CTNF 18/630,188 CTNF 80392 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Drawings 06-22-02 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters " 302 " and " 402 " have both been used to designate ”reservoir sampling”. Figs. 3 and 4 appear to be identical (except for the numbering). The descriptions of Figures 3 and 4 are reproduced below: Fig. 3 shows a first situation, in which N is unknown. In this case, a path enumeration 301 and a reservoir sampling 302 can be carried out first. The subsequent path calculations 303 are then applied only to the sampled paths. Subsequently, the training 304 can take place. Fig. 4 shows a second situation, in which N is known. In this case, a path enumeration 401 and a sampling 402 of (pairs of) leaves can be carried out first. Subsequent path calculations 403 are then applied only to the sampled paths. Subsequently, the training 404 can take place. In view of this it is believed that Fig. 4, “reservoir sampling” 402 is intended to read, e.g., “sampling of leaves” 402 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8: recites “a calculation of each particular path on based on a sequence”. It is believed this should read “a calculation of each particular path on based on a sequence” . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites: … wherein only paths provided as a path between a pair of the leaves are selected from the multitude of paths for the subsequent evaluation, and the multitude of paths includes only selected paths … This is understood to indicate that every path in “the multitude of paths” is selected. Parent claim 1 recites: … wherein a number of the selected paths is lower than a total number of the multitude of paths … If the “multitude of paths includes only selected paths” that means “the multitude of paths” contains no unselected paths and thus the number of selected paths is equal to the number of the multitude of paths. Accordingly, claim 3 it is not clear which or how many paths are claimed as being selected. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 3, 7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 10,901,708 to Reas et al. (Reas) . Claims 1 and 9-10: Reas discloses preprocessing code data for a subsequent evaluation, comprising the following steps: providing a representation of the code data, wherein the representation has a multitude of paths, which specify different sequences of syntactic elements of a code of the code data (col. 8, lines 50-52 “at block 604, generating an abstract syntax tree corresponding to the plurality of code file”); selecting a plurality of paths from the multitude of paths for the subsequent evaluation, wherein the paths are selected in a uniformly distributed manner, wherein a number of the selected paths is lower than a total number of the multitude of paths (col. 8, lines 55-61 “identifying a plurality of paths in the abstract syntax tree, each path having a first terminal node and a second terminal node”); carrying out a path calculation in which the selected paths are calculated, wherein the path calculation is limited to the selected paths (col. 4, lines 21-30 “crawl the AST(s) to identify a plurality of paths”); and providing the calculated paths for the evaluation (col. 9, lines 1-3 “generating one or more word embeddings”). Claim 3: Reas discloses claim 1, wherein the representation is configured as an abstract syntax tree in which the syntactic elements are provided as nodes, wherein a portion of the nodes are configured as leaves, which form terminal nodes of the syntax tree, (col. 8, lines 55-61 “identifying a plurality of paths in the abstract syntax tree”) wherein only paths provided as a path between a pair of the leaves are selected from the multitude of paths for the subsequent evaluation (col. 8, lines 55-61 “identifying a plurality of paths in the abstract syntax tree, each path having a first terminal node and a second terminal node”), and the multitude of paths includes only selected paths, wherein each leaf pair is also selected in combination with the particular path in the form of a triple (col. 8, lines 3-8 “each path starting and ending at a different terminal node … one or more non-terminal nodes”). Claim 7: The method according to claim 1, wherein the providing of the calculated paths includes: combining the calculated paths in an embedding, using a machine learning model (col. 5, lines 11-16 “use traditional embeddings learning techniques form NPL”, col. 6, lines 40-46 “analyze the code … based on … the word embeddings using NLP processing techniques”) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,901,708 to Reas et al. (Reas) in view of US 2023/0043280 to Scorgie (Scorgie) . Claim 2: Reas discloses claim 1, but does not wherein the code data is for a safety-critical application. Scorgie teaches code data for a safety-critical application (par. [0010] “safety-critical systems in autonomous vehicles”, par. [0005] “For software, the safety goals are typically achieved through … code auditing and testing protocols”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to preprocess/evaluate code data for a safety-critical application. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “safety-critical system s comprise a processor running software … and software elements must meet specific safety goals” (Scorgie par. [0004]). Claim 4: Reas discloses claim 1, wherein the evaluation is configured as an error analysis of the code data (col. 6, lines 40-46 “identify potential errors (e.g., “bugs”) in the code”), Reas does not explicitly disclose the code data are configured for a safety-critical application for controlling an at least partially autonomous robot or vehicle. Scorgie teaches code data for a safety-critical application for controlling an at least partially autonomous robot or vehicle (par. [0010] “safety-critical systems in autonomous vehicles”, par. [0005] “For software, the safety goals are typically achieved through … code auditing and testing protocols”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to preprocess/evaluate code data for a safety-critical application. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “safety-critical system s comprise a processor running software … and software elements must meet specific safety goals” (Scorgie par. [0004]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,901,708 to Reas et al. (Reas) in view of “Random Sampling with a Reservoir” by Vitter (Vitter) . Claim 5: Reas discloses claim 1, wherein the paths are selected in a uniformly distributed manner in that a reservoir sampling is carried out, wherein the paths are selected randomly from the multitude of paths (e.g. col. 7, lines 38-51 “sample the number of paths … a random path”). Reas does not explicitly disclose: the paths are selected in a uniformly distributed manner in that a reservoir sampling is carried out. Vitter teaches: paths are selected in a uniformly distributed manner in that a reservoir sampling is carried out (pg. 39, 1 st par. “The basic idea behind reservoir algorithms is to select a sample of size ≥ n , from which a random sample of size n can be generated”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry out reservoir sampling. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as a known sampling method which would have produced only the expected results . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,901,708 to Reas et al. (Reas) in view of “Random Sampling with a Reservoir” by Vitter (Vitter) in view of US 11,645,440 to Bustany et al. (Bustany) . Claim 6: Reas discloses claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the paths are selected in a uniformly distributed manner in that the following steps are carried out: checking whether the total number of the multitude of paths is known; calculating a statistical uniform distribution when the check has shown that total number is known, wherein the calculated uniform distribution is used for the selection of the paths, and otherwise carrying out a reservoir sampling, wherein the total number of the multitude of paths is at least 100 times greater than the number of the selected paths (col. 4, 28-32 “one or more hyperparameters may be used to sample the paths, reducing the amount of processing required”, it would have been obvious to reduce the number of paths by a factor of 100 in order to reduce the amount of processing). Vitter teaches: checking whether the total number of the multitude of paths is known (pg. 37, 2 nd par. “when the value of N is known beforehand”); calculating a statistical uniform distribution when the check has shown that total number is known (pg. 37, 2 nd par. “Many Algorithms have been developed”), wherein the calculated uniform distribution is used for the selection of the paths, and otherwise carrying out a reservoir sampling (pg. 37, 2 nd par. “when N is unknown”, pg. 39, 1 st par. “The basic idea behind reservoir algorithms is to select a sample of size ≥ n , from which a random sample of size n can be generated”), wherein the total number of the multitude of paths is at least 100 times greater than the number of the selected paths. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to carry out reservoir sampling when the total number of paths is not known. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as a known sampling method which would have produced only the expected results. Bustany teaches: a calculated uniform distribution used for the selection of the paths (col. 8, lines 36-39 “selected at random according to a uniform distribution”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a calculated uniform distribution for selection of the paths.. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so as a known sampling method which would have produced only the expected results . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,901,708 to Reas et al. (Reas) in view of US 9,600,401 to Haischt et al. (Haischt) . Claim 8: Reas discloses claim 1, wherein the path calculation includes a calculation of each particular path on based on a sequence of the syntactic elements (col. 2, lines 27-28 “syntactic paths between tokens in the code”), wherein a result of the path calculation includes a path representation for the particular calculated path for the particular path representation (col. 8, lines 55-61 “identifying a plurality of paths in the abstract syntax tree, each path having a first terminal node and a second terminal node”), wherein a result is temporarily stored in a data memory, and the stored result includes only the path representations for the selected paths (col. 5, 17-18 “output the word embeddings 124 to an output store 122”). Reas does not disclose the result includes a hash value for the particular path representation. Haischt teaches calculating a hash value for the particular path representation (col. 16, lines 45-48 “computing a hash value form said concatenated value, a path-ID can be computed”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention calculate a hash value for the path representation. Those of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)272-3728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday 7:00am - 4:30pm and alternate Fridays 7:00am 3:30pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JASON D MITCHELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/630,188 Page 2 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/630,188 Page 3 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/630,188 Page 4 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/630,188 Page 5 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/630,188 Page 6 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/630,188 Page 7 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/630,188 Page 8 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/630,188 Page 9 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/630,188 Page 10 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/630,188 Page 11 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/630,188 Page 12 Art Unit: 2199
Prosecution Insights