DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-22 are pending in the current application.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 7/15/26, with respect to the 103 rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Argument 1; Remarks pg. 9 line 4) that claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea mental process, (Argument 2; Remarks pg. 11 lines 27-29) that claims improves an existing process and thus claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and (Argument 3; Remarks pg. 12 lines 9-13) the claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea by providing an inventive concept by adding a particular limitation or combination that are not well-understood routine or conventional.
With respect to applicant’s arguments examiner respectfully disagrees. As to argument 1 not every element of a claim has to be an abstract idea mental process element for the claim as a whole to be considered as directed to an abstract idea mental process as long as elements of the claims do recite an abstract idea mental process and the other remaining elements/additional elements of the claim do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Examiner does not disagree with applicant’s statement that a human mind does not/cannot perform the compile a portion of code limitation or generate an application limitation but these are viewed as additional elements that do not show significantly more than the abstract idea nor integrate the abstract idea into a practical application expanded in full detail in the 101 rejection below. The claim includes other limitations such as the identifying a particular programming language limitation, calculating a respective confidence score limitation, and identifying a compiler registry from a compiler registry library limitation are viewed as abstract idea mental process elements and thus viewed that the claim still recites abstract idea mental process as thus directed to an abstract idea mental process.
As to argument 2, while a technical improvement/solution to a technical problem can be used to show that additional elements integrate of an abstract idea into a practical application the specification must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as pertaining to an improvement and the claims must reflect the improvement and cover a particular solution to a problem as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution the argument dealing with the citing the entire claim showing the technical solution/improvement is unclear what is the specific technical improvement reflected in the claim language and nothing in the claims disclose dealing with the consolidating application development platforms which is an argued technical improvement. It appears the improvement is directed towards the way/how the programming language is identified to determine/identify the specific compiler registry to use, which as currently claimed is viewed as abstract idea mental process elements then it is just applying that selection/determine to compiling and application generation based on that information in the claim language which is not seen as a specific technical improvement as the improvement seems to be directed to the abstract idea elements where an improvement to an abstract idea is still considered an abstract idea element and not something that shows the integration of an abstract idea into a practical application.
As to argument 3, while a technical improvement/solution to a technical problem can be used to show that additional elements integrate of an abstract idea into a practical application the specification must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as pertaining to an improvement and the claims must reflect the improvement and cover a particular solution to a problem as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution the argument dealing with the citing the entire claim showing the technical solution/improvement is unclear what is the specific technical improvement/inventive concept reflected in the claim language. As argued above and seen in full detail below the identifying a particular programming language limitation, calculating a respective confidence score limitation, and identifying a compiler registry from a compiler registry library limitation are seen as abstract idea mental process limitations where the remaining addition elements are viewed as mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception and limitations that do not require any particular application of the recited performing an action and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception and thus elements or in combination that do not show significantly more than the abstract idea and thus viewed as not integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 1-6, 8-14 and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-22 are claims that are directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitation of “identifying, using a prioritized list of one or more rules ranked in order of identification success rate, a particular programming language of a plurality of programming languages that is associated with a portion of code”, wherein identifying the particular programming language comprises: calculating a respective confidence score for each of the plurality of programming languages as the prioritized list of one or more rules is applied; and identifying a compiler registry from a compiler registry library based on the identified particular programming language” as drafted, are functions thus under its broadest reasonable interpretation recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompasses a human mind carrying out the function of observation and analysis of code and based on rules being able to mentally calculate determine score based on applied rules to the programming language and then identifying a particular compiler registry from a library based on determine/identified language that is associated with that portion of code through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
The claims have been identified to recite an abstract idea, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 1: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the following additional elements “a compiler registry” and “a development platform” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Further, the claims recites the additional elements of “compiling the portion of code…into one or more object files in the particular programming language that is associated with the portion of code” and “generating… an application using the one or more object files” fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require and particular application of the recited “compiling” and “generating” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claim, 1, not only recite an abstract idea but that the claims are directed to the abstract idea as the abstract idea has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claim 1: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “compiler registry” and “a development platform” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Further, the addition elements of “compiling the portion of code…into one or more object files in the particular programming language that is associated with the portion of code” and “generating… an application using the one or more object files” does not require any particular application of the recited performing an action and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere instructions to apply an exception do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claim 1 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101
As to claim 2 recite additional elements of “accessing the portion of code within an application development pipeline” which is merely insignificant extra solution activity information of retrieving information from memory which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing and conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity” i. storing and retrieving information in memory where the accessing the portion of code limitation is akin to retrieving that portion of code for access/use from memory/repository containing the code. Moreover, claim 2 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 2 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
As to claim 3 the limitation of “applying the one or more rules to identify…the particular programming language, of a plurality of programming languages, of the portion of code within the development platform” is an additional mental process element under prong 1. Additionally, claim 3 recite additional elements of “via a development tool” recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Moreover, claim 3 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 3 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
As to claim 4 the limitation of “generate one or more additional rules based on one or more language identification definitions” is an additional mental process element under prong 1. Additionally, claim 4 recite additional elements of “a code repository” and “memory” recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Further, claim 4 recite additional elements of “wherein the development tool is configured to: receive one or more additional portions of code in the plurality of programming languages from a code repository” and “store the one or more additional rules in memory with the prioritized list of one or more rules” which are merely insignificant extra solution activity information of receiving or transmitting data and storing data to memory which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing and conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity” i. receiving or transmitting data and ii. storing and retrieving data from memory where the receive one or more additional portions of code limitation is akin to receiving/transmitting that information and the store the one or more additional rules limitation is akin to storing that information in memory. Moreover, claim 4 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 4 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
As to claim 5 the limitation of “wherein applying the prioritized list of one or more rules comprises: identifying a pattern between the one or more language identification definitions and the portion of code within the development platform; and analyzing the pattern to determine the programming language of the portion of code” is an additional mental process element under prong 1. Moreover, claim 5 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 5 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
As to claim 6 the limitation of “updating… the one or more language identification definitions” is an additional mental process element under prong 1. Additionally, claim 6 recite additional elements of “a remote development key… wherein the remote development key comprises indications of one or more additional programming languages, one or more programming language versions, or a combination thereof” recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Moreover, claim 6 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 6 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
As to claim 8 the limitation of “identifying a build registry,” is an additional mental process element under prong 1. Additionally, claim 8 recite additional elements of “a build registry, wherein the build registry compiles the one or more object files and links the one or more object files to generate an executable application” recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Moreover, claim 8 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 8 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
As to claim 9 the limitation of “wherein using the prioritized list one or more rules comprises pattern matching a portion of a header associated with the portion of code and one or more language identification definitions” is an additional mental process element under prong 1. Moreover, claim 9 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 9 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
As to claim 10 it recites additional element of “wherein the language identification definitions comprise one or more programming language identifiers associated with a particular programming language” which is merely a field of use/technological environment which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, claim 10 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 10 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 11: The limitation of “ identifying, using a prioritized list of one or more rules ranked in order of identification success rate, a particular programming language of a plurality of programming languages that is associated with the portion of code, wherein identifying the particular programming languages comprises: calculating a respective confidence score for each of the plurality of programming languages as the prioritized list of one or more rules is applied; and identifying a compiler registry from a compiler registry library based on the identified particular programming language ” and “identifying, via the development tool, a build registry, wherein the build registry compiles the one or more object files and links the one or more object files to generate an executable application” as drafted, are functions thus under its broadest reasonable interpretation recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompasses a human mind carrying out the function of observation and analysis of code and based on ranked rules being able to mentally determine score for each programming language as the rules are applied and identify which programming language that is associated with that portion of code and determining the specific compiler registry based on that programming language and being able to determine/identify/find/match a specific build registry to use based on determined information about code through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
The claims have been identified to recite an abstract idea, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 11: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the following additional elements “A system, comprising: processing circuitry; and memory, accessible by the processing circuitry, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, causes the processing circuitry to perform operations comprising,” “a development tool,” “a compiler registry” and “a development platform” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Further, the claim recites additional elements of “accessing, via a development tool, a portion of code” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely retrieving information from memory. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of “compiling the portion of code… into one or more object files in the particular programming language that is associated with the portion of code” and “generating…an application using the one or more object files” fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require and particular application of the recited “compiling” and “generating” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claim 11, not only recite an abstract idea but that the claims are directed to the abstract idea as the abstract idea has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claim 11: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “A system, comprising: processing circuitry; and memory, accessible by the processing circuitry, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processing circuitry, causes the processing circuitry to perform operations comprising,” “a development tool,” “a compiler registry” and “a development platform” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Further, the additional element of “accessing, via a development tool, a portion of code” is merely insignificant extra solution activity information of retrieving information from memory and, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing and conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity” i. storing and retrieving information in memory where the accessing the portion of code limitation is akin to retrieving that portion of code for access/use from memory/repository containing the code. Additionally, the addition elements of “compiling the portion of code… into one or more object files in the particular programming language that is associated with the portion of code” and “generating…an application using the one or more object files” does not require any particular application of the recited performing an action and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely retrieving data from memory and mere instructions to apply an exception do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
As to claim 12 it is comparable to claim 4 above and rejected under the same reasoning.
As to claim 13 it is comparable to claim 5 above and rejected under the same reasoning.
As to claim 14, it is comparable to claim 6 above and rejected under the same reasoning.
As to claim 16 it is comparable to claim 9 above and rejected under the same reasoning.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 17: The limitation of “ identifying, using a prioritized list of one or more rules ranked in order of identification success rate, a particular programming language of a plurality of programming languages that is associated with the portion of code, wherein identifying the particular programming languages comprises: calculating a respective confidence score for each of the plurality of programming languages as the prioritized list of one or more rules is applied; and identifying a compiler registry from a compiler registry library based on the identified particular programming language” as drafted, are functions thus under its broadest reasonable interpretation recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompasses a human mind carrying out the function of observation and analysis of code and based on rules being able to mentally determine/identify which programming language that is associated with that portion of code based on applying rules and calculating score for programming language based on rules and identifying/determining a particular compiler register from a library based on the identified programming language based on determined information about code through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
The claim have been identified to recite an abstract idea, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 17: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the following additional elements “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising processor-executable routines that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising,” “a development tool,” “a compiler registry” and “a development platform” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Further, the claim recites additional elements of “accessing, via a development tool, a portion of code” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely retrieving information from memory. Additionally, the claim recites the additional elements of “compiling the portion of code… into one or more object files in the particular programming language that is associated with the portion of code” and “generating…an application using the one or more object files” fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require and particular application of the recited “compiling” and “generating” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claim 17, not only recite an abstract idea but that the claims are directed to the abstract idea as the abstract idea has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claim 17: The claim does not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising processor-executable routines that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising,” “a development tool,” “a compiler registry” and “a development platform” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Further, the additional element of “accessing, via a development tool, a portion of code” is merely insignificant extra solution activity information of retrieving information from memory and, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing and conventional function when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity” i. storing and retrieving information in memory where the accessing the portion of code limitation is akin to retrieving that portion of code for access/use from memory/repository containing the code. Additionally, the addition elements of “compiling the portion of code… into one or more object files in the particular programming language that is associated with the portion of code” and “generating…an application using the one or more object files” does not require any particular application of the recited performing an action and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely retrieving data from memory and mere instructions to apply an exception do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claim 17 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
As to claim 18 it is comparable to claim 5 above and rejected under the same reasoning.
As to claim 19 it is comparable to claim 8 above and rejected under the same reasoning.
As to claim 20 the limitation of “identifying a compiler registry,” is an additional mental process element under prong 1. Additionally, claim 20 recite additional elements of “a compiler registry, wherein the compiler registry is configured to compile the portion of code into the one or more object files in the identified particular programming language” recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Moreover, claim 20 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 20 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 20 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
As to claim 21 the limitation of “analyzing one or more execution files associated with the portion of code to identify one or more file extensions associated with the particular programming language” is an additional mental process element under prong 1. Additionally, claim 21 recite additional elements of “via a development tool” recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Moreover, claim 21 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 21 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 21 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
As to claim 22 it recites additional element of “wherein compiling the portion of code comprises compiling a first portion of code associated with a first programming language via a first compiler registry and compiling a second portion of code associated with a second programming language via a second compiler registry” which is merely a field of use/technological environment which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, claim 22 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 22 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 22 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-22 are viewed as allowable over prior art but are still rejected under 101 analysis but would be allowable once the outstanding 101 rejection is addressed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The amended claims are viewed as allowable over current prior art as the specific combination of elements dealing with a specific rank list of rules for identifying particular programming language of a plurality of programming languages associated with portions of code, where the rules are ranked in order of their success rate of identification of the programming language where for each of the plurality of programming languages that can be identified by the rules a respective confidence score is calculated associated with the portion of code as the prioritized list of rules is applied to the code where based on the determined/identified specific programming language for that portion of code a compiler register from a compiler registry library is identified and used to compile the associated portion of code into an object file used for generating an application. While prior art such as Weigert shows the basics of being able to analyze code and determine its associated programming language and compiler that portion of code based on determined programming language, and prior art of Duggal shows the basics of compiling portions of code into object files that are then used as part of a development platform to build an application, and prior art of Rossetti discloses being able to identify a specific compiler for use from a library/database of compilers and prior art Allen et al. (Pub No. US 2017/0039188 A1) [0067] lines 11-26, [0068] lines 1-12 and [0069] lines 1-15 which shows being able to apply a set of rules to program code to identify associated programming language for that portion of code where the rules can determine a probability/confidence score that the portion is in a particular programming language, however, the specific combination of combination of elements dealing with a specific rank list of rules for identifying particular programming language of a plurality of programming languages associated with portions of code, where the rules are ranked in order of their success rate of identification of the programming language where for each of the plurality of programming languages that can be identified by the rules a respective confidence score is calculated associated with the portion of code as the prioritized list of rules is applied to the code where based on the determined/identified specific programming language for that portion of code a compiler register from a compiler registry library is identified and used to compile the associated portion of code into an object file used for generating an application is not seen reflected in the prior art and thus viewed as reciting allowable subject matter over the prior art.
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 BRADFORD F WHEATON whose telephone number is (571)270-1779. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/BRADFORD F WHEATON/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights