DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the amendment submitted on April 21, 2026.
Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are pending.
Claims 1, 6-8, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are currently amended.
Claim 5 is canceled.
Claim 21 is added.
The objections to Claims 6, 8, 17, 19, and 20 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of Claims 16 and 17 are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of Claims 1-20 are maintained in view of the Applicant’s arguments and amendments to the claims and further explained hereinafter. The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of Claim 5 is withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s cancellation of the claim.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 16, 19, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7 and 19 recite “the second positions in the original source code.” It should read -- the second positions of the second individual characters in the original source code --.
Claim 16 recites “the first positions in the virtual preprocessed source code.” It should read -- the first positions of the first individual characters in the virtual preprocessed source code --.
Claim 21 recites “the corresponding second positions in the original source code.” It should read -- the corresponding second positions of the respective second characters in the original source code --.
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 1-4 and 6-21 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.
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 1 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method, which is a process (a series of steps or acts), and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 recites the limitations:
(a) extracting the one or more preprocessor statements from the original source code;
(b) analyzing the one or more preprocessor statements to determine first positions of first individual characters in virtual preprocessed source code that correspond to second positions of second individual characters in the original source code; and
(c) generating a mapping data structure that maps the first positions of the first individual characters in the virtual preprocessed source code to the second positions of the second individual characters in the original source code.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting, in the preamble of the claim:
(1) computer-implemented.
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating original source code in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to extract one or more preprocessor statements. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the one or more preprocessor statements in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to determine positions in virtual preprocessed source code. And the limitation (c) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the positions in the virtual preprocessed source code in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate a mapping data structure. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element, in the preamble of the claim:
(1) computer-implemented.
The additional element (1) is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The computer is used as a tool to perform the obtaining, extracting, analyzing, generating, and storing steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(2) obtaining original source code from a code base, the original source code having one or more preprocessor statements; and
(3) storing the mapping data structure, the mapping data structure providing a basis for subsequent dynamic generation of portions of the virtual preprocessed source code.
The additional elements (2) and (3) are mere data gathering/storing recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/storing, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/storing. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional element, in the preamble of the claim:
(1) computer-implemented.
The additional element (1) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(2) obtaining original source code from a code base, the original source code having one or more preprocessor statements; and
(3) storing the mapping data structure, the mapping data structure providing a basis for subsequent dynamic generation of portions of the virtual preprocessed source code.
The additional elements (2) and (3) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data and storing and retrieving information in memory as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to obtain original source code from a code base and store a mapping data structure. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution activities, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-4 and 6 are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the one or more preprocessor statements comprise an include statement in a particular source code file, the include statement including contents of another file into the particular source code file.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 3 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the one or more preprocessor statements comprise a conditional compilation statement in a particular source code file.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 4 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the one or more preprocessor statements comprise a code rewriting statement.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 6 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the mapping data structure has an operation type field indicating operations to be performed when generating the virtual preprocessed source code.
Claims 2-4 and 6 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Thus, Claims 2-4 and 6 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 1-4 and 6 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
<<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>>
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 7 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 7 is directed to a computer-implemented method, which is a process (a series of steps or acts), and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 7 recites the limitations:
(a) […] generating the virtual preprocessed source code by retrieving characters from the second positions in the original source code;
(b) based at least on the virtual preprocessed source code, extracting a portion of the original source code from the code base that satisfies the one or more conditions; and
(c) modifying the extracted portion of the original source code according to the request.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
(1) computer-implemented; and
(2) dynamically […].
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating characters from positions in original source code in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate virtual preprocessed source code. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the virtual preprocessed source code in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to extract a portion of the original source code from a code base. And the limitation (c) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the extracted portion of the original source code in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to modify the extracted portion of the original source code. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) computer-implemented; and
(2) dynamically […].
The additional elements (1) and (2) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The computer is used as a tool to perform the receiving, accessing, generating, extracting, and modifying steps of the claim. And the term “dynamically” implies that a computer/machine is used as a tool to perform the generating step of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(3) receiving a request to modify original source code from a code base that satisfies one or more conditions; and
(4) accessing a mapping data structure that maps first positions of first individual characters in virtual preprocessed source code to second positions of second individual characters in the original source code from the code base.
The additional elements (3) and (4) are mere data gathering/accessing recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/accessing, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/ accessing. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) computer-implemented; and
(2) dynamically […].
The additional elements (1) and (2) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(3) receiving a request to modify original source code from a code base that satisfies one or more conditions; and
(4) accessing a mapping data structure that maps first positions of first individual characters in virtual preprocessed source code to second positions of second individual characters in the original source code from the code base.
The additional elements (3) and (4) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data and storing and retrieving information in memory as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to receive a request and access a mapping data structure. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution activities, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 8-18 are dependent on Claim 7, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 7.
Claim 8 recites the limitations:
(a) inputting the extracted portion of the original source code to a generative machine learning model with a prompt requesting modification of the extracted portion of the original source code; and
(b) receiving modified source code from the generative machine learning model.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 9 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the one or more conditions specify that the extracted portion of the original source code includes control flow statements.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 10 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the one or more conditions specify that the extracted portion of the original source code includes function call statements.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 11 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the one or more conditions specify that the extracted portion of the original source code includes variable-accessing statements.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 12 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the one or more conditions specify that the extracted portion of the original source code includes statements that access a specific data structure.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 13 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the prompt requests optimizing the extracted portion of the original source code or adding comments to the extracted portion of the original source code.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 14 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the prompt requests translating the extracted portion of the original source code into a different programming language.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 15 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the prompt requests renaming functions or variables in the extracted portion of the original source code.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 16 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the first positions in the virtual preprocessed source code are identified using a logical representation of the original source code that is generated by an automated analysis tool.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 17 recites the limitation:
(a) generating the logical representation of the original source code by dynamically generating the virtual preprocessed source code and providing the dynamically-generated virtual preprocessed source code to the automated analysis tool.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 18 recites the limitation:
(a) iteratively modifying further extracted portions of the original source code using the generative machine learning model and replacing the further extracted portions until an entirety of the original source code has been modified and replaced.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 21 recites the limitations:
(a) looking up, in the mapping data structure, corresponding second positions of respective second characters of the original source code that map to respective first positions of respective first characters of the dynamically-generated. virtual preprocessed source code that satisfy the one or more conditions,
(b) wherein the extracted portion of the original source code is extracted from the corresponding second positions in the original source code.
Claims 9-12, 16-18, and 21 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claims 8, 17, and 18 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 8 and 13-15 recite further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 8-18 and 21 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 7 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 7-18 and 21 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
<<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>> • × • <<>>
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 19 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 19 is directed to a system, which is a machine, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 19 recites the limitations:
(a) […] generate the virtual preprocessed source code by retrieving characters from the second positions in the original source code;
(b) based at least on the virtual preprocessed source code, extract a portion of the original source code from the code base that satisfies the one or more conditions; and
(c) modify the extracted portion of the original source code according to the request.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
(1) a processor;
(2) a storage device storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the system to; and
(3) dynamically […].
Nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating characters from positions in original source code in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to generate virtual preprocessed source code. And the limitation (b) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the virtual preprocessed source code in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to extract a portion of the original source code from a code base. And the limitation (c) in the context of the claim encompasses a human evaluating the extracted portion of the original source code in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper to modify the extracted portion of the original source code. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) a processor;
(2) a storage device storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the system to; and
(3) dynamically […].
The additional elements (1) to (3) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The processor and storage device are used as a tool to perform the receiving, accessing, generating, extracting, and modifying steps of the claim. And the term “dynamically” implies that a computer/machine is used as a tool to perform the generating step of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(4) receive a request to modify original source code from a code base that satisfies one or more conditions; and
(5) access a mapping data structure that maps first positions of first individual characters in virtual preprocessed source code to second positions of second individual characters in the original source code.
The additional elements (4) and (5) are mere data gathering/accessing recited at a high level of generality and thus, are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/accessing, and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/ accessing. See MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
(1) a processor;
(2) a storage device storing instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the system to; and
(3) dynamically […].
The additional elements (1) to (3) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Also, the claim recites the additional elements:
(4) receive a request to modify original source code from a code base that satisfies one or more conditions; and
(5) access a mapping data structure that maps first positions of first individual characters in virtual preprocessed source code to second positions of second individual characters in the original source code.
The additional elements (4) and (5) simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data and storing and retrieving information in memory as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to receive a request and access a mapping data structure. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution activities, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 20 is dependent on Claim 19, but does not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 19.
Claim 20 recites the limitations:
(a) input the extracted portion of the original source code to a generative machine learning model with a prompt requesting modification of the extracted portion of the original source code;
(b) receive modified source code from the generative machine learning model; and
(c) replace the extracted portion of the original source code with the modified source code.
Claim 20 recites further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 20 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 20 recites further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because they are mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and thus, are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, Claim 20 does not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 19 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 19 and 20 are not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0109067 (hereinafter “Flicker”) (cited in the IDS submitted on 10/08/2025) in view of US 2024/0061992 (hereinafter “Bhatia”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to mapping of preprocessed source code to original source code with character-to-character accuracy (specification, paragraph [0026]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Flicker is generally directed to translating software code text including one or more preprocessor statements into a preprocessor output (Flicker, paragraph [0003]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Bhatia is generally directed to generating tagged content from the text of an electronic document (Bhatia, paragraph [0002]). Thus, Flicker and Bhatia are both analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems or are not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 1, Flicker discloses:
A computer-implemented method (paragraph [0019], “[…] the present invention may be embodied as a method […].”) comprising:
obtaining original source code from a code base, the original source code having one or more preprocessor statements (paragraph [0033], “[…] a preprocessor-integrated parsing process (‘PIP’) process may address these and other issues. For example, a PIP process may identify software code text in a software editor that includes a preprocessor statement [obtaining original source code from a code base, the original source code having one or more preprocessor statements], wherein the preprocessor statement may not be recognized as appropriate source code by the applicable editor (emphasis added).”);
extracting the one or more preprocessor statements from the original source code (paragraph [0050], “Client PIP process 20 may translate 202 the software code text including the one or more preprocessor statements into a preprocessor output. As noted above, a preprocessor output may include one or more transformations of one or more preprocessor statements into a set of expressions that represent the intended functionality of the preprocessor statement and that are expressed using the standard language and/or syntax of the relevant programming language [extracting the one or more preprocessor statements from the original source code] (emphasis added).”);
analyzing the one or more preprocessor statements to determine first positions […] in virtual preprocessed source code that correspond to second positions […] in the original source code (paragraph [0063]1, “[…] lexing 216 the software code text may include generating 218 a first token stream representing the software code text. Generating 218 the first token stream may include, in certain embodiments, lexing 220 one or more preprocessor statements included in the software code text as one or more adjunct tokens, using the identified 210 locations of preprocessor transformations to override the default behavior of the lexer (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0065]1, “Lexing 216 the software code text may include generating 222 a series of secondary token streams representing replacement text associated with transformations of the software code text by the preprocessor(s) (i.e., text included in the preprocessor output that varies from the text of the un-transformed software code text) (emphasis added).”);
[1Examiner’s Remarks: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the plain meaning of the limitation “virtual preprocessed source code” includes a virtual representation of preprocessed source code. Thus, the limitation “virtual preprocessed source code,” given its plain meaning consistent with the specification, is mapped to Flicker’s series of secondary token streams representing replacement text associated with transformations of the software code text by the preprocessor(s). See MPEP § 2173.01(I).]
generating a mapping data structure that maps the first positions […] in the virtual preprocessed source code to the second positions […] in the original source code (paragraph [0066]2, “Lexing 216 the software code text may include mapping 224 one or more locations in the first token stream associated with one or more transformations of the software code text (e.g., as identified by comparing 208 the preprocessor output with the software code text) to one or more corresponding token streams included in the series of secondary token streams (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0067]2, “Lexing 216 the software code text may include mapping 226 one or more token streams included in the series of secondary token streams to one or more corresponding locations in the source code text (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0071], “Additionally, locations in the first token stream (e.g., locations that may be syntactically transformed by the preprocessor(s)) may be mapped 224 to corresponding streams in the series of secondary streams (e.g., streams representing the replacement text associated with the transformation) and token streams in the series of secondary streams may be mapped 226 to locations in the source code text (emphasis added).”); and
[2Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Flicker discloses mapping one or more locations in the first token stream associated with one or more transformations of the software code text and mapping one or more token streams included in the series of secondary token streams to one or more corresponding locations in the source code text. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that a mapping data structure is generated in order to store the mapping data.]
storing the mapping data structure (paragraph [0036], “The instruction sets and subroutines of server PIP process 10, which may be stored on storage device 16 coupled to server computer 12, may be executed by one or more processors (not shown) and one or more memory architectures (not shown) incorporated into server computer 12. Storage device 16 may include but is not limited to: a hard disk drive; a tape drive; an optical drive; a RAID array; a random access memory (RAM); and a read-only memory (ROM) (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0039], “The instruction sets and subroutines of client PIP processes 20, 22, 24, 26, which may be stored on storage devices 36, 38, 40, 42 (respectively) coupled to client electronic devices 28, 30, 32, 34 (respectively), may be executed by one or more processors (not shown) and one or more memory architectures (not shown) incorporated into client electronic devices 28, 30, 32, 34 (respectively) (emphasis added).”), the mapping data structure providing a basis for subsequent dynamic generation of portions of the virtual preprocessed source code (paragraph [0071], “Therefore, based on the correspondence between the first token stream and the software code text, PIP process 20 may generate 214 a representative model of the software code text that includes representations of syntactic structures associated with the code text (including syntactic structures associated with preprocessor output) and in which the representations of the syntactic structures are appropriately mapped to corresponding locations the software code text [the mapping data structure providing a basis for subsequent dynamic generation of portions of the virtual preprocessed source code].”).
Flicker discloses “first positions […] in virtual preprocessed source code” and “second positions […] in the original source code,” but Flicker does not explicitly disclose:
first positions of first individual characters […]; and
second positions of second individual characters […].
However, Bhatia discloses:
first positions of first individual characters […] (paragraph [0030], “The document parser 121 generates parsed content, such as a parsed file, including the attribute data for characters and objects in the document. For each character, the document parser 121 generates attribute data describing: (a) a location of a character/object, (b) font data associated with each character, and (c) font style data associated with each character (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0048], “[…] the system parses a digital file representing the electronic document to identify location information associated with characters in the document and location information associated with a bounding box associated with a hyperlink in the electronic document (Operation 208) (emphasis added).”); and
second positions of second individual characters […] (paragraph [0030], “The document parser 121 generates parsed content, such as a parsed file, including the attribute data for characters and objects in the document. For each character, the document parser 121 generates attribute data describing: (a) a location of a character/object, (b) font data associated with each character, and (c) font style data associated with each character (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0048], “[…] the system parses a digital file representing the electronic document to identify location information associated with characters in the document and location information associated with a bounding box associated with a hyperlink in the electronic document (Operation 208) (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Flicker and Bhatia are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bhatia into the teaching of Flicker to include “first positions of first individual characters […]; and second positions of second individual characters […].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to identify location information associated with characters in source code for later analysis and processing (Bhatia, paragraph [0048]).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Flicker further discloses:
wherein the mapping data structure has an operation type field indicating operations to be performed when generating the virtual preprocessed source code (paragraph [0055], “As also noted above, identifying 206 preprocessor transformations may, in certain embodiments, be based upon, at least in part, preferences 204 (and/or algorithms) associated with a development environment and/or PIP process 20. For example, in certain embodiments, preferences 204 may indicate which types of preprocessor transformations are syntactically significant.”; paragraph [0064], “[…] PIP process 20 may generate lists of replacement tokens based on the identified 210 replacement text of the associated preprocessor transformation, and map these replacement tokens to corresponding adjunct tokens associated with the location of a preprocessor transformation.”).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flicker in view of Bhatia as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of “PREPROCESSOR DIRECTIVES,” September 28, 2022 (hereinafter “PREPROCESSOR_DIRECTIVES”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to mapping of preprocessed source code to original source code with character-to-character accuracy (specification, paragraph [0026]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, PREPROCESSOR_DIRECTIVES is generally directed to the C pre-processor (PREPROCESSOR_DIRECTIVES, page 1). Thus, PREPROCESSOR_DIRECTIVES is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Flicker and Bhatia does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more preprocessor statements comprise an include statement in a particular source code file, the include statement including contents of another file into the particular source code file.
However, PREPROCESSOR_DIRECTIVES discloses:
wherein the one or more preprocessor statements comprise an include statement in a particular source code file, the include statement including contents of another file into the particular source code file (page 1, “We’ve been using the #include statement since our first program in order to get access to C’s library functions (like printf instdio.h). When the pre-processor sees a #include statement, it replaces the #include line with the contents of the included file.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, PREPROCESSOR_DIRECTIVES is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of PREPROCESSOR_DIRECTIVES into the combined teachings of Flicker and Bhatia to include “wherein the one or more preprocessor statements comprise an include statement in a particular source code file, the include statement including contents of another file into the particular source code file.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to replace an #include line with the contents of an included file when a pre-processor sees an #include statement (PREPROCESSOR_DIRECTIVES, page 1).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Flicker and Bhatia does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more preprocessor statements comprise a conditional compilation statement in a particular source code file.
However, PREPROCESSOR_DIRECTIVES discloses:
wherein the one or more preprocessor statements comprise a conditional compilation statement in a particular source code file (page 3, “There is also a pre-processor if-statement that checks to see whether or not a constant has been defined.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, PREPROCESSOR_DIRECTIVES is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of PREPROCESSOR_DIRECTIVES into the combined teachings of Flicker and Bhatia to include “wherein the one or more preprocessor statements comprise a conditional compilation statement in a particular source code file.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add, remove, or change source code when handling # statements (PREPROCESSOR_DIRECTIVES, page 1).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Flicker and Bhatia does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more preprocessor statements comprise a code rewriting statement.
However, PREPROCESSOR_DIRECTIVES discloses:
wherein the one or more preprocessor statements comprise a code rewriting statement (page 2, “A macro is simplified function that includes a name and a list of arguments.” and “Just like other pre-processor directives, the compiler never sees the macro itself. It only sees the final result, after the pre-processor has replaced the macro call with the macro formula.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, PREPROCESSOR_DIRECTIVES is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of PREPROCESSOR_DIRECTIVES into the combined teachings of Flicker and Bhatia to include “wherein the one or more preprocessor statements comprise a code rewriting statement.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add, remove, or change source code when handling # statements (PREPROCESSOR_DIRECTIVES, page 1).
Claims 7, 16, 17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0324417 (hereinafter “Somani”) in view of US 2014/0109067 (hereinafter “Flicker”) (cited in the IDS submitted on 10/08/2025) and US 2024/0061992 (hereinafter “Bhatia”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to mapping of preprocessed source code to original source code with character-to-character accuracy (specification, paragraph [0026]). As for the “same field of endeavor” test, Somani is generally directed to facilitating incremental software development (Somani, Abstract). And Flicker is generally directed to translating software code text including one or more preprocessor statements into a preprocessor output (Flicker, paragraph [0003]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Bhatia is generally directed to generating tagged content from the text of an electronic document (Bhatia, paragraph [0002]). Thus, Somani, Flicker, and Bhatia are all analogous art to the claimed invention (even if they address different problems). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 7, Somani discloses:
A computer-implemented method (paragraph [0016], “Example methods […] for incremental software development are discussed.”) comprising:
receiving a request to modify original source code from a code base that satisfies one or more conditions (paragraph [0018], “A request is received from a user to modify source code 116 for at least one of the plurality of binary libraries 114 (operation 204). As shown in FIG. 1, the user request results in a request for the source code 116 that may be forwarded as a source code request 204A from the development environment 102 to the source control system 106 [from a code base] (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0026], “Generally, the source control system 306 tracks and controls changes to the source code 316 made by multiple users 320. In some embodiments, the source control system 306 may be referred to as aversion control system (VCS) or a revision control system (RCS). The source code 316 may be embodied as multiple source files or modules that may be modified or revised by the user 320 locally in the development environment 302. In one example, the source code 316 may be stored in the source control system 306, and/or transmitted to the development environment 302, as one or more compressed files, such as ZIP files. To gain access to the source code 316 of interest, the user 320 may ‘check out’ one or more source files for retrieval and modification in the development environment 302 [that satisfies one or more conditions].”);
[…] extracting a portion of the original source code from the code base that satisfies the one or more conditions (paragraph [0018], “In response to the user request of operation 204, the source code 116 for the at least one of the plurality of libraries 114 is retrieved from the source control system 106 into the development environment 102 (operation 206) [{…} extracting a portion of the original source code from the code base that satisfies the one or more conditions]. The retrieved source code 116 may take the form of one or more source files that may be edited by the user.”); and
modifying the extracted portion of the original source code according to the request (paragraph [0018], “The development environment 102 may present the received source code 116 to the user (operation 208), who may then modify the received source code 116, such as by way of the development environment 102 (emphasis added).”).
Somani does not explicitly disclose:
accessing a mapping data structure that maps first positions […] in virtual preprocessed source code to second positions […] in the original source code from the code base;
dynamically generating the virtual preprocessed source code by retrieving characters from the second positions in the original source code; and
based at least on the virtual preprocessed source code.
However, Flicker discloses:
accessing a mapping data structure that maps first positions […] in virtual preprocessed source code to second positions […] in the original source code from the code base (paragraph [0063]1, 2, “[…] lexing 216 the software code text may include generating 218 a first token stream representing the software code text. Generating 218 the first token stream may include, in certain embodiments, lexing 220 one or more preprocessor statements included in the software code text as one or more adjunct tokens, using the identified 210 locations of preprocessor transformations to override the default behavior of the lexer (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0065]1, 2, “Lexing 216 the software code text may include generating 222 a series of secondary token streams representing replacement text associated with transformations of the software code text by the preprocessor(s) (i.e., text included in the preprocessor output that varies from the text of the un-transformed software code text) (emphasis added).”);
[1Examiner’s Remarks: Note that Flicker discloses mapping one or more locations in the first token stream associated with one or more transformations of the software code text and mapping one or more token streams included in the series of secondary token streams to one or more corresponding locations in the source code text. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that a mapping data structure is accessed in order to store the mapping data.]
[2Examiner’s Remarks: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the plain meaning of the limitation “virtual preprocessed source code” includes a virtual representation of preprocessed source code. Thus, the limitation “virtual preprocessed source code,” given its plain meaning consistent with the specification, is mapped to Flicker’s series of secondary token streams representing replacement text associated with transformations of the software code text by the preprocessor(s). See MPEP § 2173.01(I).]
dynamically generating the virtual preprocessed source code by retrieving characters from the second positions in the original source code (paragraph [0063], “[…] lexing 216 the software code text may include generating 218 a first token stream representing the software code text. Generating 218 the first token stream may include, in certain embodiments, lexing 220 one or more preprocessor statements included in the software code text as one or more adjunct tokens, using the identified 210 locations of preprocessor transformations to override the default behavior of the lexer (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0065], “Lexing 216 the software code text may include generating 222 a series of secondary token streams representing replacement text associated with transformations of the software code text by the preprocessor(s) (i.e., text included in the preprocessor output that varies from the text of the un-transformed software code text) (emphasis added).”); and
based at least on the virtual preprocessed source code (paragraph [0063], “[…] lexing 216 the software code text may include generating 218 a first token stream representing the software code text. Generating 218 the first token stream may include, in certain embodiments, lexing 220 one or more preprocessor statements included in the software code text as one or more adjunct tokens, using the identified 210 locations of preprocessor transformations to override the default behavior of the lexer (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0065], “Lexing 216 the software code text may include generating 222 a series of secondary token streams representing replacement text associated with transformations of the software code text by the preprocessor(s) (i.e., text included in the preprocessor output that varies from the text of the un-transformed software code text) (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Somani and Flicker are both analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Flicker into the teaching of Somani to include “accessing a mapping data structure that maps first positions […] in virtual preprocessed source code to second positions […] in the original source code from the code base; dynamically generating the virtual preprocessed source code by retrieving characters from the second positions in the original source code; and based at least on the virtual preprocessed source code.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to define routines or subroutines to be employed at various locations in source code text, and/or include various types of customizations (Flicker, paragraph [0027]).
The combination of Somani and Flicker discloses “first positions […] in virtual preprocessed source code” and “second positions […] in the original source code,” but the combination of Somani and Flicker does not explicitly disclose:
first positions of first individual characters […]; and
second positions of second individual characters […].
However, Bhatia discloses:
first positions of first individual characters […] (paragraph [0030], “The document parser 121 generates parsed content, such as a parsed file, including the attribute data for characters and objects in the document. For each character, the document parser 121 generates attribute data describing: (a) a location of a character/object, (b) font data associated with each character, and (c) font style data associated with each character (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0048], “[…] the system parses a digital file representing the electronic document to identify location information associated with characters in the document and location information associated with a bounding box associated with a hyperlink in the electronic document (Operation 208) (emphasis added).”); and
second positions of second individual characters […] (paragraph [0030], “The document parser 121 generates parsed content, such as a parsed file, including the attribute data for characters and objects in the document. For each character, the document parser 121 generates attribute data describing: (a) a location of a character/object, (b) font data associated with each character, and (c) font style data associated with each character (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0048], “[…] the system parses a digital file representing the electronic document to identify location information associated with characters in the document and location information associated with a bounding box associated with a hyperlink in the electronic document (Operation 208) (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Bhatia is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bhatia into the combined teachings of Somani and Flicker to include “first positions of first individual characters […]; and second positions of second individual characters […].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to identify location information associated with characters in source code for later analysis and processing (Bhatia, paragraph [0048]).
As per Claim 16, the rejection of Claim 7 is incorporated; and the combination of Somani and Bhatia does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first positions in the virtual preprocessed source code are identified using a logical representation of the original source code that is generated by an automated analysis tool.
However, Flicker discloses:
wherein the first positions in the virtual preprocessed source code are identified using a logical representation of the original source code that is generated by an automated analysis tool (paragraph [0068], “[…] the parser (and/or other syntax-dependent tools) may perform various forms of traversal of the token model. For example, in one embodiment, as part of the second stage of parsing 212 the software code text, a parser may traverse a stream of tokens that syntactically matches the preprocessor output (which may be in a syntax that the parser may understand), by traversing the original token stream and whenever it encounters an adjunct representing a preprocessor transformation, ignoring that adjunct and instead traverse the stream of tokens for the corresponding preprocessor replacement text (as indicated, for example, by mapping 224) before returning to the next token in the original token stream. Further, in certain embodiments, issues (or other information) identified by the parser may be associated with appropriate locations in the code text based (as indicated, for example, by mapping 226).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Flicker is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Flicker into the combined teachings of Somani and Bhatia to include “wherein the first positions in the virtual preprocessed source code are identified using a logical representation of the original source code that is generated by an automated analysis tool.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to define routines or subroutines to be employed at various locations in source code text, and/or include various types of customizations (Flicker, paragraph [0027]).
As per Claim 17, the rejection of Claim 16 is incorporated; and the combination of Somani and Bhatia does not explicitly disclose:
generating the logical representation of the original source code by dynamically generating the virtual preprocessed source code and providing the dynamically-generated virtual preprocessed source code to the automated analysis tool.
However, Flicker discloses:
generating the logical representation of the original source code by dynamically generating the virtual preprocessed source code and providing the dynamically-generated virtual preprocessed source code to the automated analysis tool (paragraph [0068], “[…] the parser (and/or other syntax-dependent tools) may perform various forms of traversal of the token model. For example, in one embodiment, as part of the second stage of parsing 212 the software code text, a parser may traverse a stream of tokens that syntactically matches the preprocessor output (which may be in a syntax that the parser may understand), by traversing the original token stream and whenever it encounters an adjunct representing a preprocessor transformation, ignoring that adjunct and instead traverse the stream of tokens for the corresponding preprocessor replacement text (as indicated, for example, by mapping 224) before returning to the next token in the original token stream. Further, in certain embodiments, issues (or other information) identified by the parser may be associated with appropriate locations in the code text based (as indicated, for example, by mapping 226).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Flicker is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Flicker into the combined teachings of Somani and Bhatia to include “generating the logical representation of the original source code by dynamically generating the virtual preprocessed source code and providing the dynamically-generated virtual preprocessed source code to the automated analysis tool.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to define routines or subroutines to be employed at various locations in source code text, and/or include various types of customizations (Flicker, paragraph [0027]).
Claim 19 is a system claim corresponding to the computer-implemented method claim hereinabove (Claim 7). Therefore, Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 7.
As per Claim 21, the rejection of Claim 7 is incorporated; and Somani does not explicitly disclose:
looking up, in the mapping data structure, corresponding second positions of respective second characters of the original source code that map to respective first positions of respective first characters of the dynamically-generated. virtual preprocessed source code that satisfy the one or more conditions,
wherein the extracted portion of the original source code is extracted from the corresponding second positions in the original source code.
However, Flicker discloses:
looking up, in the mapping data structure, corresponding second positions […] of the original source code that map to respective first positions […] of the dynamically-generated virtual preprocessed source code that satisfy the one or more conditions (paragraph [0066], “Lexing 216 the software code text may include mapping 224 one or more locations in the first token stream associated with one or more transformations of the software code text (e.g., as identified by comparing 208 the preprocessor output with the software code text) to one or more corresponding token streams included in the series of secondary token streams.”; paragraph [0067], “Lexing 216 the software code text may include mapping 226 one or more token streams included in the series of secondary token streams to one or more corresponding locations in the source code text.”; paragraph [0071], “Additionally, locations in the first token stream (e.g., locations that may be syntactically transformed by the preprocessor(s)) may be mapped 224 to corresponding streams in the series of secondary streams (e.g., streams representing the replacement text associated with the transformation) and token streams in the series of secondary streams may be mapped 226 to locations in the source code text.”),
wherein the extracted portion of the original source code is extracted from the corresponding second positions in the original source code (paragraph [0063], “[…] lexing 216 the software code text may include generating 218 a first token stream representing the software code text. Generating 218 the first token stream may include, in certain embodiments, lexing 220 one or more preprocessor statements included in the software code text as one or more adjunct tokens, using the identified 210 locations of preprocessor transformations to override the default behavior of the lexer.”; paragraph [0065], “Lexing 216 the software code text may include generating 222 a series of secondary token streams representing replacement text associated with transformations of the software code text by the preprocessor(s) (i.e., text included in the preprocessor output that varies from the text of the un-transformed software code text).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Flicker is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Flicker into the teaching of Somani to include “looking up, in the mapping data structure, corresponding second positions […] of the original source code that map to respective first positions […] of the dynamically-generated virtual preprocessed source code that satisfy the one or more conditions, wherein the extracted portion of the original source code is extracted from the corresponding second positions in the original source code.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to define routines or subroutines to be employed at various locations in source code text, and/or include various types of customizations (Flicker, paragraph [0027]).
The combination of Somani and Flicker discloses “corresponding second positions […] of the original source code” and “respective first positions […] of the dynamically-generated virtual preprocessed source code,” but the combination of Somani and Flicker does not explicitly disclose:
corresponding second positions of respective second characters […]; and
respective first positions of respective first characters […].
However, Bhatia discloses:
corresponding second positions of respective second characters […] (paragraph [0030], “The document parser 121 generates parsed content, such as a parsed file, including the attribute data for characters and objects in the document. For each character, the document parser 121 generates attribute data describing: (a) a location of a character/object, (b) font data associated with each character, and (c) font style data associated with each character (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0048], “[…] the system parses a digital file representing the electronic document to identify location information associated with characters in the document and location information associated with a bounding box associated with a hyperlink in the electronic document (Operation 208) (emphasis added).”); and
respective first positions of respective first characters […] (paragraph [0030], “The document parser 121 generates parsed content, such as a parsed file, including the attribute data for characters and objects in the document. For each character, the document parser 121 generates attribute data describing: (a) a location of a character/object, (b) font data associated with each character, and (c) font style data associated with each character (emphasis added).”; paragraph [0048], “[…] the system parses a digital file representing the electronic document to identify location information associated with characters in the document and location information associated with a bounding box associated with a hyperlink in the electronic document (Operation 208) (emphasis added).”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Bhatia is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bhatia into the combined teachings of Somani and Flicker to include “corresponding second positions of respective second characters […]; and respective first positions of respective first characters […].” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to identify location information associated with characters in source code for later analysis and processing (Bhatia, paragraph [0048]).
Claims 8, 13-15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somani in view of Flicker and Bhatia as applied to Claims 7 and 19 above, and further in view of US 2025/0272061 (hereinafter “Szabo”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to mapping of preprocessed source code to original source code with character-to-character accuracy (specification, paragraph [0026]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Szabo is generally directed to using GMs such as LLMs to generate and/or modify source code (Szabo, Abstract). Thus, Szabo is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 8, the rejection of Claim 7 is incorporated; and the combination of Somani, Flicker, and Bhatia does not explicitly disclose:
inputting the extracted portion of the original source code to a generative machine learning model with a prompt requesting modification of the extracted portion of the original source code; and
receiving modified source code from the generative machine learning model.
However, Szabo discloses:
inputting the extracted portion of the original source code to a generative machine learning model with a prompt requesting modification of the extracted portion of the original source code (paragraph [0071], “At block 504, the system, e.g., by way of GM input engine 126, may assemble 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. Where applicable, at block 504A, the system, e.g., by way of GM input engine 126, may assemble, into the first GM prompt, a selected subportion (e.g., 258) of the earlier GM response with data indicative of the request to modify the selected subportion of the first rendered GM output.”); and
receiving modified source code from the generative machine learning model (paragraph [0072], “At block 506, the system, e.g., by way of GM response generation engine 128, may process the first GM prompt using one or more of the GMs (e.g., 129) to generate a first GM response (e.g., 252B). At block 508, the system, e.g., by way of UX engine 136, may provide the first GM response to a client application. The first GM response may be operable by the client application to provide second rendered GM output (e.g., 254B). The second rendered GM output may include a new version of the source code in which the modification to the one of either the source code comment or the snippet is reflected in the other of the source code comment or the snippet.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Szabo is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Szabo into the combined teachings of Somani, Flicker, and Bhatia to include “inputting the extracted portion of the original source code to a generative machine learning model with a prompt requesting modification of the extracted portion of the original source code; and receiving modified source code from the generative machine learning model.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to automatically generate source code, with little or no human intervention (Szabo, paragraph [0001]).
As per Claim 13, the rejection of Claim 8 is incorporated; and the combination of Somani, Flicker, and Bhatia does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the prompt requests optimizing the extracted portion of the original source code or adding comments to the extracted portion of the original source code.
However, Szabo discloses:
wherein the prompt requests optimizing the extracted portion of the original source code or adding comments to the extracted portion of the original source code (paragraph [0024], “In some such implementations, the enumerated list of candidate modifications may be a context specific list of candidate modifications that are selected based on the selected subportion of the first rendered GM output. For instance, if a source code function or source code instructions are highlighted, then the list may include options such as […] ‘add comment,’ […] etc.”; paragraph [0071], “At block 504, the system, e.g., by way of GM input engine 126, may assemble 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. Where applicable, at block 504A, the system, e.g., by way of GM input engine 126, may assemble, into the first GM prompt, a selected subportion (e.g., 258) of the earlier GM response with data indicative of the request to modify the selected subportion of the first rendered GM output.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Szabo is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Szabo into the combined teachings of Somani, Flicker, and Bhatia to include “wherein the prompt requests optimizing the extracted portion of the original source code or adding comments to the extracted portion of the original source code.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to automatically generate source code, with little or no human intervention (Szabo, paragraph [0001]).
As per Claim 14, the rejection of Claim 8 is incorporated; and the combination of Somani, Flicker, and Bhatia does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the prompt requests translating the extracted portion of the original source code into a different programming language.
However, Szabo discloses:
wherein the prompt requests translating the extracted portion of the original source code into a different programming language (paragraph [0024], “In some such implementations, the enumerated list of candidate modifications may be a context specific list of candidate modifications that are selected based on the selected subportion of the first rendered GM output […] If graphical element(s) representing entire source code file(s) are selected, then the list may include options such as […] ‘translate (to a different programming language),’ etc.”; paragraph [0071], “At block 504, the system, e.g., by way of GM input engine 126, may assemble 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. Where applicable, at block 504A, the system, e.g., by way of GM input engine 126, may assemble, into the first GM prompt, a selected subportion (e.g., 258) of the earlier GM response with data indicative of the request to modify the selected subportion of the first rendered GM output.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Szabo is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Szabo into the combined teachings of Somani, Flicker, and Bhatia to include “wherein the prompt requests translating the extracted portion of the original source code into a different programming language.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to automatically generate source code, with little or no human intervention (Szabo, paragraph [0001]).
As per Claim 15, the rejection of Claim 8 is incorporated; and the combination of Somani, Flicker, and Bhatia does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the prompt requests renaming functions or variables in the extracted portion of the original source code.
However, Szabo discloses:
wherein the prompt requests renaming functions or variables in the extracted portion of the original source code (paragraph [0024], “In some such implementations, the enumerated list of candidate modifications may be a context specific list of candidate modifications that are selected based on the selected subportion of the first rendered GM output. For instance, if a source code function or source code instructions are highlighted, then the list may include options such as […] ‘rename variable(s),’ […] etc.”; paragraph [0071], “At block 504, the system, e.g., by way of GM input engine 126, may assemble 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. Where applicable, at block 504A, the system, e.g., by way of GM input engine 126, may assemble, into the first GM prompt, a selected subportion (e.g., 258) of the earlier GM response with data indicative of the request to modify the selected subportion of the first rendered GM output.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Szabo is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Szabo into the combined teachings of Somani, Flicker, and Bhatia to include “wherein the prompt requests renaming functions or variables in the extracted portion of the original source code.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to automatically generate source code, with little or no human intervention (Szabo, paragraph [0001]).
As per Claim 20, the rejection of Claim 19 is incorporated; and the combination of Somani, Flicker, and Bhatia does not explicitly disclose:
input the extracted portion of the original source code to a generative machine learning model with a prompt requesting modification of the extracted portion of the original source code;
receive modified source code from the generative machine learning model; and
replace the extracted portion of the original source code with the modified source code.
However, Szabo discloses:
input the extracted portion of the original source code to a generative machine learning model with a prompt requesting modification of the extracted portion of the original source code (paragraph [0071], “At block 504, the system, e.g., by way of GM input engine 126, may assemble 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. Where applicable, at block 504A, the system, e.g., by way of GM input engine 126, may assemble, into the first GM prompt, a selected subportion (e.g., 258) of the earlier GM response with data indicative of the request to modify the selected subportion of the first rendered GM output.”);
receive modified source code from the generative machine learning model (paragraph [0072], “At block 506, the system, e.g., by way of GM response generation engine 128, may process the first GM prompt using one or more of the GMs (e.g., 129) to generate a first GM response (e.g., 252B). At block 508, the system, e.g., by way of UX engine 136, may provide the first GM response to a client application. The first GM response may be operable by the client application to provide second rendered GM output (e.g., 254B). The second rendered GM output may include a new version of the source code in which the modification to the one of either the source code comment or the snippet is reflected in the other of the source code comment or the snippet.”); and
replace the extracted portion of the original source code with the modified source code (paragraph [0072], “At block 506, the system, e.g., by way of GM response generation engine 128, may process the first GM prompt using one or more of the GMs (e.g., 129) to generate a first GM response (e.g., 252B). At block 508, the system, e.g., by way of UX engine 136, may provide the first GM response to a client application. The first GM response may be operable by the client application to provide second rendered GM output (e.g., 254B). The second rendered GM output may include a new version of the source code in which the modification to the one of either the source code comment or the snippet is reflected in the other of the source code comment or the snippet.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Szabo is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Szabo into the combined teachings of Somani, Flicker, and Bhatia to include “input the extracted portion of the original source code to a generative machine learning model with a prompt requesting modification of the extracted portion of the original source code; receive modified source code from the generative machine learning model; and replace the extracted portion of the original source code with the modified source code.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to automatically generate source code, with little or no human intervention (Szabo, paragraph [0001]).
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somani in view of Flicker, Bhatia, and Szabo as applied to Claim 8 above, and further in view of Hertz, Daniel, “Basic Guide to C Programming Language Constructs for Beginners,” January 7, 2019 (hereinafter “Hertz”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to mapping of preprocessed source code to original source code with character-to-character accuracy (specification, paragraph [0026]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Hertz is generally directed to a basic guide to C programming language constructs for beginners (Hertz, page 1). Thus, Hertz is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 9, the rejection of Claim 8 is incorporated; and the combination of Somani, Flicker, Bhatia, and Szabo does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more conditions specify that the extracted portion of the original source code includes control flow statements.
However, Hertz discloses:
wherein the one or more conditions specify that the extracted portion of the original source code includes control flow statements (page 1, “For- loops can be used to repeat code a fixed number of times. You typically have to define a starting value, ending condition, and an action that's repeated after each iteration.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Hertz is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hertz into the combined teachings of Somani, Flicker, Bhatia, and Szabo to include “wherein the one or more conditions specify that the extracted portion of the original source code includes control flow statements.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow a programmer to modify source code containing control flow statements.
As per Claim 10, the rejection of Claim 8 is incorporated; and the combination of Somani, Flicker, Bhatia, and Szabo does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more conditions specify that the extracted portion of the original source code includes function call statements.
However, Hertz discloses:
wherein the one or more conditions specify that the extracted portion of the original source code includes function call statements (page 1, “A minimal method declaration consists of its name.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Hertz is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hertz into the combined teachings of Somani, Flicker, Bhatia, and Szabo to include “wherein the one or more conditions specify that the extracted portion of the original source code includes function call statements.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow a programmer to modify source code containing function call statements.
As per Claim 11, the rejection of Claim 8 is incorporated; and the combination of Somani, Flicker, Bhatia, and Szabo does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more conditions specify that the extracted portion of the original source code includes variable-accessing statements.
However, Hertz discloses:
wherein the one or more conditions specify that the extracted portion of the original source code includes variable-accessing statements (page 1, “A minimal variable declaration must consist of the type and name. C is a strongly typed language, so the type can't be changed later on.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Hertz is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hertz into the combined teachings of Somani, Flicker, Bhatia, and Szabo to include “wherein the one or more conditions specify that the extracted portion of the original source code includes variable-accessing statements.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow a programmer to modify source code containing variable-accessing statements.
As per Claim 12, the rejection of Claim 8 is incorporated; and the combination of Somani, Flicker, Bhatia, and Szabo does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more conditions specify that the extracted portion of the original source code includes statements that access a specific data structure.
However, Hertz discloses:
wherein the one or more conditions specify that the extracted portion of the original source code includes statements that access a specific data structure (page 1, “Arrays can be defined by using square brackets.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Hertz is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hertz into the combined teachings of Somani, Flicker, Bhatia, and Szabo to include “wherein the one or more conditions specify that the extracted portion of the original source code includes statements that access a specific data structure.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to allow a programmer to modify source code containing statements that access a specific data structure.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Somani in view of Flicker, Bhatia, and Szabo as applied to Claim 8 above, and further in view of US 2025/0094720 (hereinafter “Musundi”).
[Examiner’s Remarks: In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).
Note that the claimed invention is generally directed to mapping of preprocessed source code to original source code with character-to-character accuracy (specification, paragraph [0026]). As for the “reasonably pertinent” test, Musundi is generally directed to validation of alt text for images in web pages (Musundi, Abstract). Thus, Musundi is an analogous art to the claimed invention (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See MPEP § 2141.01(a)(I).]
As per Claim 18, the rejection of Claim 8 is incorporated; and Somani discloses “the original source code,” but the combination of Somani, Flicker, Bhatia, and Szabo does not explicitly disclose:
iteratively modifying further extracted portions of the original source code using the generative machine learning model and replacing the further extracted portions until an entirety of the original source code has been modified and replaced.
However, Musundi discloses:
iteratively modifying further extracted portions of the [alt text] using the generative machine learning model and replacing the further extracted portions until an entirety of the [alt text] has been modified and replaced (paragraph [0037], “[…] new alt text can be generated using a separate generative language model, such as a Large Language Model (LLM) or a Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) model, as shown in FIG. 3 […] In various implementations, the alt text generator model 302 is a generative transformer-based language model which is trained to convert a sequence of input tokens to a sequence of token embeddings and to generate new alt text token-by-token by iteratively predicting subsequent tokens (i.e., words) for the alt text until a complete alt text has been generated. Token prediction is autoregressive meaning that the predictions are performed with reference to the input token embeddings (i.e., the prompt) along with token embeddings of any previously generated tokens. In some implementations, a similarity score for the generated alt text can be maintained and used as a condition for guiding the token prediction process. Once new alt text has been generated, the new alt text is provided to the control component 304 which in turn provides the new alt text to the user interface 306 where it can be presented as a suggestion for modifying or replacing the inaccurate alt text of an image element.”).
As pointed out hereinabove, Musundi is an analogous art to the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Musundi into the combined teachings of Somani, Flicker, Bhatia, and Szabo to include “iteratively modifying further extracted portions of the original source code using the generative machine learning model and replacing the further extracted portions until an entirety of the original source code has been modified and replaced.” The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to iteratively predict subsequent tokens for source code until a complete source code has been generated (Musundi, paragraph [0037]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 7, and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the arguments.
In the Remarks, the Applicant argues:
Consider USPTO Subject Matter Eligibility Example 47, issued by the USPTO on July 17, 2024. The example claims are directed to methods for anomaly detection using an artificial network. The USPTO analysis of example claim 3 states as follows:
[…]
Like claim 3 of Example 47, Appellant’s [sic] specification provides a technical explanation of an asserted improvement and that improvement is reflected by the claim. Paragraphs 0085-0089 of Applicant’s as-filed specification state as follows:
[…]
Here, Applicant notes that amended independent claim 1 includes recitations directed to features that realize these improvements to the functioning of a computer:
storing the mapping data structure, the mapping data structure providing a basis for subsequent dynamic generation of portions of the virtual preprocessed source code …
(emphasis added).
Since Applicant’s claims recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer that is also described in the specification, any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. Thus, the rejection should be withdrawn for this additional reason.
(See Remarks – pages 9-12, emphasis in original.)
Examiner’s response:
Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
First, with respect to the Applicant’s assertion that “[l]ike claim 3 of Example 47, [Applicant’s] specification provides a technical explanation of an asserted improvement and that improvement is reflected by the claim,” the Examiner respectfully submits that, as pointed out by the Applicant, the additional elements in steps (d) to (f) of Claim 3 of Example 47, when considered in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim improves the functioning of a computer or technical field. Namely, steps (d) to (f) provide for improved network security using the information from the detection to enhance security by taking proactive measures to remediate the danger by detecting the source address associated with the potentially malicious packets. Specifically, the claim reflects the improvement in step (d), dropping potentially malicious packets in step (e), and blocking future traffic from the source address in step (f). These steps reflect the improvement described in the background. Thus, the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception.
In contrast, Claim 1 of the instant application, for example, does not recite any steps that reflect the improvement described in the Applicant’s specification. Applicant points to paragraph [0089] of the specification which states “[…] the extracted portions are logically complete from the perspective of the generative language model, e.g., the generative language model receives all calls to a given function, all accesses to a particular variable, etc. Then, the generative language model can modify the extracted portion as requested by a developer. The modified source code generated by the generative language model can be employed to update the code base.” However, none of these features that reflect the improvement are recited in the claim. Specifically, the claim does not recite that the extracted portions of source code are logically complete from the perspective of the generative language model, then the generative language model modifies the extracted portion as requested by a developer, and then the modified source code generated by the generative language model can be employed to update the code base. Claim 1, as presently constructed, merely recites generating a mapping data structure that maps the portions of source code and storing the mapping data structure. Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Second, with respect to the Applicant’s assertion that “[the] Applicant notes that amended independent claim 1 includes recitations directed to features that realize these improvements to the functioning of a computer,” the Examiner respectfully submits that the claimed feature of “[…] the mapping data structure providing a basis for subsequent dynamic generation of portions of the virtual preprocessed source code” is non-limiting and can be treated as an intended use limitation. It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“The discovery of a new property or use of a previously known composition, even when that property and use are unobvious from prior art, cannot impart patentability to claims to the known composition.”). The claimed “mapping data structure” is well-known in the software arts, as evident by the teaching of Flicker. Thus, the recitation of a new intended use of the well-known “mapping data structure” does not limit the scope of the claim and is of no significance to claim construction. See MPEP § 2111.02(II).
Furthermore, assuming arguendo that the claimed feature of “[…] the mapping data structure providing a basis for subsequent dynamic generation of portions of the virtual preprocessed source code” is limiting and cannot be treated as an intended use limitation, the Examiner would like to point out that the claimed “mapping data structure” is recited as being “providing a basis for subsequent dynamic generation of portions of the virtual preprocessed source code.” The claim does not explicitly recite an active step of subsequent dynamic generation of portions of the virtual preprocessed source code. Given its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) treatment, the scope of the limitation “providing a basis for subsequent dynamic generation of portions of the virtual preprocessed source code” does not include a subsequent dynamic generation of portions of the virtual preprocessed source code because “providing a basis” only indicates the ability to perform a subsequent dynamic generation of portions of the virtual preprocessed source code. If the main crux of the Applicant’s argument of Claim 1 includes recitations directed to features that realize improvements to the functioning of a computer hinges on this particular limitation, then the Examiner concludes that Claim 1 does not include recitations directed to features that realize improvements to the functioning of a computer because the scope of this particular limitation, under the BRI, is not limited to an interpretation that would provide improvements to the functioning of a computer.
Therefore, for at least the reasons set forth above, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 with respect to Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are proper and therefore, maintained.
In the Remarks, the Applicant argues:
Consider Subject Matter Eligibility Example 3, claim 1, issued by the USPTO. The USPTO analysis concludes that the claim is directed to an abstract idea. However, the USPTO analysis also concludes that certain additional elements recited in Example 3, claim 1 amount to significantly more than merely comparing and organizing data because “the claimed process with the improved blue noise mask allows the computer to use to less memory than required for prior masks” (emphasis added).
Like the limitation in claim 3 of USPTO Example 3, the limitations of claim 1 relating to “storing the mapping data structure, the mapping data structure providing a basis for subsequent dynamic generation of portions of the virtual preprocessed source code” (emphasis added) are also directed to elements that amount to significantly more than any abstract idea. As described previously with respect to the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis, these features solve the problem that source code can consume prohibitive amounts of memory for certain applications, such as use with generative machine learning models. These limitations are “necessarily rooted in computing technology” to solve a specific problem relating to memory utilization. When taken as an ordered combination with the other recitations of claim 1, the claim demonstrates a technologically rooted solution to this problem, and amounts to significantly more than any abstract idea.
(See Remarks – pages 12 and 13, emphasis in original.)
Examiner’s response:
Examiner disagrees. With respect to the Applicant’s assertion that “these features solve the problem that source code can consume prohibitive amounts of memory for certain applications, such as use with generative machine learning models. These limitations are ‘necessarily rooted in computing technology’ to solve a specific problem relating to memory utilization,” the Examiner respectfully submits that Claim 1, for example, does not explicitly recite a generative machine learning model and its associated functions for using the mapping data structure to generate the modified source code for updating a code base. If the Applicant asserts that the use with a generative machine learning model to generate modified source code by using a mapping data structure is an improvement to the functioning of a computer because the Applicant’s technique uses less memory space than prior techniques, then the claim has to explicitly recite, at the very least, a generative machine learning model and its associated functions for using the mapping data structure to generate the modified source code for updating a code base. Claim 1, as presently constructed, does not recite additional elements that integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application because it does not require a generative machine learning model and its associated functions for using the mapping data structure to generate the modified source code for updating a code base.
Furthermore, should there be further prosecution and the Applicant decides to add generic recitations of a generative machine learning model and its associated functions at a high-level of generality (i.e., providing an input to the generative machine learning model and obtaining an output from the generative machine learning model) into Claim 1, for example, in an attempt to overcome the § 101 rejection, the Examiner would like to point out that the addition of such generic generative machine learning model recitations still do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These generic generative machine learning model recitations will be treated under Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) as mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components and/or failing to meaningfully limit the claim because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. Thus, they do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Therefore, for at least the reasons set forth above, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 with respect to Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are proper and therefore, maintained.
In the Remarks, the Applicant argues:
Further, assuming the Examiner does not agree, Applicant notes that the Examiner is required to analyze this additional element as set forth in MPEP 2016.05(d)(I)(2):
[…]
Here, these claim recitations are not “well-understood, routine, [or] conventional,” nor has the Examiner met their burden of establishing as much. Thus, the claims recite significantly more than any judicial exception, and the rejection should be withdrawn for this additional reason.
(See Remarks – pages 13 and 14.)
Examiner’s response:
Examiner disagrees. With respect to the Applicant’s assertion that “[…] these claim recitations are not ‘well-understood, routine, [or] conventional,’ nor has the Examiner met their burden of establishing as much,” the Examiner respectfully submits that, as pointed out in the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of the claims hereinabove, in Step 2B, the additional elements of “obtaining original source code from a code base, the original source code having one or more preprocessor statements” and “storing the mapping data structure, the mapping data structure providing a basis for subsequent dynamic generation of portions of the virtual preprocessed source code” simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data and storing and retrieving information in memory as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activities. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to obtain original source code from a code base and store a mapping data structure. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, for at least the reason set forth above, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 with respect to Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are proper and therefore, maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US 2021/0256136 (hereinafter “Larsson”) discloses checking the integrity of a target computer program to be executed in a computer system.
US 2023/0267274 (hereinafter “Avadhani”) discloses correcting entity detection errors and by performing entity resolution in unstructured text documents.
US 2024/0061989 (hereinafter “Zhong”) discloses generating text content with consistent text ordering from a source document including different text reading directions.
US 2024/0126800 (hereinafter “Bhatia”) discloses maintaining list-type text formatting when converting content from a source content format to a destination content.
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Qing Chen whose telephone number is 571-270-1071. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/ interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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 more 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.
/Qing Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights