DETAILED ACTION
This application has been examined. Claims 1-20 are pending.
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
This application claims benefits of priority from Provisional Application 63/151960 filed February 22, 2021.
The effective date of the claims described in this application is February 22, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct subcombinations of the claimed invention.
Subcombination 1 ( generating a whole file signature representing an entirety of the input content, the whole file signature being based on a hash of the input content; searching a first knowledge base for a file having a whole file signature that matches the generated whole file signature; processing the input content to identify a snippet of content in a second knowledge base based on a signature vector corresponding to the input content; generating a report based on at least one of the file or the snippet of content; and displaying the report on a user interface, see Figure 10-11,Page 21-22 , Page 24 as embodied by Claims 1-16,20)
Subcombination 2 ( receiving input content, the input content comprising a bug fix submission for computer code; comparing the input content to a prior version of the computer code; extracting content from the prior version based on the comparing; obtaining one or more files that match the extracted content, the one or more files having a bug corresponding to the bug fix submission; obtaining bug fixe code; and generating a graphical report containing the one or more files and the bug fix code.; see Figure 18, Pages 28-29 , as embodied by Claims 17-19)
Subcombination 1 and 2 are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct because they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case subcombinations 2 have separate utility from subcombination 1, as evidently described in their respective descriptions above. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicant elects a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Related subcombinations are distinct if the subcombinations as claimed are not connected in at least one of design, operation, or effect (e.g., can be made by, or used in, a materially different process) and wherein at least one subcombination is patentable (novel and nonobvious) over the other (though they may each be unpatentable over the prior art). See MPEP § 802.01(II).
The Examiner has determined that the additional attributes present in subcombinations 2 would not be an obvious variation of attributes present in subcombination 1 to one of ordinary skills in the art. Therefore, subcombination 2 is patentably distinct from subcombination 1, though they may each be unpatentable over the prior art.
Because these inventions are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper.
There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct subcombinations as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
The distinct subcombinations embody subject matter belonging to different technology and classification classes.
Subcombination 1 describes technology possibly classified under but not limited to CPCs subclass G06F 16/152, G06F 8/7, G06F 8/751
Subcombination 2 describes technology possibly classified under but not limited to CPC subclass G06F 16/168, G06F 8/36, G06F 21/577
A telephone call was made to the applicant's representative (Mr. Paul Pysher RNo. 40780) on December 3, 2025 to request an oral election to the above restriction requirement. Applicant has elected Subcombination 1 , without traverse, comprising Claims 1-16,20 for examination.
Claims 17-19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Subcombination 2 there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-16,20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1,15 of U.S. Patent No. 12008113. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the claims are substantially similar and Claims 1,15 of U.S. Patent No. 12008113 fully disclosed the limitations in Claims 1,20 of the instance application.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12008113 disclosed (re. Claim 1 of the instance application) ‘receiving input content through a user interface;
generating a whole file signature representing an entirety of the input content, the whole file signature being based on a hash of the input content;
searching a first knowledge base for a file having a whole file signature that matches the generated whole file signature;
processing the input content to identify a snippet of content in a second knowledge base based on a signature vector corresponding to the input content;
generating a report based on at least one of the file or the snippet of content;
and displaying the report on a user interface.’
Claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12008113 disclosed (re. Claim 20 of the instance application) ‘receiving input content through a user interface;
generating a whole file signature representing an entirety of the input content, the whole file signature being based on a hash of the input content;
searching a first knowledge base for a file having a whole file signature that matches the generated whole file signature;
processing the input content to identify a snippet of content in a second knowledge base based on a signature vector corresponding to the input content;
generating a report based on at least one of the file or the snippet of content;
and displaying the report on a user interface.’
Claims 2-16 of the instance application are rejected based on dependency on Claim 1 of the instance application.
Conclusion
Examiner’s Note: In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREG C BENGZON whose telephone number is (571)272-3944. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREG C BENGZON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444