CTNF 18/665,323 CTNF 86397 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-20 are pending and examined in this office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, mathematical relationship or an abstract idea ) without significantly more. Statutory Category: Claim 1 recites a method of a code generation method, comprising: in response to opening a first file corresponding to a code to be detected, determining a target element corresponding to a target annotation included in the code to be detected; and generating a corresponding target code according to the target annotation and the target element. Step 2A – Prong 1: Claim 1 recites: determining a target element corresponding to a target annotation included in the code to be detected (a mental step of determination); generating a corresponding target code according to the target annotation and the target element (a mental step of generating a code). That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed mentally or using pen and paper . 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 process grouping of abstract idea. 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 claim 1 recites additional elements such as “ in response to opening a first file corresponding to a code to be detected ”, which is a pre solution activity of opening a file, that is a Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional (WURC) Activity, as evidenced in Beckey (paragraphs [0045][0050][0052]; the source code generator analyzes ( open ) the source code prototype ). 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 Prong II step 2B. Dependent claims 2-8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the dependent claims 2-8 recite more steps of a mental process (such as determining ) which can be performed mentally or using pen and paper. The additional element of dependent claims 2-8 recite more insignificant extra-solution activities ( opening a file, storing a file, refreshing a file ), which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element) . Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible. Independent claim 13 (instructions stored in a storage medium to perform the method similar to claim 1) with dependent claims 14-20 are rejected under the similar rational as claims 1-8. The additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than generic hardware component with instructions to apply the exception, which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Statutory Category: Claim 9 recites a method of code generation, comprising: in response to a change to a code to be detected, determining whether the change is directed to a target element corresponding to a target annotation; and in response to the change is directed to the target element corresponding to the target annotation, updating, according to the changed target element, a target code corresponding to the target annotation and the target element. Step 2A – Prong 1: Claim 9 recites: in response to a change to a code to be detected, determining whether the change is directed to a target element corresponding to a target annotation (a mental step of determination); in response to the change is directed to the target element corresponding to the target annotation, updating , according to the changed target element, a target code corresponding to the target annotation and the target element (a mental step of updating a code). That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed mentally or using pen and paper . 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 process grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under step 2A prong 1. Dependent claims 10-12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the dependent claims 10-12 recite more steps of a mental process (such as determining ) which can be performed mentally or using pen and paper. Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 4, 6-14, 16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Beckey (US PGPUB 2017/0168786) . Per claim 1, Beckey discloses a method, comprising: in response to opening a first file corresponding to a code to be detected, determining a target element corresponding to a target annotation included in the code to be detected; and generating a corresponding target code according to the target annotation and the target element (paragraphs [0045][0050][0052]; a source code generation system receives a source code prototype ( a first file ) comprising annotations associated with a source code generator for generating multiple source code modules; the source code generator analyzes ( open ) the source code prototype to identify and process accessor and mutator annotations for the source code module being generated; the source code generator generates each respective source code module ( a target code )). Per claim 2, Beckey further discloses wherein the target element comprises one or more of a class, a method, an attribute and a variable (paragraph [0026]; a source code prototype for generating immutable classes having an inner builder class associated with a builder pattern). Per claim 4, Beckey further discloses wherein opening the first file corresponding to the code to be detected comprises: opening the first file before the first file is compiled (paragraphs [0058][0059]; a source code generation system opens and processes a source code file, then the source code file is compiled). Per claim 6, Beckey further discloses wherein the first file comprises one or more of a software project file, a software engineering file and a software code file (paragraph [0049]; the source code generator analyzes the source code prototype ( a software code file ) to generate the source code modules). Per claim 7, Beckey further discloses wherein in response to opening the first file corresponding to the code to be detected comprises: in response to opening the first file corresponding to the code to be detected for the first time (paragraphs [0049][0050]; the source code generator opens and analyzes the source code prototype for the first time to generate the source code modules). Per claim 8, Beckey further discloses wherein the target annotation is a special marker in the code to be detected (paragraph [0030]; the source code generator annotations may be included in a source code prototype as comments or other special statements ). Per claim 9, Beckey discloses a method, comprising: in response to a change to a code to be detected, determining whether the change is directed to a target element corresponding to a target annotation; and in response to the change is directed to the target element corresponding to the target annotation, updating, according to the changed target element, a target code corresponding to the target annotation and the target element (paragraphs [0060][0030][0045][0050][0052]; a software developer may modify a source code prototype ( a change to a code ), and to refactor a code ( a change directed to a target element ); annotations are a special type of metadata that signal to code generator which elements of a source code prototype are to be refactored when generating a source code module; a source code generation system receives a source code prototype ( a changed code ) comprising annotations associated with a source code generator for generating multiple source code modules; the source code generator analyzes ( open ) the source code prototype to identify and process accessor and mutator annotations for the source code module ( changed target element ) being generated; the source code generator generates each respective source code module ( updating a target code )). Per claim 11, Beckey discloses according to a change event of the code to be detected, determining whether the change is directed to the target element corresponding to the target annotation in the code to be detected (paragraphs [0060][0030][0045][0050][0052]; a software developer may modify a source code prototype ( a change to a code ), and to refactor a code ( a change directed to a target element ); annotations are a special type of metadata that signal to code generator which elements of a source code prototype are to be refactored when generating a source code module; the source code generator analyzes ( open ) the source code prototype to identify and process accessor and mutator annotations for the source code module ( changed target element ) being generated; the source code generator generates each respective source code module ( updating a target code )). Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under similar rationales as claims 2 and 8. Claims 13-14, 16, 18-20 are rejected under similar rationales as claims 1-2, 4, 6-8 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metsch et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0317737) hereinafter Beckey, in view of Dulepet et al. (US patent 7316003) hereinafter Dulepet . Per claim 3, Beckey further discloses in response to opening the first file corresponding to the code to be detected in an integrated development environment; the method further comprises: after generating the target code, storing the target code in a second file ( paragraphs [0022][0050][0052][0041]; in an integrated development environment, source code generator analyzes ( open ) the source code prototype to identify and process accessor and mutator annotations for the source code module being generated; the source code generator creates a copy (a second file) of a source code prototype being used to generate a source code module, the source code generator then may refactor the copy of the source code prototype ). Beckey does not explicitly teach refreshing the second file in a virtual file system associated with the integrated development environment . However, Dulepet suggests the above (column 8, line 52-62, refreshing a source code file in a source code editor view of an integrated development environment). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Beckey and Dulepet to refresh a source code file in a source code editor view of an integrated development environment, so the latest changes are reflected in the source code view. Claim 15 is rejected under similar rationales as claim 3 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metsch et al. (US PGPUB 2019/0317737) hereinafter Beckey, in view of Novillo et al. (US PGPUB 2013/0104112) hereinafter Novillo . Per claim 5, Beckey further discloses determining the target element corresponding to the target annotation included in the code to be detected ( paragraphs [0050][0052]; the source code generator analyzes ( open ) the source code prototype to identify and process accessor and mutator annotations for the source code module being generated; the source code generator generates each respective source code module ( a target code ) ). Beckey does not explicitly teach according to an abstract syntax tree corresponding to the code to be detected . However, using an abstract syntax tree to analyze a source code and to determine code elements is a common practice in the field of the art, as evidenced in Novillo (paragraphs [0025][0054][0056]; analyzing a source code file by parsing it into an abstract syntax tree; an abstract syntax tree is a data representation of the syntax structure of a source file). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Beckey and Novillo to use using an abstract syntax tree to analyze a source code and to determine code elements, as the abstract syntax tree may allow further operations such as error checking and optimization (Novillo, paragraph [0025]). Claim 17 is rejected under similar rationales as claim 5. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANG PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7667. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 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, 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. /HANG PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/665,323 Page 2 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/665,323 Page 3 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/665,323 Page 4 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/665,323 Page 5 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/665,323 Page 6 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/665,323 Page 7 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/665,323 Page 8 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/665,323 Page 9 Art Unit: 2193
Prosecution Insights