DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on July 7, 2026 in this application Janakiraman et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 18/644,573 (Filed April 24, 2024) (“Janakiraman”). Claims 1 – 20 were pending. Claims 1, 14, and 18 are amended. Claim 13 is cancelled. Claim 21 is new. Claims 1 – 12 and 14 - 21 are pending.
Applicants' arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered and found not persuasive. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
1. With respect to Applicant’s argument on pgs. 7 – 8 of the Applicant’s Remarks (“Remarks”) stating that the amended claims incorporate any abstract idea into a practical application, examiner respectfully disagrees. See infra § Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101. No argument has been presented as to how the specific claim limitations incorporate any abstract idea into a practical application, thus this argument is moot. Therefore, the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
2. With respect to Applicant’s argument on pg. 8 of the Remarks stating that the references cited in the Double Patenting rejections fail to disclose every limitation of the currently amended claims, examiner respectfully disagrees. See infra § Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103, § Double Patenting. The presented argument is conclusory and fails to state any instant claim limitations which are not disclosed in the cited references. Therefore, the claims remain rejected under Double Patenting.
3. With respect to Applicant’s argument on pg. 8 of the Remarks stating that Applicant disagrees claims 8 – 20 should not be interpreted under 35 USC 112(f), examiner respectfully disagrees. See infra § Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112(f). The claim recites “processing device” but “processing” is not a noun which denotes structure and “device” is a nonce term for means. See MPEP § 2181, subsection I. Therefore a “processing device” merely suggests a functional feature of the device, that it processes, rather than claiming a structure of the device such as a processor.
Therefore, the claims remain rejected under 35 USC 112(f).
4. With respect to Applicant’s argument on pgs. 8 - 10 of the Remarks stating the current prior art fails to teach the amended claims, examiner respectfully disagrees. See infra § Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103, § Claim 1. No argument has been presented as to how the claim limitation fail to be taught by prior art, no specific claim limitations have been addressed, and no teach of the prior art has been discussed. Thus this conclusory argument is moot.
It is noted that prior art reference Sharma is used to teach the newly added limitations related to the placeholder data structure as cited infra.
Therefore, the current prior art references teach the amended claims.
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 – 12 and 14 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed inventions do not fall within a statutory category of invention because the claimed invention is directed to a “Mental Processes” abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites causing scanning, by a code analysis and testing engine, of at least a portion of code in response to one or more changes to the code; processing, by the code analysis and testing engine, data generated as a result of the scanning; analyzing, by the code analysis and testing engine, the data … to predict, … whether the one or more changes will cause a reduction in quality of the code, which covers performance of the limitation that can be performed in the mind or by pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting additional elements of generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution data transmission and storage, as well as using at least one machine learning algorithm recited at a high level, nothing in the claim elements precludes the user from performing the scanning, processing, analyzing, and generating steps using the recited computer software “engines” as a tool to record, view code, and store user generated placeholders. See MPEP 2106.05(g); see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3). As drafted, the claimed process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for additional elements of generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution data transmission and storage, as well as using at least one machine learning algorithm recited at a high level, which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recites generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution data transmission, and storage. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, these 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(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the identified additional elements of data generic computing components, transmission, storage are functions that have been identified by courts as well-understood, routine, and convention activity that do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The claim also contains the additional element of utilizing/training a large language model which is directed to implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and which fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, see MPEP 2106.05(g), and is insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Claims 2 – 12 and 14 – 21 contain the same abstract idea as claim 1 and do not contain any additional limitations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
1. Claims 1, 14, and 18 are rejected on the ground of obviousness double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,386,610. Although the claim at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘610 Patent anticipates the claims of the instant application with the exception of the limitations “a prediction that the one or more changes will cause a reduction in the quality of the code” which would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in light of the teachings of prior art reference Negussie (see infra) which teaches a “regression prediction platform may use a machine learning model to detect and/or predict whether” the code change will result in a regression in the code quality. Negussie at ¶¶ 0015, 0020, 0023, 0030; id. at ¶¶ 0014 & 0051 (data/code repository may be a database); id. at ¶ 0056 (processor coupled to memory). One of ordinary skill the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references with the ‘610 Patent for the purpose of using a known method of identifying code regressions using machine learning with a method that identifies a description of code changes using machine learning.
Also with the exception of the limitations “and generating, in response to a prediction that the one or more changes will cause a reduction in the quality of the code, a placeholder in a code development application to address the reduction, wherein the placeholder a priority, a code version, one or more components corresponding to the code, a resolution status, a creation date of the placeholder and an update date of the placeholder;” which would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in light of the teachings of prior art reference Negussie (see infra) which teaches a code commit/pull triggers an API used by a continuous integration pipeline software development tool to invoke a remediation service which uses a machine learning model to analyze the code and insert proposed fixes for remedying detected flaws into the software development tool in the form of a data structure having the code versions, timestamps, fix priority, code elements such as functions, resolution status, line numbers, and/or branches of the code, and the proposed candidate fixes may be later accepted. Sharma at ¶¶ 0019 - 0023, 0034, 0040, 0085, 0086, 0093, 0094, 0096; id. at ¶¶ 0027, 0044, 0045, 0049, 0050, 0057, 0065, 0082, 0086 (fixes include resolution status as eliminated, resolved, fixed, code version, line number, and branch). One of ordinary skill the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references with the ‘944 Application for the purpose of using a known method of identifying code regressions using machine learning with a method that identifies a description of code changes using machine learning.
Dependent claims 2 – 12, 15 – 17, 19, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of obviousness double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 12,386,610. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are obvious in view of the ‘610 Application and the art used infra to teach the dependent claims and associated motivation.
2. Claims 1, 14, and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of obviousness double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2, of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/385,944. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the Application anticipate the claims of the instant application, with the exception of the limitations “and generating, in response to a prediction that the one or more changes will cause a reduction in the quality of the code, a placeholder in a code development application to address the reduction, wherein the placeholder specifies a priority, a code version, one or more components corresponding to the code, a resolution status, a creation date of the placeholder and an update date of the placeholder;” which would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in light of the teachings of prior art reference Negussie (see infra) which teaches a code commit/pull triggers an API used by a continuous integration pipeline software development tool to invoke a remediation service which uses a machine learning model to analyze the code and insert proposed fixes for remedying detected flaws into the software development tool in the form of a data structure having the code versions, timestamps, fix priority, code elements such as functions, resolution status, line numbers, and/or branches of the code, and the proposed candidate fixes may be later accepted. Sharma at ¶¶ 0019 - 0023, 0034, 0040, 0085, 0086, 0093, 0094, 0096; id. at ¶¶ 0027, 0044, 0045, 0049, 0050, 0057, 0065, 0082, 0086 (fixes include resolution status as eliminated, resolved, fixed, code version, line number, and branch). One of ordinary skill the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of the prior art references with the ‘944 Application for the purpose of using a known method of identifying code regressions using machine learning with a method that identifies a description of code changes using machine learning.
Dependent claims 2 – 12, 15 – 17, 19, 20, and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of obviousness double patenting as being, respectively, unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent Application No. 18/385,944. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are obvious in view of the Application and the art used in the dependent claims and associated motivation (see infra).
This is a provisional obviousness double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “device configured to”, in claims 14 - 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 4, 10, 11, 14 – 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negussie, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0152784 (Published May 9, 2024, filed January 18, 2024) (“Negussie”) in view of Sharma et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0409464 (Published December 21, 2023, filed April 27, 2023) claiming priority to PCT/US2020/058067 (filed October 29, 2020) (“Sharma”).
Claims 1, 14, and 18
With respect to claims 1, 14, and 18, Negussie teaches the invention as claimed including a method comprising:
causing scanning, by a code analysis and testing engine, of at least a portion of code in response to one or more changes to the code; processing, by the code analysis and testing engine, data generated as a result of the scanning; analyzing, by the code analysis and testing engine, the data using at least one machine learning algorithm to predict, in conjunction with a machine learning and prediction engine, whether the one or more changes will cause a reduction in quality of the code; … wherein the steps of the method are executed by a processing device operatively coupled to a memory. {Triggered by a code change commit, the changed code may be scanned and a “regression prediction platform may use a machine learning model to detect and/or predict whether” the code change will result in a regression in the code quality. Negussie at ¶¶ 0015, 0020, 0023, 0030; id. at ¶¶ 0014 & 0051 (data/code repository may be a database); id. at ¶ 0056 (processor coupled to memory).}
However, Negussie doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
and generating, by an integration and placeholder creation engine, in response to a prediction that the one or more changes will cause a reduction in the quality of the code, a placeholder data structure in a code development application to address the reduction, wherein the placeholder specifies a priority, a code version, one or more components corresponding to the code, a resolution status, a creation date of the placeholder and an update date of the placeholder; {Sharma does teach this limitation. Sharma teaches that using machine learning to detect code regressions, as taught in Negussie, may include where a code commit/pull triggers an API used by a continuous integration pipeline software development tool to invoke a remediation service which uses a machine learning model to analyze the code and insert proposed fixes for remedying detected flaws into the software development tool in the form of a data structure having the code versions, timestamps, fix priority, code elements such as functions, resolution status, line numbers, and/or branches of the code, and the proposed candidate fixes may be later accepted. Sharma at ¶¶ 0019 - 0023, 0034, 0040, 0085, 0086, 0093, 0094, 0096; id. at ¶¶ 0027, 0044, 0045, 0049, 0050, 0057, 0065, 0082, 0086 (fixes include resolution status as eliminated, resolved, fixed, code version, line number, and branch).
Negussie and Sharma are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software analysis, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to use code databases for software analysis.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine using machine learning to detect code regressions, as taught in Negussie, with sending proposed fixes to the development tool, as taught in Sharma. Sharma teaches that it is important to perform code testing early in response to code commits to identify quality issues early prior to deployment. Sharma at ¶¶ 0002 & 0003. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine using machine learning to detect code regressions, as taught in Negussie, with sending proposed fixes to the development tool, as taught in Sharma, for the purpose of using a system that quickly reports code issues to a development tool with a system that requires identifying and reporting code issues.}
Claims 2 and 15
With respect to claims 2 and 15, Negussie and Sharma teach the invention as claimed including:
continuously monitoring a code repository to detect the one or more changes to the code. {Triggered by a code change commit, the changed code may be scanned and a “regression prediction platform may use a machine learning model to detect and/or predict whether” the code change will result in a regression in the code quality. Negussie at ¶¶ 0015, 0020, 0023, 0030; id. at ¶¶ 0014 & 0051 (data/code repository may be a database).}
Claim 3
With respect to claim 3, Negussie and Sharma teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein detecting the one or more changes to the code comprises identifying at least one [pull] request generated in connection with the code. {Triggered by a code change commit, the changed code may be scanned and a “regression prediction platform may use a machine learning model to detect and/or predict whether” the code change will result in a regression in the code quality. Negussie at ¶¶ 0015, 0020, 0023, 0030; id. at ¶¶ 0014 & 0051 (data/code repository may be a database).}
pull {A code commit/pull triggers an API used by a continuous integration pipeline software development tool to invoke a remediation service which uses a machine learning model to analyze the code and insert proposed fixes for remedying detected flaws into the software development tool. Sharma at ¶¶ 0019 - 0023, 0034, 0040, 0093, 0094, 0096.}
Claims 4, 16, and 19
With respect to claims 4, 16, and 19, Negussie and Sharma teach the invention as claimed including:
integrating an event-triggered function with at least one code scanning application to trigger the processing of the data and loading of the data into at least one database in response to the scanning. {Triggered by a code change commit, the changed code may be scanned and a “regression prediction platform may use a machine learning model to detect and/or predict whether” the code change will result in a regression in the code quality. Negussie at ¶¶ 0015, 0020, 0023, 0030; id. at ¶¶ 0014 & 0051 (data/code repository may be a database).}
Claim 10
With respect to claim 10, Negussie and Sharma teach the invention as claimed including:
loading the data to at least one database; extracting the data from the at least one database; and using at least a portion of the data to train the at least one machine learning algorithm. {Machine Learning model may be trained using data from “data repositories” which may include a database. Negussie at ¶¶ 0034 & 0035; id. at ¶¶ 0014 & 0051 (data/code repository may be a database).}
Claim 11
With respect to claim 11, Negussie and Sharma teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein at least a portion of the data to train the at least one machine learning algorithm specifies at least one of a number of new lines of the code and a base branch of the code. {A remediation service trains a machine learning model based on code changes that are identified based on line number and/or branch. Sharma at ¶¶ 0031, 0033, 0038 (training); id. at ¶¶ 0049, 0082, 0086 (line number and branch).}
Claim 13
With respect to claim 13, Negussie and Sharma teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the placeholder specifies at least one of a priority, a code version, one or more components corresponding to the code, a resolution status, a creation date of the placeholder and an update date of the placeholder. {The proposed fixes for remedying detected flaws inserted into the software development tool include code versions, line numbers, and/or branches of the code. Sharma at ¶¶ 0019 - 0023, 0034, 0040, 0093, 0094, 0096; id. at ¶¶ 0027, 0049, 0082, 0086 (fixes include resolution status as eliminated, version, line number, and branch).}
Claims 5 – 9, 17, and 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negussie and Sharma in view of Mathur et al., United States Patent No. 10,719,374 (Patented July 21, 2020, filed September 17, 2019) (“Mathur”).
Claims 5, 17, and 20
With respect to claims 5, 17, and 20, Negussie and Sharma teach the invention as claimed, including:
utilizing the event-triggered function to develop at least one application programming interface to process the data and load the data into the at least one database, {Triggered by a code change commit, the changed code may be scanned and a “regression prediction platform may use a machine learning model to detect and/or predict whether” the code change will result in a regression in the code quality. Negussie at ¶¶ 0015, 0020, 0023, 0030; id. at ¶¶ 0014 & 0051 (data/code repository may be a database).}
However, Negussie and Sharma doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
wherein the at least one database comprises a structured query language database. {Mathur does teach this limitation. Mathur teaches that using an api to access a code database, as taught in Negussie and Sharma, may include where the database access may be from a microservice generated to implement an object-relational mapping which uses the API to pass create, read, update, or delete commands to a database using SQL calls for a plurality of different schemas and data types. Mathur at Abstract; id. at col. 7 ll. 17 – 39 (object relational); id. at col. 8 ln 19 – 44 (microservice); id. at col. 10 ll. 46 – 56 (multiple database schemas and data types); id. at col. 11 ll. 16 – 28 (CRUD and SQL); id. at col. 11 ln. 61 – col. 12 ln. 9 (API, CRUD, SQL).
Negussie, Sharma, and Mathur are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software analysis, debugging, or testing, and both are trying to solve the problem of using a database to store data.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine using an api to access a code database, as taught in Negussie and Sharma, with using the api to perform CRUD calls via SQL to the database, as taught in Mathur. Sharma teaches that databases may be accessible via API. Sharma at ¶ 0034. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine using an api to access a code database, as taught in Negussie and Sharma, with using the api to perform CRUD calls via SQL to the database, as taught in Mathur, for the purpose of using well-known database interfaces, query languages, and access patterns, with a method that requires accessing data from a database.}
Claim 6
With respect to claim 6, Negussie, Sharma, and Mathur teach the invention as claimed, including:
wherein the application programming interface is part of at least one microservice that uses one or more object-relational mapping techniques to enable input-output operations on the at least one database. {Database access may be from a microservice generated to implement an object-relational mapping which uses the API to pass create, read, update, or delete commands to a database using SQL calls for a plurality of different schemas and data types. Mathur at Abstract; id. at col. 7 ll. 17 – 39 (object relational); id. at col. 8 ln 19 – 44 (microservice); id. at col. 10 ll. 46 – 56 (multiple database schemas and data types); id. at col. 11 ll. 16 – 28 (CRUD and SQL); id. at col. 11 ln. 61 – col. 12 ln. 9 (API, CRUD, SQL).}
Claim 7
With respect to claim 7, Negussie, Sharma, and Mathur teach the invention as claimed, including:
wherein the input-output operations comprise create, read, update and delete operations. {Database access may be from a microservice generated to implement an object-relational mapping which uses the API to pass create, read, update, or delete commands to a database using SQL calls for a plurality of different schemas and data types. Mathur at Abstract; id. at col. 7 ll. 17 – 39 (object relational); id. at col. 8 ln 19 – 44 (microservice); id. at col. 10 ll. 46 – 56 (multiple database schemas and data types); id. at col. 11 ll. 16 – 28 (CRUD and SQL); id. at col. 11 ln. 61 – col. 12 ln. 9 (API, CRUD, SQL).}
Claim 8
With respect to claim 8, Negussie, Sharma, and Mathur teach the invention as claimed, including:
wherein the at least one microservice is developed using a web-based application programming interface generation platform corresponding to at least one programming language. {Database access may be from a microservice generated to implement an object-relational mapping which uses the API to pass create, read, update, or delete commands to a database using SQL calls for a plurality of different schemas and data types. Mathur at Abstract; id. at col. 7 ll. 17 – 39 (object relational); id. at col. 8 ln 19 – 44 (microservice); id. at col. 10 ll. 46 – 56 (multiple database schemas and data types); id. at col. 11 ll. 16 – 28 (CRUD and SQL); id. at col. 11 ln. 61 – col. 12 ln. 9 (API, CRUD, SQL).}
Claim 9
With respect to claim 9, Negussie, Sharma, and Mathur teach the invention as claimed, including:
wherein the at least one microservice supports a plurality of schemas and a plurality of data types. {Database access may be from a microservice generated to implement an object-relational mapping which uses the API to pass create, read, update, or delete commands to a database using SQL calls for a plurality of different schemas and data types. Mathur at Abstract; id. at col. 7 ll. 17 – 39 (object relational); id. at col. 8 ln 19 – 44 (microservice); id. at col. 10 ll. 46 – 56 (multiple database schemas and data types); id. at col. 11 ll. 16 – 28 (CRUD and SQL); id. at col. 11 ln. 61 – col. 12 ln. 9 (API, CRUD, SQL).}
Claims 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negussie and Sharma in view of Gnaneswaran et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0019249 (Published January 21, 2021, filed September 20, 2019) (“Gnaneswaran”).
Claims 12 and 21
With respect to claims 12 and 21, Negussie and Sharma teach the invention as claimed, however, Negussie and Sharma doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
wherein the at least one machine learning algorithm comprises a random forest regression algorithm. {Gnaneswaran does teach this limitation. Gnaneswaran teaches that using machine learning for regression detection, as taught in Negussie and Sharma, may include where the Machine learning algorithm is a random forest regression algorithm used to identify regressions in submitted code. Gnaneswaran at Abstract; id. at ¶¶ 0039, 0040 – 0043, and 0054.
Negussie, Sharma, and Gnaneswaran are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software analysis, debugging, or testing, and both are trying to solve the problem of using a database to store data.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine using machine learning for regression detection, as taught in Negussie and Sharma, with where the Machine learning algorithm is a random forest regression algorithm, as taught in Gnaneswaran. Gnaneswaran teaches it is desired to automate the CICD risk detection process to increase the speed of production. Id. at ¶ 0009. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine using machine learning for regression detection, as taught in Negussie and Sharma, with where the Machine learning algorithm is a random forest regression algorithm, as taught in Gnaneswaran, for the purpose of using a well-known machine learning algorithm that can quickly identify code regressions with a method that requires using machine learning to identify code regressions.}
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE E HEBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1409. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m..
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 on 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.
//T.H./ September 22, 2026
Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199
