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 responsive to the application filed on March 12, 2024.
2. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Claim Objection
3. Claims 18-20 are objected to. They are storage medium claims but depend on a system claim.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 are within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Prong 1, Step 2A: "receiving a change request describing new source code for a software project; generating, by a processing device, a prompt comprising context information and a plugin, wherein the context information comprises source code from the software project and the plugin comprises text that describes a supplemental work product to be generated; providing the prompt to a machine learning model, wherein the context information trains the machine learning model to provide the supplemental work product with a correct content and format; receiving the supplemental work product from the machine learning model” under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation can be done by a human using pen and paper. Thus these claim limitations fall within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Prong 2, Step 2A: the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements (machine learning model, non-transitory computer-readable media, processors, a device, microservices, system and subsystem) are recited at high level of generality. Further, “applying the supplemental work product to the software project” is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.05(g).
Prong 2, Step 2B: the additional elements considering them both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. As discussed above, elements that are mere use of generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, and the processes are insignificant extra-solution activity which are recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, according to MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2, 11, and 17: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claims 3 and 12: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claims 4, 13, and 18: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claims 5, 14, and 19: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claims 6, 15, and 20: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 7: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 8: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 9: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. After search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that independent claims 1, 10, and 16 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 "generating, by a processing device, a prompt comprising context information and a plugin, wherein the context information comprises source code from the software project and the plugin comprises text that describes a supplemental work product to be generated," "providing the prompt to a machine learning model, wherein the context information trains the machine learning model to provide the supplemental work product with a correct content and format," "receiving the supplemental work product from the machine learning model," "and “applying the supplemental work product to the software project," which are not found in the prior art of record.
Resolving the 35 USC §101 rejection would put the case in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
7. The prior art references made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12,182,567 to M et al. discloses when a code change request is submitted, a confidence score is entered. Later, the confidence score will be generated by using a trained machine learning model that takes as input historical information from a knowledge repository. However, Me et al. do not disclose allowable subject matter as indicated above.
US 12,088,619 to Barth discloses a system inputs individual risk scores (e.g., component risk score, flow risk score, identity risk score, asset risk score, employee risk type score, etc.) for a given code change request into a machine learning model. In such situations, the machine learning model is trained to determine an overall risk score for the code change request based on the individual scores. However, Barth does not disclose allowable subject matter as indicated above.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to examiner Thuy (Twee) Dao, whose telephone/fax numbers are (571) 272 8570 and (571) 273 8570, respectively. Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday, 5:30am - 2:00pm ET.
If attempts to reach Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Hyung (Sam) Sough, can be reached at (571) 272 6799.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature of relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272 2100.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Thuy Dao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192