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 .
Detail Action
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 7/24/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mirkazemi et al. (US 2007/0055964 A1) in view of Boyd (“Getting started with JavaScript Source Maps” Posted Feb 28, 2014, retrieved on 4/15/2026, from Getting started with JavaScript Source Maps · Raygun Blog) and further in view of Wang (CN 118444918 A)
Per claim 1,
Mirkazemi discloses
receiving, via a web browser, a source code in a first computing language from a user;
converting the source code to a JavaScript; ([0048], disclose developer programming a fully object-oriented high-level programming language then compiled into browser-side JavaScript… client side engine…throughout the entire user’s web experience. [0051]-[0054], [0092]-[0094] see browser input)
executing the JavaScript; ([0100], discloses browser-side code…JavaScript…executed on the client machine.) and
Mirkazemi does not, however, Boyd discloses
based on an error occurring during the execution of the JavaScript,(pp. 4,
disclose watch an error and stack information will appears based on original source file; pp5,
discloses decode stack traces in errors translated back to original source file.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date
of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Boyd into the teachings of Mirkazemi to include
the limitation disclosed by Boyd. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to assist in understanding what has occurred in the original source code as
suggested by Boyd (pp. 5)
Mirkazemi/Boyd does not, however, Wang discloses
Converting, by a source-to-source conversion module loaded into the web browser as part of a website, (pp. 1, see web platform Flutter that converts the Dart language into JavaScript through dart2js. pp. 4, see dart2js: the compiler of the Dart language can compile Dart code into JavaScript code. Pp. 5, discloses Dart2JS conversion to an element that can be identified by the browser.)
Creating, by the source-to-source conversion module loaded into the web browser as part of a website, a mapping between the source code and the JavaScript; (pp. 5, discloses Source Map: : mapping file between the Dart code and the compiled JavaScript code)
identifying via the mapping a portion of the source code corresponding to the error and transmitting a notification to the user, the notification including the portion of the source code.( pp. 5, Source Map: mapping file between the Dart code and the compiled JavaScript code can be used for debugging the Dart code. Pp. 6, allows developers to view original source code…at time of debugging. pp. 6, “Wherein, Source maps are a technique for providing mapping of source codes and translation codes (e.g., packed, compiled, compressed, confused codes. This allows developers to view the original source code of the transformed code, rather than the transformed code, at the time of debugging. If a source map prompt is seen in the main.dart.js file, this typically means that the development environment has generated a Source map file that is used to help debug the translated JavaScript code.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Wang into the teachings of Mirkazemi/Boyd to include the limitation disclosed by Wang. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to view the original source code in order to correct the debug to fix the error.
Per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Mirkazemi/Boyd/Wang discloses
wherein the first computing language is one of Java, Python, Dart, C#, Scala, and Kotlin. (Mirkazemi, [0083], discloses C#, Java))
Per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Mirkazemi/Boyd/Wang discloses
wherein the mapping between the source code and the JavaScript includes a correspondence between lines of the JavaScript and lines of the source code. (Wang, see source map mapping relation of row number and number )
Per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Mirkazemi/Boyd/Wang discloses
wherein the converting the source code to the JavaScript, ( Mirkazemi, ([0048], disclose developer programming a fully object-oriented high-level programming language then compiled into browser-side JavaScipt… client side engine…throughout the entire user’s web experience. [0051]-[0054], [0092]-[0094] see browser input ) the executing the JavaScript are performed by the web browser.([0100], discloses browser-side code…JavaScript…executed on the client machine. ) the creating the mapping between the source code and the JavaScript, (Boyd, pp. 5, see browser loads source map)
Per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Mirkazemi/Boyd/Wang discloses
based on a successful execution of the JavaScript, converting an output of the JavaScript into an output format corresponding to the first computing language.(Boyd, pp. 5, see stack is translated back against original source file. The stack trace back feature is available regardless if there is error or not. )
Per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Mirkazemi/Boyd/Wang discloses
wherein the notification further includes a type of the error. (Mirkazemi , [0136], see type checking error)
Per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Mirkazemi/Boyd/Wang discloses
wherein the converting the source code to the JavaScript is performed by a source-to-source compiler embedded in a code of a website that is loaded in the web browser. (Wang, pp.5 see Dart2JS )
Per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Mirkazemi/Boyd/Wang discloses
further comprising receiving, from the user via the web browser an identification of the first computing language. (Mirkazemi, [0049], disclose using high-level programming language….compiled into JavaSript.)
Per claims 9-18, see rejections of claims 1-8.
Per claims 17-20, see rejections of claims 1 and 3-5.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to argued claim(s)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 argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip Wang whose telephone number is 571-272-5934. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:00AM -4:00PM. Any inquiry of general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC2100 Group receptionist: 571-272-2100.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lewis Bullock, can be reached at 571-272-3759. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/PHILIP WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights