM output is contained in another instance of source code that was generated using one or more of the GMs would be obvious for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 13 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. Claims 8-12 and 14-18 are objected by virtue of their directly or indirectly respective dependencies on claims 8 and 13 respectively.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance for claim 20:
The cited prior art taken alone or in combination fail to teach the method/system includes in part the following steps
“…receiving an indication that one or more graphical elements of the plurality of graphical elements have been selected using one or more input devices, and a request for a modification to one or more of the source code files represented by the one or more selected graphical elements; assembling second GM prompt that includes: data indicative of the request for the modification to one or more of the source code files represented by the one or more selected graphical elements, and data indicative of the one or more source code files represented by the one or more selected graphical elements; processing the second GM prompt using one or more of the GMs to generate a second GM response; and providing the second GM response to the client application, wherein the second GM response is operable by the client application to provide second rendered GM output that reflects the modification to one or more of the source code files” as recited in claim 20.
The above-quoted claim language is not taught or suggested by the Applied Art (whether considered individually or in any combination).
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Related cited arts:
Foss, Jonathan GK, and Alexandra I. Cristea. "The next generation Authoring Adaptive Hypermedia: Using and Evaluating the MOT3. 0 and PEAL tools." Proceedings of the 21st ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia. 2010. pp. 83-92.
Kaiiali, Mustafa, et al. "Designing a secure exam management system (SEMS) for M-learning environments." IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 9.3 (2016): pp. 258-271.
Vezhnevets, Alexander Sasha, et al. "Generative agent-based modeling with actions grounded in physical, social, or digital space using Concordia." arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.03664 (2023). pp. 1-32.
US10437588 discloses methods, systems, and computer-readable storage media for receiving a request to open a source code file for editing within an integrated development environment (IDE), determining that the source code file includes source code with first comment text having a first digital signature associated therewith, authenticating the first digital signature, and in response, providing the source code file for display in the IDE, receiving input data, determining that the input data includes authoring of comment text within the source code file, and in response, automatically: providing comment metadata that is associated with the comment text and providing a second digital signature that is associated with the comment text, and storing the comment text, the comment metadata, and the second digital signature in a comment metadata repository.
US12481484 discloses techniques for intelligently prompting an LLM to fix code are disclosed. A corpus of release notes for a set of libraries is accessed. The release notes include information describing deprecated or removed APIs associated with the libraries. The corpus is stored in a vector database. A code snippet is accessed. This snippet is identified as potentially using a deprecated API. The code snippet is used to identify a set of release notes from the vector database. These release notes are determined to satisfy a threshold level of similarity with the code snippet. An LLM prompt is built and is fed to the LLM. The LLM prompt instructs the LLM to update the code snippet based on the identified set of release notes. Output of the LLM is displayed. This output includes a proposed rewritten version of the code snippet.
US20230325182 discloses described herein are embodiments for managing comments in a program code file. A system may select program code and compile it to an intermediary code. The system may compare the intermediary code to a library of intermediary code snippets associated with comments. Based on the comparison, a system may recognize the code to be obsolete. In some embodiments, a system may generate one or more recommendations to update a code. Based on received feedback regarding a recommendation, a system may accordingly update a code.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Satish Rampuria whose telephone number is 571-272-3732. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Satish Rampuria/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193