DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to application filed on February 28, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and are presented to examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures 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 their entirety 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statements dated February 28, 2024, October 08, 2025 and February 27, 2026 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Drawings
The drawings filed on February 28, 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because begins with “Various system and methods are presented regarding using generative…”. Please amend the abstract as follow:
Systems and methods using generative artificial intelligence/machine language (AI/ML) to resolve a merge conflict between two or more versions of a program code. The program code can be industrial automation software utilized to control one or more programmable logic control (PLC) in an industrial environment. Interaction with the program code can be via a programming tool that presents the program code in a human readable format, while the AI/ML can be applied to the underlying source code. Hence, while the source code is applied to the PLC, the programming tool enables interaction various human readable summaries of the program code and respective options available to resolve the merge conflict. Accordingly, a process engineer, or suchlike, does not have to be familiar with the source code format to readily understand a summary of the merge conflict or one or more options available to correct the conflict.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 17-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 recites “wherein the operations further comprise: receiving an input regarding the content of the summary; parsing the input to determine whether the summary is correct; and in response to the input confirming correctness of the summary, saving the summary as a commit message in conjunction with a version of the program code.”. Claim 18 recites “ wherein the first version of program code and the second version of program code have a formal language format.”. Please amend the claim language as suggested in bold. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-9 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category of machines; Claims 10-15 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; and Claims 16-20 are directed to media and fall withing the statutory category of manufactures. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 10 and 16 as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations: a) “receive a first version of program code, wherein the first version of program code is configured to control operation of a device in an industrial automation process;” – Mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III), this limitation can be reasonable performed by a human mind with the aid of pen and paper, wherein a person can manage/read/analyze program code in paper.
b) “determine an edit being made to the first version of program code, wherein the edit creates a second version of program code from the first version of program code;” – Mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III), this limitation can be reasonable performed by a human mind, wherein a person is able to analyze compare different code version to identify changes/edits in code. c) “generate a summary of a difference between the first version of program code and the second version of program code resulting from the edit;” - Mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III), this limitation can be reasonable performed by a human mind with the aid of pen and paper, wherein a person can create a report to indicate differences between code versions.
d) “present the summary for review by an entity, wherein the summary is in a plain language format, and content of the summary conveys an effect of applying the edit to the first version of program code.” - Mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III), this limitation can be reasonable performed by a human mind, wherein a person can present a result/output in a certain format for further evaluation. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, (i.e., “receive”, “determining”, “generate” and, “present”) can be performed in the human mind though observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 10 and 16 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: “a system”, “a memory”, “a processor”, “a summary component”, “a device” and “A computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium”. The additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus failing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are also evaluated under Step 2A Prong 2: a) “receive a first version of program code, wherein the first version of program code is configured to control operation of a device in an industrial automation process;”. This limitation as drafted is also considered an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g), mere data gathering). The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is also well-understood or conventional. b) “present the summary for review by an entity, wherein the summary is in a plain language format, and content of the summary conveys an effect of applying the edit to the first version of program code.”. This limitation as drafted is also considered an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g), presenting data). The addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is also well-understood or conventional. Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 10 and 16 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “a system”, “a memory”, “a processor”, “a summary component”, “a device” and “A computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium” are generic computer components used as tools to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, after further evaluation the claim as a whole doesn’t improve any function of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible. These limitations are also reviewed under Step 2B: a) “receive a first version of program code, wherein the first version of program code is configured to control operation of a device in an industrial automation process;”. b) “present the summary for review by an entity, wherein the summary is in a plain language format, and content of the summary conveys an effect of applying the edit to the first version of program code.”. These limitations are types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1, 10 and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. With regards to claim 2 (and similar for claims 11 and 17), it recites “receive an input regarding the content of the summary; parse the input to determine whether the summary is correct; and in response to the input confirming correctness of the summary, saving the summary as a commit message in conjunction with a version of the program code.” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or using pen and paper. For example, a person can receive an input in regards content of a report in order analyze/review the results and create a commit message. Moreover, claim 2 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 2 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more Therefore, Claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. With regards to claim 3 (and similar for claims 12 and 18), it recites “wherein the first version of program code and the second version of program code have a formal language format.”. which merely provide details for type of format for first and second version that is part of the mental process identified above with respect to claims 1, 10 and 16. Moreover, claim 3 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 3 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more Therefore, Claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. With regards to claim 4, it recites “a format component configured to convert the program code from the formal language format to the plain language format;”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or using pen and paper. For example, a person can convert a program code to a different version. Moreover, claim 4 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more. For example, “a presentation component configured to present the program code in the plain language and the summary in the plain language format.” is considered types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) (See MPEP 2106.05(d) and or an insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Claim 4 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more Therefore, Claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 5 (and similar for claims 13 and 19), it recites “receive a prompt, wherein the prompt provides context regarding how the summary is to be generated; parse the prompt to determine the required context; and wherein the summary component is further configured to generate the summary in accordance with the context provided in the prompt.”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or using pen and paper. For example, a person can receive a prompt in paper to determine the proper output/response. Moreover, claim 5 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 5 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more Therefore, Claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 6 (and similar for claim 14), it recites “capture an edit made to the summary; update the summary with the edit;”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or using pen and paper. For example, a person can identify an edit, update a summary/report. Moreover, claim 6 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more. For example, “save the edited summary with the second version of program code.” is considered types of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) (See MPEP 2106.05(d). Claim 6 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more Therefore, Claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 7, it recites “wherein the second version of program code is created from the first version of program code, and are sequentially adjacent in a version control history of the program codes.” which merely provide details how the program code is saved in a version control history that is part of the mental process identified above with respect to claims 1, 10 and 16. Moreover, claim 7 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 7 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more Therefore, Claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 8, it recites “wherein the summary component is further configured to generate the summary in accordance with domain specific language being utilized for the industrial automation process.” which merely provide details how the summary is generate according a domain specific language that is part of the mental process identified above with respect to claims 1, 10 and 16. Moreover, claim 8 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 8 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more Therefore, Claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 9 (and similar for claims 15 and 20), it recites “further comprising an entity component configured to generate entity context regarding at least one of a role of an entity generating the second version of program code or a preferred language of the entity, wherein the summary component can be further configured to generate the summary in accordance with the entity context.”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or using pen and paper. For example, a person can generate context data in a specific format to be presented to an entity. Moreover, claim 9 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 9 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more Therefore, Claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, Claims 1-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
Claims 1, 7-10, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Edwards et al. (US Pub. No. 2025/0138818 – hereinafter Edwards).
With respect to claim 1, Edwards teaches a system, comprising: a memory that stores computer executable components (See figure 6, memory 612) and a processor that executes the computer executable components stored in the memory (See figure 6 processor 614), wherein the computer executable components comprise: a summary component (See at least figure 2 (and related text), code development summary manager 212) configured to: receive a first version of program code (See paragraph [0032], “For example, a potential consumer of an application may navigate to an application store. Based on navigating to the application store, and/or searching for a particular application, the user may be provided with a code development summary for the particular version of the application (e.g., indicating new developments in the current version)”. See paragraph [0046], “The code development summary manager 212 may receive input 250 to initiate generation and/or provision of a code development summary(s). Input 250 may include a code development summary request 252. A code development summary request 252 generally includes a request or indication to generate a code development summary. A code development summary request may specify, for example, an indication of code or a code portion for which a code development summary is desired, an indication of a set of code modification data (e.g., commit messages) for which a code development summary is desired, an indication of the user to which the code development summary is to be presented, and/or the like.”. See paragraph [0047], “A code development summary request 252 may be provided by any service or device. For example, in some cases, a code development summary request 252 may be initiated and communicated via a user device, such as user device 110 of FIG. 1. For example, assume a user accesses a code developing application used to develop various codes (e.g., presented via the website or application). In such a case, a code development summary request 252 may be initiated that includes a request to generate code development summaries for the various codes. For instance, in one example, the code development summary request 252 may specify each code being developed via a code developing service. In another example, the code development summary request 252 may specify particular code(s) for which a code development summary is desired, such as code associated with software or products initially presented via the application or website, or a code selected or otherwise identified in association with a user interest (e.g., a user pauses scrolling over a code identifier, selecting the code or a code segment, and/or the like). In another example, a user may be an individual or entity associated with a code or software product having code (e.g., a developer, tester, manager, marketer, or provider of the code or product). In such a case, the user may select to view a code development summary associated with the particular code such that the user can obtain code development summary related to the code. In this way, the user may view the code development summary to identify modifications made to the code (e.g., within a certain time frame, associated with a particular version or release, or the like). In yet another example, a user may be an individual or entity interested in a code or software product, such as a consumer or potential consumer of a code or software product. In this regard, a code development summary request 252 may be initiated that includes a request to generate a code development summary associated with a product being searched for (e.g., via a search service) or considered for downloading or installing (e.g., an application service). See paragraph [0063], “As can be appreciated, in addition or in the alternative to identifying a type or amount of code modification data to obtain based on input (e.g., user input or selection), such data can be automatically identified. As one example, in accordance with a release of a new version of a product, commit messages composed since the previous version of the product can be automatically identified and obtained as code modification data for use in generating a code modification summary. As another example, assume a user viewed a previously generated code development summary. Based on identifying the user and the viewing date of the previously generated code development summary, code modification data generated subsequent to the previous viewing data may be identified and used for generating a new code development summary.”. Furthermore, see paragraph [0094]. Examiner notes: input of code of interest (i.e., first version of program code)), wherein the first version of program code is configured to control operation of a device in an industrial automation process (See paragraph [0037], “in other embodiments, for example, the network 122 might be an enterprise network associated with an organization”. Examiner notes: an organization could be interpreted to any type of business that might utilize the invention concept mentioned in this prior art. It is also understandable that summarization of commits can be used in any type of business for the purpose to understand code functionality or modifications. Lastly, this requirement is an intended use utilizing a broad statement of use that doesn't reveal unique structural features). determine an edit being made to the first version of program code, wherein the edit creates a second version of program code from the first version of program code (See paragraphs [0050]-[0064], “The code modification data obtainer 220 is generally configured to obtain code modification data. In this regard, in some cases, the code modification data obtainer 220 obtains code modification data in accordance with obtaining a code development summary request, such as code development summary request 252. Code modification data generally refers to any data associated with a code modification and/or used to generate a code development summary.”. Examiner notes: identification of code modifications). generate a summary of a difference between the first version of program code and the second version of program code resulting from the edit (See paragraph [0015], “As another example, providing modifications or updates made to code since a previous product release can allow a consumer or potential consumer of a product to understand differences between a previous product version and a current or new product version. In these regards, code development can be valuable to various audiences that may be interested in software code development.”. See paragraphs [0058], [0061], “For example, any code modification data associated with the developer (e.g., during a certain timeframe) may be identified (e.g., across different sets of code and/or code segments).”. See figure 2 (and related text), code development summary 230. See figure 3 (and related text), obtain as output from the large language model, a code development summary that summarizes the commit message data 308. See figure 4 (and related text), in response to the request, obtain the code development summary representing the set of commit messages corresponding with the code, the code development summary being generated via a trained large language model 404. See figure 5 (and related text), generate, using the trained large language mode, a code development summary that summarized the code modification data associated with the code in accordance with the target audience 504. Examiner notes: generation of summary) and present the summary for review by an entity, wherein the summary is in a plain language format, and content of the summary conveys an effect of applying the edit to the first version of program code (See paragraphs [0003], [0018], “Generating a code development summary in an automated manner reduces computing resources utilized to manually review modifications and author a code development summary. For example, computing resources used to manually locate, read, and synthesize a set of code modifications (e.g., commit messages) into a manually authored code development summary are not needed. As described herein, in some cases, a generated code development summary may be presented to a potential consumer of a product having the code or a product manager associated with the code. In this way, a potential consumer or product manager, for example, is presented with a summary of code modifications to provide understanding of updates and changes, thereby reducing the additional computing resources consumed with the individual otherwise manually searching for and identifying code modifications associated with code.”. See paragraph [0055], “For instance, a user, operating via a user device, desiring to review a code development summary for a particular code segment may select or input a set of commit messages associated with code or a code portion for use in generating corresponding code development summaries. In particular, a user may specify a start commit message and/or end commit message for use in generating a code development summary.”. Furthermore, see figures 2-5 (and related text) and paragraph [0078], “Output attributes generally indicate desired aspects associated with an output, such as a code development summary. For example, an output attribute may indicate a target type of output, such as a target audience for the summary (e.g., a manager of product development, a test coordinator, a release manager, a product marketer, an individual interested in purchasing or downloading a product). Providing an audience type can facilitate generation of a code development summary that is more in line with the desires or interests of the audience type. In some cases, the audience type can be automatically identified based on the user initiating (e.g., either directly or indirectly) generation of a code development summary. In other cases, an audience type can be provided as input, such as via a code development summary request.”. Examiner notes: presenting summary to audience, i.e., entity). With respect to claim 7, Edwards teaches wherein the second version of program code is created from the first version of program code, and are sequentially adjacent in a version control history of the program codes (See paragraph [0057], “In some cases, code modification data (e.g., commit messages) is identified via a local data source (e.g., a local repository). For example, upon obtaining an indication of commit messages, code modification data associated with the commit messages may be accessed or obtained via a data source local to a requesting user device. One example of such a data source includes Git® software and/or Git® repository. Git® includes software to track changes to sets of files during software development. A Git® repository can include a set of commit objects and a set of references to commit objects. The Git® repository may be stored in a same directory as the project itself. A commit object may include a set of files reflecting the state of the project at a point in time, references to parent commit objects, and a unique identifier of the commit object. Other types of information may additionally or alternatively be identified in association with a local Git® repository. In other cases, code modification data is identified via a global data source. For example, a global repository, such as a GitHub® repository, can be accessed and used to obtain code modification data. For example, an API specific to the global repository (e.g., GitHub® repository) can be used to obtain code modification data. As can be appreciated, any version control tool and/or repository manager tool could be used in accordance with embodiments described herein, and the examples provided herein are not intended to be limiting.”). With respect to claim 8, Edwards teaches wherein the summary component is further configured to generate the summary in accordance with domain specific language being utilized for the industrial automation process (See paragraph [0057], “code modification data (e.g., commit messages) is identified via a local data source (e.g., a local repository). For example, upon obtaining an indication of commit messages, code modification data associated with the commit messages may be accessed or obtained via a data source local to a requesting user device. One example of such a data source includes Git® software and/or Git® repository. Git® includes software to track changes to sets of files during software development. A Git® repository can include a set of commit objects and a set of references to commit objects. The Git® repository may be stored in a same directory as the project itself. A commit object may include a set of files reflecting the state of the project at a point in time, references to parent commit objects, and a unique identifier of the commit object. Other types of information may additionally or alternatively be identified in association with a local Git® repository. In other cases, code modification data is identified via a global data source. For example, a global repository, such as a GitHub® repository, can be accessed and used to obtain code modification data. For example, an API specific to the global repository (e.g., GitHub® repository) can be used to obtain code modification data. As can be appreciated, any version control tool and/or repository manager tool could be used in accordance with embodiments described herein, and the examples provided herein are not intended to be limiting.”). With respect to claim 9, Edwards teaches further comprising an entity component configured to generate entity context regarding at least one of a role of an entity generating the second version of program code or a preferred language of the entity, wherein the summary component can be further configured to generate the summary in accordance with the entity context (See paragraph [0032], “For instance, a product manager or marketer may be interested in understanding new developments in a recently released or upcoming release of a product. In other cases, such an individual may be a person interested in or a potential consumer of code. For example, a potential consumer of an application may navigate to an application store. Based on navigating to the application store, and/or searching for a particular application, the user may be provided with a code development summary for the particular version of the application (e.g., indicating new developments in the current version). As another example, a potential consumer may initiate a search for a product to view search results and be provided with a search result that includes a code development summary for the product.”. See paragraph [0078], “For example, an output attribute may indicate a target type of output, such as a target audience for the summary (e.g., a manager of product development, a test coordinator, a release manager, a product marketer, an individual interested in purchasing or downloading a product). Providing an audience type can facilitate generation of a code development summary that is more in line with the desires or interests of the audience type.”).
With respect to claim 10, the claim is directed to a method that corresponds to the system recited in claim 1, respectively (see the rejection of claim 1 above). With respect to claims 16 and 20, the claims are directed to a computer program product that corresponds to the method recited in claims 1 and 9, respectively (see the rejection of claims 1 and 9 above; wherein Edwards also teaches such a device in figure 6 and paragraph [0127]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al. (US Pub. No. 2025/0138818 – hereinafter Edwards) in view of Cristian Robledo et al. (“An open-source natural language processing toolkit to support software development: addressing automatic bug detection, code summarisation and code search” – hereinafter Robledo). With respect to claim 18, Edwards is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Robledo teaches wherein the first version of program code and the second version of program code have a formal language format (See section 2.3 “Semantic Parsing” in pages 5-6, “Translating natural languages into formal languages is called Semantic Parsing. It has been applied to the generation of formal languages”). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Edwards’s teaching, which set forth methods and graphical user interfaces for efficiently generating code development summaries, by utilizing formal language format as suggested by Robledo, as Robledo would provide a mechanism for translating natural languages into formal languages thus enhancing code summarization.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edwards et al. (US Pub. No. 2025/0138818 – hereinafter Edwards) in view of Sikand et al. (US Pub. No. 2025/0045028 – hereinafter Sikand). With respect to claim 19, Edwards is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Sikand teaches wherein the operations further comprise: receiving a prompt, wherein the prompt provides context regarding how the summary is to be generated (See figure 3,NL prompt). parsing the prompt to determine the required context (See figures 3, 5, 11, 14, 16 and paragraph [0016]-[0030], parsing the prompt to generate the output) and generating the summary in accordance with the context provided in the prompt (See figures 3, 5, 11, 14, 16 and paragraph [0016]-[0030], generating the output). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Edwards’s teaching with Sikand’s teaching, as Sikand would improve code generated by an artificial intelligence code generator.
Allowable Subject Matter
After sufficient search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that dependent claims 2-6 are not taught by any prior reference found through search. The primary reason for allowance of the claims in this case, is the inclusion of the
limitations “receive an input regarding the content of the summary; parse the input to determine whether the summary is correct; and in response to the input confirming correctness of the summary, saving the summary as a commit message in conjunction with a version of the program code.” which are not found in the prior
art of record. Incorporating claim 2 into claim 1 and correcting the rejection under 101 as described above would put claim 1 in condition for allowance.
After sufficient search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that dependent claims 11-15 are not taught by any prior reference found through search.
The primary reason for allowance of the claims in this case, is the inclusion of the
limitations “receiving, by the device, an input regarding the content of the summary; parsing, by the device, the input to determine whether the summary is correct; and in response to the input confirming correctness of the summary, saving, by the device, the summary as a commit message in conjunction with a version of the program code.” which are not found in the prior art of record.
Incorporating claim 11 into claim 10 and correcting the rejection under 101 as described above would put claim 10 in condition for allowance.
After sufficient search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that dependent claim 17 is not taught by any prior reference found through search.
The primary reason for allowance of the claims in this case, is the inclusion of the
limitations “receiving an input regarding the content of the summary; parsing the input to determine whether the summary is correct; and in response to the input confirming correctness of the summary, saving the summary as a commit message in conjunction with a version of the program code.” which are not found in the prior
art of record.
Incorporating claim 17 into claim 16 and correcting the rejection under 101 as described above would put claim 16 in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Rajesh et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0397416) discloses a method for generating a pseudo-code from a text summarization based on a convolutional neural network. (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1200. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 5712726799. 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.
/ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192