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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 05/13/2024. Claims 1-12 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 5 and 9 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claims 1, 5 and 9 are corresponding to one of four statutory categories including method, system, and method respectively under step 1. The claims 1, 5 and 9 recite “a computer-implemented method comprising: converting a programming code into a natural language, understood by users, to build a natural language-based computer-executable solution executable based on inputs in the natural language, wherein the natural language-based computer-executable solution comprises a plurality of ordered change units that contain application logic, and the change units have a one-to-one relationship with local statements of intent, wherein the converting the programming code into the natural language to build the natural language-based computer-executable solution comprises: parsing, by a processor of a computing device, the programming code to extract symbols, keywords, operators, and functions present in the programming code; determining, by the processor, the local statements of intent, n number of entities associated with each of the local statements of intent, wherein n is greater than 0, and attributes associated with each of the entities based on correlation of the extracted symbols, keywords, operators, and functions with the natural language and setting each of the local statements of intent, the n number of entities, and the attributes in a binary state designating event potentiality, wherein each local statement of intent is a sentence indicative of a sub-step for fulfilling the requirements for executing the computer-executable solution, wherein each entity includes a noun phrase and participates in fulfilling the requirements of the sub-step indicated by the corresponding local statement of intent, and wherein the attributes define a characteristic of the respective entity and that differentiate the respective entity from other entities of the corresponding local statement of intent, wherein each attribute includes at least one of an adjective phrase and an adverb phrase; forming, by the processor, for each local statement of intent, a set of combinatorial-entity-states (CESs) including 2n possible combinations of the n number of entities of the local statement of intent, wherein a CES formed based on all (n in number) the entities of the local statement of intent is a trigger combinatorial entity state (trigger CES); determining, by the processor, a plurality of distinct relationships between the local statements of intent based on at least the extracted operators and functions, wherein each distinct relationship is a distinct pathway to fulfill the requirements for executing the computer-executable solution, wherein the relationships are indicative of whether a trigger CES of one local statement of intent is connected to the set of CESs of another local statement of intent or is an end of a global statement of intent for the building the computer-executable solution, wherein the global statement of intent is indicative of a name of the computer-executable solution being built using the natural language and is set to a binary state designating event potentiality; and receiving, by the processor from a user in a form of the natural language, details of an agent associated with each of the local statements of intent, wherein the agent is at least one of a human agent and a machine agent, wherein, based on information received by the processor from the agent, the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each attribute, the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each entity, the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each local statement of intent, and the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for the global statement of intent, and wherein each combinatorial-entity-state in the set is changed from a binary state designating event potentiality to a binary state designating event completion in response to changing the associated entities into a binary state designating event completion, wherein, for the trigger combinatorial-entity-state for a given local statement of intent, when all the entities of the given local statement of intent are in a binary state designating event completion, execution passes from a change unit associated with the given local statement of intent to a change unit of a next, connected local statement of intent“.
The limitation of the claims 1, 5 and 9 of “converting a programming code into a natural language, understood by users, to build a natural language-based computer-executable solution executable based on inputs in the natural language, wherein the natural language-based computer-executable solution comprises a plurality of ordered change units that contain application logic, and the change units have a one-to-one relationship with local statements of intent, wherein the converting the programming code into the natural language to build the natural language-based computer-executable solution” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “converting” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may convert a programming code into a natural language, understood by users, to build a natural language-based computer-executable solution executable based on inputs in the natural language, wherein the natural language-based computer-executable solution comprises a plurality of ordered change units that contain application logic, and the change units have a one-to-one relationship with local statements of intent, wherein the converting the programming code into the natural language to build the natural language-based computer-executable solution with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 5 and 9 of “parsing, by a processor of a computing device, the programming code to extract symbols, keywords, operators, and functions present in the programming code” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “parsing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may parse the programming code to extract symbols, keywords, operators, and functions present in the programming code with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 5 and 9 of “determining, by the processor, the local statements of intent, n number of entities associated with each of the local statements of intent, wherein n is greater than 0, and attributes associated with each of the entities based on correlation of the extracted symbols, keywords, operators, and functions with the natural language and setting each of the local statements of intent, the n number of entities, and the attributes in a binary state designating event potentiality, wherein each local statement of intent is a sentence indicative of a sub-step for fulfilling the requirements for executing the computer-executable solution, wherein each entity includes a noun phrase and participates in fulfilling the requirements of the sub-step indicated by the corresponding local statement of intent, and wherein the attributes define a characteristic of the respective entity and that differentiate the respective entity from other entities of the corresponding local statement of intent, wherein each attribute includes at least one of an adjective phrase and an adverb phrase” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine the local statements of intent, n number of entities associated with each of the local statements of intent, wherein n is greater than 0, and attributes associated with each of the entities based on correlation of the extracted symbols, keywords, operators, and functions with the natural language and setting each of the local statements of intent, the n number of entities, and the attributes in a binary state designating event potentiality, wherein each local statement of intent is a sentence indicative of a sub-step for fulfilling the requirements for executing the computer-executable solution, wherein each entity includes a noun phrase and participates in fulfilling the requirements of the sub-step indicated by the corresponding local statement of intent, and wherein the attributes define a characteristic of the respective entity and that differentiate the respective entity from other entities of the corresponding local statement of intent, wherein each attribute includes at least one of an adjective phrase and an adverb phrase with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 5 and 9 of “forming, by the processor, for each local statement of intent, a set of combinatorial-entity-states (CESs) including 2n possible combinations of the n number of entities of the local statement of intent, wherein a CES formed based on all (n in number) the entities of the local statement of intent is a trigger combinatorial entity state (trigger CES)” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “forming” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may form, for each local statement of intent, a set of combinatorial-entity-states (CESs) including 2n possible combinations of the n number of entities of the local statement of intent, wherein a CES formed based on all (n in number) the entities of the local statement of intent is a trigger combinatorial entity state (trigger CES) with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 5 and 9 of “determining, by the processor, a plurality of distinct relationships between the local statements of intent based on at least the extracted operators and functions, wherein each distinct relationship is a distinct pathway to fulfill the requirements for executing the computer-executable solution, wherein the relationships are indicative of whether a trigger CES of one local statement of intent is connected to the set of CESs of another local statement of intent or is an end of a global statement of intent for the building the computer-executable solution, wherein the global statement of intent is indicative of a name of the computer-executable solution being built using the natural language and is set to a binary state designating event potentiality” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may determine a plurality of distinct relationships between the local statements of intent based on at least the extracted operators and functions, wherein each distinct relationship is a distinct pathway to fulfill the requirements for executing the computer-executable solution, wherein the relationships are indicative of whether a trigger CES of one local statement of intent is connected to the set of CESs of another local statement of intent or is an end of a global statement of intent for the building the computer-executable solution, wherein the global statement of intent is indicative of a name of the computer-executable solution being built using the natural language and is set to a binary state designating event potentiality with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 5 and 9 of “wherein, based on information received by the processor from the agent, the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each attribute, the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each entity, the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each local statement of intent, and the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for the global statement of intent” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “changing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may change the binary state designating event potentiality to a binary state designating event completion for each attribute, based on information received by the processor from the agent, the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each entity, the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each local statement of intent, and the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for the global statement of intent with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 5 and 9 of “wherein each combinatorial-entity-state in the set is changed from a binary state designating event potentiality to a binary state designating event completion in response to changing the associated entities into a binary state designating event completion” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “changing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may change each combinatorial-entity-state in the set from a binary state designating event potentiality to a binary state designating event completion in response to changing the associated entities into a binary state designating event completion with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
The limitation of the claims 1, 5 and 9 of “wherein, for the trigger combinatorial-entity-state for a given local statement of intent, when all the entities of the given local statement of intent are in a binary state designating event completion, execution passes from a change unit associated with the given local statement of intent to a change unit of a next, connected local statement of intent” as drafted, is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “passing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user may pass execution from a change unit associated with the given local statement of intent to a change unit of a next, connected local statement of intent for the trigger combinatorial-entity-state for a given local statement of intent, when all the entities of the given local statement of intent are in a binary state designating event completion, with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 1, 5 and 9 recite additional elements such as “receiving, by the processor from a user in a form of the natural language, details of an agent associated with each of the local statements of intent, wherein the agent is at least one of a human agent and a machine agent”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 2, 6 and 10 recite additional elements such as “wherein the machine agent is communicatively coupled to the computing device over a wired communication channel or a wireless communication channel”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 3, 7 and 11 recite additional elements such as “wherein an entity associated with a local statement of intent of the global statement of intent is: a local statement of intent of another computer-implemented solution to borrow the other computer-implemented solution; or an entity of another computer-implemented solution to borrow the other computer-implemented solution”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 4, 8 and 12 recite additional elements such as “wherein the programming code is for at least one of Batch Operating System, Time-Sharing Operating Systems, Distributed Operating System, Network Operating System, and Realtime Operating System”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element
amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which
does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional
element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-8 and 10-12 are also similarly rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-4, 6-8 and 10-12 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1, 5 and 9 respectively.
Reasons for Allowance
4. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior-art, the prior-art, Hart (US PGPub 20010051938), in view of Ueno (US PGPub 20160203007), in view of Polk (US PGPub 20030130918), in view of Ferrieux (US PGPub 20050119876), in view of Anderson (US Patent 7293261) and further in view of Drapeau (US PGPub 20200389472) failed to disclose: a computer-implemented method comprising: converting a programming code into a natural language, understood by users, to build a natural language-based computer-executable solution executable based on inputs in the natural language, wherein the natural language-based computer-executable solution comprises a plurality of ordered change units that contain application logic, and the change units have a one-to-one relationship with local statements of intent, wherein the converting the programming code into the natural language to build the natural language-based computer-executable solution comprises: parsing, by a processor of a computing device, the programming code to extract symbols, keywords, operators, and functions present in the programming code; determining, by the processor, the local statements of intent, n number of entities associated with each of the local statements of intent, wherein n is greater than 0, and attributes associated with each of the entities based on correlation of the extracted symbols, keywords, operators, and functions with the natural language and setting each of the local statements of intent, the n number of entities, and the attributes in a binary state designating event potentiality, wherein each local statement of intent is a sentence indicative of a sub-step for fulfilling the requirements for executing the computer-executable solution, wherein each entity includes a noun phrase and participates in fulfilling the requirements of the sub-step indicated by the corresponding local statement of intent, and wherein the attributes define a characteristic of the respective entity and that differentiate the respective entity from other entities of the corresponding local statement of intent, wherein each attribute includes at least one of an adjective phrase and an adverb phrase; forming, by the processor, for each local statement of intent, a set of combinatorial-entity-states (CESs) including 2n possible combinations of the n number of entities of the local statement of intent, wherein a CES formed based on all (n in number) the entities of the local statement of intent is a trigger combinatorial entity state (trigger CES); determining, by the processor, a plurality of distinct relationships between the local statements of intent based on at least the extracted operators and functions, wherein each distinct relationship is a distinct pathway to fulfill the requirements for executing the computer-executable solution, wherein the relationships are indicative of whether a trigger CES of one local statement of intent is connected to the set of CESs of another local statement of intent or is an end of a global statement of intent for the building the computer-executable solution, wherein the global statement of intent is indicative of a name of the computer-executable solution being built using the natural language and is set to a binary state designating event potentiality; and receiving, by the processor from a user in a form of the natural language, details of an agent associated with each of the local statements of intent, wherein the agent is at least one of a human agent and a machine agent, wherein, based on information received by the processor from the agent, the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each attribute, the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each entity, the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each local statement of intent, and the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for the global statement of intent, and wherein each combinatorial-entity-state in the set is changed from a binary state designating event potentiality to a binary state designating event completion in response to changing the associated entities into a binary state designating event completion, wherein, for the trigger combinatorial-entity-state for a given local statement of intent, when all the entities of the given local statement of intent are in a binary state designating event completion, execution passes from a change unit associated with the given local statement of intent to a change unit of a next, connected local statement of intent, as recited by the independent claim 1.
Regarding Claim 1, the closest prior-art found, Hart, Ueno, Polk, Ferrieux, Anderson and Drapeau discloses of a computer-implemented method comprising: converting a programming code into a natural language, understood by users, to build a natural language-based computer-executable solution executable based on inputs in the natural language, wherein the natural language-based computer-executable solution comprises a plurality of ordered change units that contain application logic, and the change units have a one-to-one relationship with local statements of intent, wherein the converting the programming code into the natural language to build the natural language-based computer-executable solution comprises: parsing, by a processor of a computing device, the programming code to extract symbols, keywords, operators, and functions present in the programming code; determining, by the processor, the local statements of intent, n number of entities associated with each of the local statements of intent, wherein n is greater than 0, and attributes associated with each of the entities based on correlation of the extracted symbols, keywords, operators, and functions with the natural language and setting each of the local statements of intent, the n number of entities, and the attributes in a binary state designating event potentiality, wherein each local statement of intent is a sentence indicative of a sub-step for fulfilling the requirements for executing the computer-executable solution, wherein each entity includes a noun phrase and participates in fulfilling the requirements of the sub-step indicated by the corresponding local statement of intent, and wherein the attributes define a characteristic of the respective entity and that differentiate the respective entity from other entities of the corresponding local statement of intent, wherein each attribute includes at least one of an adjective phrase and an adverb phrase; determining, by the processor, a plurality of distinct relationships between the local statements of intent based on at least the extracted operators and functions, wherein each distinct relationship is a distinct pathway to fulfill the requirements for executing the computer-executable solution, wherein the relationships are indicative of whether a trigger CES of one local statement of intent is connected to the set of CESs of another local statement of intent or is an end of a global statement of intent for the building the computer-executable solution, wherein the global statement of intent is indicative of a name of the computer-executable solution being built using the natural language and is set to a binary state designating event potentiality; and receiving, by the processor from a user in a form of the natural language, details of an agent associated with each of the local statements of intent, wherein the agent is at least one of a human agent and a machine agent, wherein, based on information received by the processor from the agent, the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each attribute, the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each entity, the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for each local statement of intent, and the binary state designating event potentiality is changed to a binary state designating event completion for the global statement of intent, and wherein each combinatorial-entity-state in the set is changed from a binary state designating event potentiality to a binary state designating event completion in response to changing the associated entities into a binary state designating event completion.
However, the prior art, Hart, Ueno, Polk, Ferrieux, Anderson and Drapeau failed to disclose the following subject matter such as “forming, by the processor, for each local statement of intent, a set of combinatorial-entity-states (CESs) including 2n possible combinations of the n number of entities of the local statement of intent, wherein a CES formed based on all (n in number) the entities of the local statement of intent is designated as a trigger combinatorial-entity-state; wherein, for the trigger combinatorial-entity-state for a given local statement of intent, when all the entities of the given local statement of intent are in a binary state designating event completion, execution passes from a change unit associated with the given local statement of intent to a change unit of a next, connected local statement of intent”.
Claim 5 is the system claim, similar to the claim 1, and claim 9 is the product claim, similar to the claim 1. Therefore, claims 1-12 contain allowable subject matter.
5. 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE UK JEON whose telephone number is (571)270-3649. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm. 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.
/JAE U JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights