DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application submitted on April 17, 2024.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in EP on April 17, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP24386045.9 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 8 and 16 recite the limitation “semantically similar.” The term “similar” is a relative term, which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner subsequently does not give any patentable weight to this limitation for the purpose of further examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention 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 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:
determining a revision history of the software code file associated with a user identifier of the software code file;
[…] generating a graph that comprises nodes identifying at least a portion of the software code file, the user identifier, and the revision history and edges of the graph that identify relationships between the software code file, the user identifier, and the revision history; and
using the graph, generating a response to a query associated with a software application that is executed based on the software code file.
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. automatically.
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, the limitations in (a), (b) and (c) can be reasonably interpreted as mental processes that can be practically 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) for the determining step, a human can read related software code file information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to determine a revision history. The limitation (b) for the generating step, a human can read related software code file information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to generate a graph. The limitation (c) for the generating step, a human can read query information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to generate a response. 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:
generating and storing location metadata of a software code file in an augmented software code data store, the location metadata being identified separately from contents of the software code file, and storage of the location metadata being augmented with the contents of the software code file that are stored in the augmented software code data store;
storing the user identifier and the revision history of the software code file in the augmented software code data store, the user identifier and the revision history being identified separately from the contents of the software code file, and storage of the user identifier and the revision history being augmented with the contents of the software code file that are stored in the augmented software code data store;
automatically.
The additional element (1) and (2) are mere data outputting 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 outputting and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data outputting. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The additional element (3) 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 term “automatically” implies that a computer is used as a tool to perform the generating step of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
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:
generating and storing location metadata of a software code file in an augmented software code data store, the location metadata being identified separately from contents of the software code file, and storage of the location metadata being augmented with the contents of the software code file that are stored in the augmented software code data store;
storing the user identifier and the revision history of the software code file in the augmented software code data store, the user identifier and the revision history being identified separately from the contents of the software code file, and storage of the user identifier and the revision history being augmented with the contents of the software code file that are stored in the augmented software code data store;
automatically.
The additional element (1) and (2) simply append a 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 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 an insignificant extra-solution activity. 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 generating and storing location metadata, and storing the user identifier and the revision history of the software code file. Therefore, the limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
The additional element (3) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
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 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more for at least the reasons stated above.
Claim 2 recites the limitation:
(a) receiving a ticketing system file that describes an error associated with the software application;
(b) generating and storing error metadata of the ticketing system file in the augmented software code data store; and
(c) automatically updating the graph with a node that identifies the ticketing system file and an edge of the graph that identifies a relationship between the ticketing system file, the error, and the nodes of the graph that identify at least the portion of the software code file, the user identifier, and the revision history.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 3 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the graph comprises an edge that identifies a relationship between the software application and the software code file that is enabled to be compiled to generate the portion of the software application.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 4 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the graph is a node graph that identifies information associated with the nodes of the graph.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 5 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the graph is a relationship graph that identifies information as the edges to describe the relationships between the nodes of the graph.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 6 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the software code file is enabled to be compiled to generate a portion of a software application, and wherein components of the software application are stored in distributed and separate software code data stores absent a central repository.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 7 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein a machine learning model is implemented to identify relationships between the nodes or the edges in the graph and augment the graph.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 8 recites the limitation:
(a) generating embeddings associated with the nodes in the graph that are semantically similar to the nodes; and
(b) updating the graph with the embeddings.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
These claims 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 further additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception because it is mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and fails to integrated into practical application and it does not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 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, fails to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claims 2, 6 and 8 recite further additional elements that fail to meaningfully limit the claim 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 fail to integrated into practical application and they do not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Claims 3-5 recite further additional elements that fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they are merely adding descriptions to mental process components, and thus they fail to integrated into practical applications and they do not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Claims 6 and 7 recite further additional elements fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and fail to integrated into practical application and they do not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 2-8 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.
Claims 1-8 are therefore not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significant more.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 9 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 9 is directed to a system, which is a machine and/or manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 9 recites the limitations:
a. determine a revision history of the software code file associated with a user identifier of the software code file;
[…] generate a graph that comprises nodes identifying at least a portion of the software code file, the user identifier, and the revision history and edges of the graph that identify relationships between the software code file, the user identifier, and the revision history; and
using the graph, generate a response to a query associated with a software application that is executed based on the software code file.
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:
a memory; and
a processor that is configured to execute machine readable instructions stored in the memory for causing the processor to:
automatically.
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, the limitations in (a), (b) and (c) can be reasonably interpreted as mental processes that can be practically 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) for the determine step, a human can read revision history information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to determine a revision history. The limitation (b) for the generate step, a human can read related software code file information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to generate a graph. The limitation (c) for the generate step, a human can read query information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to generate a response. 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:
a memory; and
a processor that is configured to execute machine readable instructions stored in the memory for causing the processor to:
generate and store location metadata of a software code file in an augmented software code data store, the location metadata being identified separately from contents of the software code file, and storage of the location metadata being augmented with the contents of the software code file that are stored in the augmented software code data store;
store the user identifier and the revision history of the software code file in the augmented software code data store, the user identifier and the revision history being identified separately from the contents of the software code file, and storage of the user identifier and the revision history being augmented with the contents of the software code file that are stored in the augmented software code data store;
automatically.
The additional elements (1), (2) and (5) 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 memory and the processor are used as tools to perform the generate, store and determine steps of the claim. And the term “automatically” implies that a computer is used as a tool to perform the generate step of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional elements (3) and (4) are mere data outputting 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 outputting and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data outputting. See MPEP § 2106.05.
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:
a memory; and
a processor that is configured to execute machine readable instructions stored in the memory for causing the processor to:
generate and store location metadata of a software code file in an augmented software code data store, the location metadata being identified separately from contents of the software code file, and storage of the location metadata being augmented with the contents of the software code file that are stored in the augmented software code data store;
store the user identifier and the revision history of the software code file in the augmented software code data store, the user identifier and the revision history being identified separately from the contents of the software code file, and storage of the user identifier and the revision history being augmented with the contents of the software code file that are stored in the augmented software code data store;
automatically.
The additional elements (1), (2) and (5) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements (3) and (4) simply append a 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 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 an insignificant extra-solution activity. 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 generating and storing location metadata, and storing the user identifier and the revision history of the software code file. 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, insignificant extra-solution activities, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more for at least the reasons stated above.
Claim 10 recites the limitation:
(a) receive a ticketing system file that describes an error associated with the software application;
(b) generate and store error metadata of the ticketing system file in the augmented software code data store; and
(c) automatically update the graph with a node that identifies the ticketing system file and an edge of the graph that identifies a relationship between the ticketing system file, the error, and the nodes of the graph that identify at least the portion of the software code file, the user identifier, and the revision history.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 11 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the graph comprises an edge that identifies a relationship between the software application and the software code file that is enabled to be compiled to generate the portion of the software application.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 12 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the graph is a node graph that identifies information associated with the nodes of the graph.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 13 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the graph is a relationship graph that identifies information as the edges to describe the relationships between the nodes of the graph.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 14 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the software code file is enabled to be compiled to generate a portion of a software application, and wherein components of the software application are stored in distributed and separate software code data stores absent a central repository.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 15 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein a machine learning model is implemented to identify relationships between the nodes or the edges in the graph and augment the graph.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 16 recites the limitation:
(a) generate embeddings associated with the nodes in the graph that are semantically similar to the nodes; and
(b) update the graph with the embeddings.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
These claims are dependent on Claim 9, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 9.
Claim 10 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 fail to integrated into practical application and they do not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Claim 15 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)).
Claims 10, 14 and 16 recite further additional elements that fail to meaningfully limit the claim 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 fail to integrated into practical application and they do not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Claims 11-13 recite further additional elements that fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they are merely adding descriptions to mental process components, and thus they fail to integrated into practical applications and they do not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Claims 14 and 15 recite further additional elements fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and fail to integrated into practical application and they do not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 10-16 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 9 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 9-16 are therefore not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significant more.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 17 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 17 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which is an article of manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 17 recites the limitations:
a. determine a revision history of the software code file associated with a user identifier of the software code file;
[…] generate a graph that comprises nodes identifying at least a portion of the software code file, the user identifier, and the revision history and edges of the graph that identify relationships between the software code file, the user identifier, and the revision history; and
using the graph, generate a response to a query associated with a software application that is executed based on the software code file.
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:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a plurality of instructions executable by a processor, the plurality of instructions when executed by the processor cause the processor to:
automatically.
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, the limitations in (a), (b) and (c) can be reasonably interpreted as mental processes that can be practically 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) for the determine step, a human can read revision history information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to determine a revision history. The limitation (b) for the generate step, a human can read related software code file information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to generate a graph. The limitation (c) for the generate step, a human can read query information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to generate a response. 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:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a plurality of instructions executable by a processor, the plurality of instructions when executed by the processor cause the processor to:
generate and store location metadata of a software code file in an augmented software code data store, the location metadata being identified separately from contents of the software code file, and storage of the location metadata being augmented with the contents of the software code file that are stored in the augmented software code data store;
store the user identifier and the revision history of the software code file in the augmented software code data store, the user identifier and the revision history being identified separately from the contents of the software code file, and storage of the user identifier and the revision history being augmented with the contents of the software code file that are stored in the augmented software code data store;
automatically.
The additional elements (1) and (4) 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 non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is used as tools to perform the generate, store and determine steps of the claim. And the term “automatically” implies that a computer is used as a tool to perform the generate step of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional elements (2) and (3) are mere data outputting 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 outputting and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data outputting. See MPEP § 2106.05.
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:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a plurality of instructions executable by a processor, the plurality of instructions when executed by the processor cause the processor to:
generate and store location metadata of a software code file in an augmented software code data store, the location metadata being identified separately from contents of the software code file, and storage of the location metadata being augmented with the contents of the software code file that are stored in the augmented software code data store;
store the user identifier and the revision history of the software code file in the augmented software code data store, the user identifier and the revision history being identified separately from the contents of the software code file, and storage of the user identifier and the revision history being augmented with the contents of the software code file that are stored in the augmented software code data store;
automatically.
The additional elements (1) and (4) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional element (2) and (3) simply append a 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 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 an insignificant extra-solution activity. 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 generating and storing location metadata, and storing the user identifier and the revision history of the software code file. 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, insignificant extra-solution activities, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more for at least the reasons stated above.
Claim 18 recites the limitation:
(a) receive a ticketing system file that describes an error associated with the software application;
(b) generate and store error metadata of the ticketing system file in the augmented software code data store; and
(c) automatically update the graph with a node that identifies the ticketing system file and an edge of the graph that identifies a relationship between the ticketing system file, the error, and the nodes of the graph that identify at least the portion of the software code file, the user identifier, and the revision history.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 19 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the graph comprises an edge that identifies a relationship between the software application and the software code file that is enabled to be compiled to generate the portion of the software application.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 20 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the graph is a node graph that identifies information associated with the nodes of the graph.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
These claims are dependent on Claim 17, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 17.
Claim 18 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 fail to integrated into practical application and they do not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Claim 18 recites further additional elements that fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it is data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and fails to integrated into practical application and it does not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Claims 19 and 20 recite further additional elements that fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they are merely adding descriptions to mental process components, and thus they fail to integrated into practical applications and they do not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 18-20 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 17 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 17-20 are therefore not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significant 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, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130167120 (hereinafter “Amano”) in view of US 20210247976 (hereinafter “Masis”), and further in view of US 20220004366 (hereinafter “Ghosh”).
As per Claim 1, Amano discloses:
A method comprising:
determining a revision history of the software code file associated with a user identifier of the software code file (Paragraph [0035], “The input means (201) receives from the user source code; the name of a particular target file to display source code or information associated with the source code corresponding to revision history data (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0044], “These revision history data sets (212-1 through 212-n) include version information (221-1 through 221-n), link information (231-1 through 231-n), code revision information (241-1 through 241-n), the revising user (referred to as the reviser below) (251-1 through 251-n), comments (261-1 through 261-n), and the creation date (271-1 through 271-n) [determining a revision history of the software code file associated with a user identifier of the software code file] (emphasis added).”;
storing the user identifier and the revision history of the software code file in the augmented software code data store, the user identifier and the revision history being identified separately from the contents of the software code file, and storage of the user identifier and the revision history being augmented with the contents of the software code file that are stored in the augmented software code data store (Paragraph [0040], “The storage means (206) is typically a hard disk drive (HDD) or a solid-state drive (SSD). The storage means (206) may store source code (211), revision history data (212), and lists of revision history data (213) (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0044], “These revision history data sets (212-1 through 212-n) include version information (221-1 through 221-n), link information (231-1 through 231-n), code revision information (241-1 through 241-n), the revising user (referred to as the reviser below) (251-1 through 251-n), comments (261-1 through 261-n), and the creation date (271-1 through 271-n) [storing the user identifier and the revision history of the software code file in the augmented software code data store, the user identifier and the revision history being identified separately from the contents of the software code file, and storage of the user identifier and the revision history being augmented with the contents of the software code file that are stored in the augmented software code data store] (emphasis added).”;
Amano does not disclose:
generating and storing location metadata of a software code file in an augmented software code data store, the location metadata being identified separately from contents of the software code file, and storage of the location metadata being augmented with the contents of the software code file that are stored in the augmented software code data store;
automatically generating a graph that comprises nodes identifying at least a portion of the software code file, the user identifier, and the revision history and edges of the graph that identify relationships between the software code file, the user identifier, and the revision history; and
using the graph, generating a response to a query associated with a software application that is executed based on the software code file.
However, Masis discloses:
generating and storing location metadata of a software code file in an augmented software code data store, the location metadata being identified separately from contents of the software code file, and storage of the location metadata being augmented with the contents of the software code file that are stored in the augmented software code data store ( [Abstract], “The metadata include a location of the annotated source code within the one or more files of a code repository for the software project and a description of the changes that were made to the annotated source code (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0019], “In one or more embodiments, the source code for the software project may be distributed across multiple code repositories for the software project. In some implementations, each code repository may be associated with a different version control system [generating and storing location metadata of a software code file in an augmented software code data store, the location metadata being identified separately from contents of the software code file, and storage of the location metadata being augmented with the contents of the software code file that are stored in the augmented software code data store] (emphasis added).”;
Amano is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method for retrieving revisions in source code from a plurality of revision history data sets including link information to the source code and version information. Masis is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding methods, systems, and computer program products are included for automatically tracking source code changes for a user-customized feature of a software project. Thus, Amano and Masis are analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Masis into the teaching of Amano to include “generating and storing location metadata of a software code file in an augmented software code data store, the location metadata being identified separately from contents of the software code file, and storage of the location metadata being augmented with the contents of the software code file that are stored in the augmented software code data store;” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to identify the location of changed software code files by adding location metadata (Masis, paragraph [0022]).
However, Ghosh discloses:
automatically generating a graph that comprises nodes identifying at least a portion of the software code file, […] and edges of the graph that identify relationships between the software code file, […] (Paragraph [0011], “The software development platform is configured to generate and store a graph database comprising the nodes and edges created from the collected data in the operation of software development platform and configured to reuse existing nodes and edges, add new nodes and edges, and adjust individual attributes of existing nodes and edges, wherein the graph database represents via nodes and edges an aggregation of the software projects conducted on the software development platform and related information and is updated to include new software projects using collected data [automatically generating a graph that comprises nodes identifying at least a portion of the software code file, […] and edges of the graph that identify relationships between the software code file, […]] (emphasis added).”; and
using the graph, generating a response to a query associated with a software application that is executed based on the software code file (Paragraph [0079], “The platform is configured to continue to load software projects (e.g., sets of features and/or templates into the graph database) and it can if desired include nodes or edges for related activities. The software development platform and related information is updated as new software projects are created or initiated in the platform. The software development platform is configured to issue a query to the graph database and in response, receive query results from the graph database or from related components that it uses to control one or more parts of the operation of the platform (e.g., an action within a process) [using the graph, generating a response to a query associated with a software application that is executed based on the software code file] (emphasis added).”.
Ghosh is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding an online software development platform providing an integrated resource for design, development, and purchase of customer-desired software applications for software projects created by customers. Thus, Ghosh is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ghosh into the combined teachings of Amano and Masis to include “automatically generating a graph that comprises nodes identifying at least a portion of the software code file, the user identifier, and the revision history and edges of the graph that identify relationships between the software code file, the user identifier, and the revision history; and using the graph, generating a response to a query associated with a software application that is executed based on the software code file.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to maintain effective information retrieval by including graph data structures for software code files (Ghosh, Paragraph [0010]).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Amano and Masis does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the graph is a node graph that identifies information associated with the nodes of the graph.
However, Ghosh discloses:
wherein the graph is a node graph that identifies information associated with the nodes of the graph (Paragraph [0040], “An advancement that can make a material and significant improvement is that the platform can be configured with defined nodes and edges that correspond to entities and relationship. The nodes and edges are used to create a graph database representing the information that is being collected by the software application development platform [wherein the graph is a node graph that identifies information associated with the nodes of the graph] (emphasis added).”.
Ghosh is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding an online software development platform providing an integrated resource for design, development, and purchase of customer-desired software applications for software projects created by customers. Thus, Ghosh is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ghosh into the combined teachings of Amano and Masis to include “wherein the graph is a node graph that identifies information associated with the nodes of the graph.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to maintain effective information retrieval by including graph data structures for software code files (Ghosh, Paragraph [0010]).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Amano and Masis does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the graph is a relationship graph that identifies information as the edges to describe the relationships between the nodes of the graph.
However, Ghosh discloses:
wherein the graph is a relationship graph that identifies information as the edges to describe the relationships between the nodes of the graph (Paragraph [0040], “An advancement that can make a material and significant improvement is that the platform can be configured with defined nodes and edges that correspond to entities and relationship. The nodes and edges are used to create a graph database representing the information that is being collected by the software application development platform [wherein the graph is a relationship graph that identifies information as the edges to describe the relationships between the nodes of the graph] (emphasis added).”.
Ghosh is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding an online software development platform providing an integrated resource for design, development, and purchase of customer-desired software applications for software projects created by customers. Thus, Ghosh is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ghosh into the combined teachings of Amano and Masis to include “wherein the graph is a relationship graph that identifies information as the edges to describe the relationships between the nodes of the graph.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to maintain effective information retrieval by including graph data structures for software code files (Ghosh, Paragraph [0010]).
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Amano and Masis does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a machine learning model is implemented to identify relationships between the nodes or the edges in the graph and augment the graph.
However, Ghosh discloses:
wherein a machine learning model is implemented to identify relationships between the nodes or the edges in the graph and augment the graph (Paragraph [0044], “The platform can query the graph database and the selected features can be applied as a query to the graph database that in response will for example traverse only through paths that includes the select three nodes, and will further traverse those subgraphs in the found paths that contains the three nodes to identify other nodes that are connected to all three of those nodes (when all three of those nodes were included in another project). […] Other analysis at the same level or more complex can be obtained quickly with reliable predictions based on the aggregated graph and the values of nodes and edges (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0119], “As such an integrated online software development platform integrates among its many functionality and diverse data machine learning across that is flexible and on-demand for incorporating machine learning tools that control the operation of the platform such as to control options that are presented. The architecture can also be implemented to control the arrangement and/or connections between features in a software project or other design or development functions using the graph database and/or embedding technology [wherein a machine learning model is implemented to identify relationships between the nodes or the edges in the graph and augment the graph] (emphasis added).”.
Ghosh is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding an online software development platform providing an integrated resource for design, development, and purchase of customer-desired software applications for software projects created by customers. Thus, Ghosh is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ghosh into the combined teachings of Amano and Masis to include “wherein a machine learning model is implemented to identify relationships between the nodes or the edges in the graph and augment the graph.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to include machine learning models for identifying relationship between nodes and edges (Ghosh, Paragraph [0002]).
Claims 9, 12, 13 and 15 are system claims corresponding to the method claims hereinabove (Claims 1, 4, 5 and 7, respectively). Therefore, Claims 9, 12, 13 and 15 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1, 4, 5 and 7.
Claims 17 and 20 are non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims corresponding to the method claims hereinabove (Claims 1 and 4, respectively). Therefore, Claims 17 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claims 1 and 4.
Claims 2, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano in view of Masis and Ghosh as applied to claims 1, 9 and 17 above, and further in view of US 10175979 (hereinafter “Elwell”).
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Amano and Masis discloses “the user identifier”, “the revision history” and “the augmented software code data store” but the combination of Amano and Masis does not explicitly disclose:
receiving a ticketing system file that describes an error associated with the software application;
generating and storing error metadata of the ticketing system file in the augmented software code data store; and
automatically updating the graph with a node that identifies the ticketing system file and an edge of the graph that identifies a relationship between the ticketing system file, the error, and the nodes of the graph that identify at least the portion of the software code file, the user identifier, and the revision history.
However, Ghosh discloses:
automatically updating the graph with a node that identifies […] and an edge of the graph that identifies a relationship between […], and the nodes of the graph that identify at least the portion of the software code file, […] (Paragraph [0011], “The software development platform is configured to generate and store a graph database comprising the nodes and edges created from the collected data in the operation of software development platform and configured to reuse existing nodes and edges, add new nodes and edges, and adjust individual attributes of existing nodes and edges, wherein the graph database represents via nodes and edges an aggregation of the software projects conducted on the software development platform and related information and is updated to include new software projects using collected data (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0098], “In knowledge graph stage 6604 the platform creates or updates the knowledge graph (or graph database) using the nodes and edges created from the collected data during data ingestion 6602[automatically updating the graph with a node that identifies […] and an edge of the graph that identifies a relationship between […], and the nodes of the graph that identify at least the portion of the software code file, […]] (emphasis added).”.
Ghosh is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding an online software development platform providing an integrated resource for design, development, and purchase of customer-desired software applications for software projects created by customers. Thus, Ghosh is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ghosh into the combined teachings of Amano and Masis to include “automatically updating the graph with a node that identifies […] and an edge of the graph that identifies a relationship between […], and the nodes of the graph that identify at least the portion of the software code file, […]” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to maintain effective information retrieval by including graph data structures for software code files (Ghosh, Paragraph [0010]).
However, Elwell discloses:
receiving a ticketing system file that describes an error associated with the software application (col.3 lines 24-28, “Development environment 105 enables developers to work collaboratively on projects, and includes a source control system 110 that manages code files, and the ticket tracking system 120 that documents program defects and their resolution (emphasis added).”; col.4 lines 47-50, “Machine learning agent 200 uses machine learning techniques to predict error in software based on documented errors from defect tickets and the related source code files” [receiving a ticketing system file that describes an error associated with the software application] (emphasis added).”;
generating and storing error metadata of the ticketing system file […] (col.4 lines 62-67, “Metadata agent 220 retrieves defect records from database 130 and generates a data element set for the machine learning agent 200. Metadata agent 220 can create a data element set based on all defect records in database 130 or on subsets of records, such as, by way of example, defect records from a range of dates, defect records related to specific software programs, or defect reports related to a specific type of error [generating and storing error metadata of the ticketing system file […]] (emphasis added).”; and
[…] the ticketing system file […] the ticketing system file, the error […] (col.3 lines 24-28, “Development environment 105 enables developers to work collaboratively on projects, and includes a source control system 110 that manages code files, and the ticket tracking system 120 that documents program defects and their resolution (emphasis added).”; col.4 lines 47-50, “Machine learning agent 200 uses machine learning techniques to predict error in software based on documented errors from defect tickets and the related source code files” [[…] the ticketing system file […] the ticketing system file, the error […]] (emphasis added).”.
Elwell is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a system and method for predicting errors in a software code base. Thus, Elwell is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Elwell into the combined teachings of Amano, Masis and Ghosh to include “receiving a ticketing system file that describes an error associated with the software application; generating and storing error metadata of the ticketing system file […]; and […] the ticketing system file […] the ticketing system file, the error […]” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to include a ticket tracking system for managing errors in the software code files (Elwell, col.3 lines 63-67).
Claim 10 is a system claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 2). Therefore, Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claim 2.
Claim 18 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 2). Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claim 2.
Claims 3, 6, 11, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano in view of Masis and Ghosh as applied to claims 1, 9 and 17 above, and further in view of US 10409559 (hereinafter “Goetz”).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Amano and Masis does not explicitly disclose
wherein the graph comprises an edge that identifies a relationship between the software application and the software code file that is enabled to be compiled to generate the portion of the software application.
However, Ghosh discloses:
wherein the graph comprises an edge that identifies a relationship between the software application and the software code file […] (Paragraph [0011], “The software development platform is configured to generate and store a graph database comprising the nodes and edges created from the collected data in the operation of software development platform and configured to reuse existing nodes and edges, add new nodes and edges, and adjust individual attributes of existing nodes and edges, wherein the graph database represents via nodes and edges an aggregation of the software projects conducted on the software development platform and related information and is updated to include new software projects using collected data [wherein the graph comprises an edge that identifies a relationship between the software application and the software code file […]] (emphasis added).”.
Ghosh is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding an online software development platform providing an integrated resource for design, development, and purchase of customer-desired software applications for software projects created by customers. Thus, Ghosh is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ghosh into the combined teachings of Amano and Masis to include “wherein the graph comprises an edge that identifies a relationship between the software application and the software code file […]” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to maintain effective information retrieval by including graph data structures for software code files (Ghosh, Paragraph [0010]).
However, Goetz discloses:
[…] that is enabled to be compiled to generate the portion of the software application (col.1 lines 54-60, “The operations may also include translating the portion of the source code to generate a modified version of the portion of the source code in response to determining that a projection of the first feature into the target environment is available, and compiling the source code for the program dependent upon the modified version of the portion of the source code” [[…] that is enabled to be compiled to generate the portion of the software application] (emphasis added).”.
Goetz is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method for software compilation into a target environment. Thus, Goetz is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Goetz into the combined teachings of Amano, Masis and Ghosh to include “[…] that is enabled to be compiled to generate the portion of the software application” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enable software code files can be compiled to generate a portion of the software application.
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; the combination of Amano and Ghosh does not explicitly disclose:
[…] and wherein components of the software application are stored in distributed and separate software code data stores absent a central repository.
However, Masis discloses:
[…] and wherein components of the software application are stored in distributed and separate software code data stores absent a central repository (Paragraph [0019], “In one or more embodiments, the source code for the software project may be distributed across multiple code repositories for the software project. In some implementations, each code repository may be associated with a different version control system [[…] and wherein components of the software application are stored in distributed and separate software code data stores absent a central repository] (emphasis added).”.
Masis is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding methods, systems, and computer program products are included for automatically tracking source code changes for a user-customized feature of a software project. Thus, Masis is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Masis into the combined teaching of Amano and Ghosh to include “[…] and wherein components of the software application are stored in distributed and separate software code data stores absent a central repository” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to allow components of software applications can be stored in separate repositories.
However, Goetz discloses:
wherein the software code file is enabled to be compiled to generate a portion of a software application […] (col.1 lines 54-60, “The operations may also include translating the portion of the source code to generate a modified version of the portion of the source code in response to determining that a projection of the first feature into the target environment is available, and compiling the source code for the program dependent upon the modified version of the portion of the source code” [wherein the software code file is enabled to be compiled to generate a portion of a software application […]] (emphasis added).”.
Goetz is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method for software compilation into a target environment. Thus, Goetz is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Goetz into the combined teachings of Amano, Masis and Ghosh to include “wherein the software code file is enabled to be compiled to generate a portion of a software application […]” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enable software code files can be compiled to generate a portion of the software application.
Claims 11 and 14 are system claims corresponding to the method claims hereinabove (Claims 3 and 6, respectively). Therefore, Claims 11 and 14 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 3 and 6.
Claim 19 is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 3). Therefore, Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of Claim 3.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amano in view of Masis and Ghosh as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of US 20230176838 (hereinafter “Bronevetsky”).
As per Claim 8, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Amano and Masis does not explicitly disclose:
generating embeddings associated with the nodes in the graph that are semantically similar to the nodes; and
updating the graph with the embeddings.
However, Ghosh discloses:
generating embeddings associated with the nodes in the graph […] (Paragraph [0016], “The software development platform wherein the platform is configured to include embedding generation that generates an embedding comprising a plurality of n-dimensional vectors that in accordance with an embedding algorithm represent the graph database, each n-dimensional vector corresponding to a node in the graph database and comprising vector values based on relationship to other nodes in the graph database [generating embeddings associated with the nodes in the graph […]] (emphasis added).”;
Ghosh is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding an online software development platform providing an integrated resource for design, development, and purchase of customer-desired software applications for software projects created by customers. Thus, Ghosh is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ghosh into the combined teachings of Amano and Masis to include “generating embeddings associated with the nodes in the graph […]” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to maintain effective information retrieval by including graph data structures for software code files (Ghosh, Paragraph [0010]).
However, Bronevetsky discloses:
[…] that are semantically similar to the nodes (Paragraph [0041], “In either case, if the embeddings (or vectors) associated with two or more given nodes are sufficiently similar, e.g., measured using techniques such as Euclidean distance or cosine similarity, an edge may be added between those nodes, either to augment the existing graph (e.g., AST, CFG) or as an edge in an entirely new graph [[…] that are semantically similar to the nodes] (emphasis added).”; and
updating the graph with the embeddings (Paragraph [0041], “In either case, if the embeddings (or vectors) associated with two or more given nodes are sufficiently similar, e.g., measured using techniques such as Euclidean distance or cosine similarity, an edge may be added between those nodes, either to augment the existing graph (e.g., AST, CFG) or as an edge in an entirely new graph [updating the graph with the embeddings] (emphasis added).”.
Bronevetsky is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method for identifying related source code edits to perform, or to aid in the performance of, various programming tasks. Thus, Bronevetsky is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bronevetsky into the combined teachings of Amano, Masis and Ghosh to include “[…] that are semantically similar to the nodes; and updating the graph with the embeddings” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to include generation of semantically-rich embeddings for identifying the relationship between source code files.( Bronevetsky, Paragraph [0032]
Claim 16 is a system claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 8). Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US 9639352 (hereinafter “van Schaik”) discloses methods, systems, and apparatus, including computer programs encoded on computer storage media, for generating widened types for computing measures of rework normalized churn.
US 2022/0405091 (hereinafter “Mahanta”) discloses a method for assigning developers to source code issues using machine learning.
US 2020/0249939 (hereinafter “Busayarat”) discloses a method for maintaining and using a version-based hierarchy of software resources (e.g., file system files) to return version-specific responses to clients.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Yanbin Li whose telephone number is 571-272-0906. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30 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.
/Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2191
/WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191