DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 5/7/2024.
Claims 1-21 are pending in this application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The first occurrence of acronym “AI” in claims 1, 13, and 21 should be spelled out such as --artificial intelligence (AI)--.
Claims 2-12 and 14-20 depend on the objected claims and inherit the same issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 at lines 10-12 recites “select symbols from the plurality of symbols in response to the symbols that are selected having relevancies to the user-generated query that satisfy a relevancy criterion by dynamically traversing the symbol graph”, which is unclear. The limitation has been interpreted as --select symbols from the plurality of symbols having relevancies to the user-generated query that satisfy a relevancy criterion by dynamically traversing the symbol graph-- for the purpose of compact prosecution. However, appropriate correction is required. Claims 13 and 21 have a similar issue and will be interpreted in a similar way as claim 1. Also, line 14 recites “the symbols”, but it is unclear as to what symbols are being referred to (e.g. the symbols being selected or the plurality of symbols). The limitation has been interpreted as --the symbols being selected-- for the purpose of compact prosecution. However, appropriate correction is required. Claims 13 and 21 have a similar issue and will be interpreted in a similar way as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20 do not overcome the deficiency of the base claims and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons as the base claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior arts as cited does not teach or suggest, either solely or in combination, the claimed limitations.
Kohisseri et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0188079 A1) discloses dynamically generating an executable source code for an application including generating one or more source codes for the application flow using at least one pre-trained code generation model and the at least one pre-trained code generation model generates the one or more source codes based on the user inputs, and one or more reference source codes retrieved from predetermined code repositories.
Skiand et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2025/0045028 A1) discloses generating computer code for a plurality of components of a software development project where an artificial intelligence code generator can generate computer code in response to a natural language text input describing a component of the software development project.
However, the combination of Kohisseri and Skiand does not specifically disclose “select symbols from the plurality of symbols in response to the symbols that are selected having relevancies to the user-generated query that satisfy a relevancy criterion by dynamically traversing the symbol graph; in response to the symbols being selected from the plurality of symbols, retrieve code skeletons associated with the symbols, wherein each code skeleton defines a structure of a symbol in the codebase and includes placeholder code in lieu of content of the symbol; cause an AI model to generate at least a portion of the code that performs the specified function from at least a subset of the symbols in the codebase by providing an AI prompt together with the code skeletons as inputs to the AI model, the AI prompt requesting that the AI model provide the code that performs the specified function, wherein the code skeletons comprise context regarding the AI prompt,” as recited in the independent claims, in combination with the other recited elements, which is not found in the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bibi et al. ("Enhancing semantic code search with deep graph matching) discloses using neural graph matching and a searching approach for semantic code retrieval.
Wong et al. (Natural language generation and understanding of big code for AI-assisted programming: A review) discloses the utilization of Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques, with a particular focus on transformer-based large language models (LLMs) trained using Big Code, within the domain of AI-assisted programming tasks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENECA SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1651. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/CHENECA SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. Sough/SPE, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights