CTNF 18/668,107 CTNF 80073 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. This action is responding to application papers dated 5/17/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. The information disclosure statement filed on 10/16/2025 has been considered. The term, “computer storage devices” are described in the specification to not include “carrier waves or propagating signaling ([0141] “computer storage device,” … are synonymous terms for computer-storage memory 712, and none of these terms include carrier waves or propagating signaling).” Therefore, it is considered a non-transitory. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 8 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: the first appeared LLM and AST need to be spelled out . Appropriate correction is required. 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, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Specifically, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea. Per claim 1, the claim is directed to an idea of itself, mental processes that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The steps of identifying a code segment, generating a compacted tree, identifying a set of nodes, generating a second document, generating a modified prompt, integrating the set of edits can be performed mentally using a pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, Under Prong 1. A human (developer) can certainly perform a tree generation/modification/evaluation and modify a prompt before submitting the prompt to a generic LLM. Under Prong 2, the additional limitations, the steps of submitting the modified prompt to the LLM via a network and receiving a response to the modified prompt from the LLM which is used as a mere tool, and providing the edited version to a user via the user interface are insignificant extra solution activity known as WURC examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), for example, data gathering and retrieving, storing data, updating, transmitting, and displaying a result. The other additional limitations such as a processor, a computer-readable medium storing instructions are described at a high level of generality for applying or performing the abstract idea and do not indicate any integration of the abstract idea into a practical application as the mental steps are merely applied with a generic computing component(s). The LLM and user interface device are mere generic tools or computing components that perform or apply the abstract idea. See MPEP see MPEP 2106.05(f) /2106.05(h). Therefore, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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 or insignificant extra solution activities (e.g. processors, devices, program instructions), then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1: Abstract idea grouping? Yes, Mental Process). At most, the steps of providing, receiving and presenting the response are not found to include anything more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. In this case, it is noted that the claimed extra-solution of data gathering, transmitting and outputting/displaying is acknowledged to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity court recognized as WURC examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), for example, data gathering and retrieving, storing data, updating, transmitting, and displaying a result - Symantec, Versata Dev, Content extraction, Electric Power Group). Insignificant extra solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewing the limitations individually and as a combination, the additional elements merely perform insignificant extra solution activities and perform the mental steps using generic computing components as tools without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. For at least these reasons, claim 1 is not patent eligible. Per claims 2-7, these claims are directed to the same idea itself as in claim 1, reciting details of the mental steps (the steps of mapping, generating, scoring, identifying, including, selecting) without adding any other additional element that is significantly more. Therefore, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as in claim 1. Per claim 8, the claim is directed to an idea of itself, mental processes that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The steps of identifying a code segment, generating a compacted tree, identifying a set of nodes, generating a second document, generating a modified prompt, copying a set of edit the set of edits can be performed mentally using a pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, Under Prong 1. A human (developer) can certainly perform a tree generation/modification/evaluation and modify a prompt before submitting the prompt to a generic LLM. Under Prong 2, the additional limitations, the steps of submitting the modified prompt to the LLM via a network and receiving a response to the modified prompt from the LLM which is used as a mere tool, and presenting the edited version to a user via the user interface are insignificant extra solution activity known as WURC examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), for example, data gathering and retrieving, storing data, updating, transmitting, and displaying a result. The LLM and user interface device are mere generic tools or computing components that perform or apply the abstract idea. See MPEP see MPEP 2106.05(f) /2106.05(h). Therefore, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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 or insignificant extra solution activities (e.g. processors, devices, program instructions), then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG step 2A, Prong 1: Abstract idea grouping? Yes, Mental Process). At most, the steps of providing, receiving and presenting the response are not found to include anything more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. In this case, it is noted that the claimed extra-solution of data gathering, transmitting and outputting/displaying is acknowledged to be a well-understood, routine, conventional activity court recognized as WURC examples in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll), for example, data gathering and retrieving, storing data, updating, transmitting, and displaying a result - Symantec, Versata Dev, Content extraction, Electric Power Group). Insignificant extra solution activities or mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. Viewing the limitations individually and as a combination, the additional elements merely perform insignificant extra solution activities and perform the mental steps using generic computing components as tools without integrating the abstract idea into a practical application. For at least these reasons, claim 1 is not patent eligible. Per claims 9-14, these claims are directed to the same idea itself as in claim 8, reciting details of the mental steps (incorporating the edited version, scoring, identifying, generating, selecting) and additional limitations that are insignificant extra solution activity (saving in a source code repository without adding any other additional element that is significantly more. Therefore, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as in claim 8. Per claims 15-20, these claims are directed to the same idea itself as in claims 1-7, reciting the same mental steps and additional limitations including one or more computer storage devices recited in the preamble that are generic components and insignificant extra solution activities without adding any other additional element that is significantly more. Therefore, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as in claims 1-7. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-20 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. Per claims 1, 8 and 15, The limitation, “a plurality of nodes associated with an abstract syntax tree (AST”)” is not clear whether the nodes are the nodes of the AST or of another tree. Interpreted as: a plurality of nodes of an abstract syntax tree (AST”). The limitation, “wherein a removable node is an element in the AST corresponding to a portion of code that maintains syntactic validity within the portion of the code corresponding to the plurality of removable nodes are when removed from the original document” is incomplete, therefore it is not clear in its scope and intent. This is interpreted as: wherein a removable node of the plurality of removable nodes is an element in the AST corresponding to a portion of code in the original document that maintains syntactic validity of the portion of code and the original document when removed from the original document. Per claims 1-7, the term, “operative” is not definite in its scope. Interpretation: configured. Claim 3 recites the limitation "the edit in the second document.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Interpretation: the edited line of code in the second document. Per claims 9-14 and 16-20, these claims are rejected because they depend from claims 8 and 15 respectively. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-20 are allowable over prior arts. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: While WO2024098860 teaches restoring an AST containing errors to a correct ASTcode to perform code syntax checking and code error prompts etc. to allow users to modify the erroneous code in a timely manner, CN112860233 teaches generating a target syntax tree for syntax rules to reduce the grammar analysis stack to obtain a target grammar tree, Jiang et al. teach prompt compression for LLM, Gilbert et al. teach compressing code and prompts and quantifying the level of preserved intent between text compressed and decompressed by the LLMs, the prior arts of record, taken alone or in combination do not teach the combination as a whole including: generate a compacted tree comprising a plurality of removable nodes selected from a plurality of nodes associated with an abstract syntax tree (AST) for the original document, wherein a removable node is an element in the AST corresponding to a portion of code that maintains syntactic validity within the portion of the code corresponding to the plurality of removable nodes are when removed from the original document; identify a set of nodes in the plurality of removable nodes using a plurality of scores associated with the plurality of removable nodes; generate a second document, smaller than the original document, the second document comprising the identified code segment and a set of code segments corresponding to each node in the set of nodes for inclusion in a modified prompt; generate a modified prompt including the second document, the identified code segment, and the action request for the identified code segment; submit the modified prompt to the LLM via a network; and responsive to receiving a response to the modified prompt from the LLM including a set of edits, integrate the set of edits into the original document to form an edited version of the original document, wherein the edited version of the original document is provided to a user via the user interface device in a syntactically correct form . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INSUN KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3724. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 9am-5pm. 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. /INSUN KANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/668,107 Page 2 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/668,107 Page 3 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/668,107 Page 4 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/668,107 Page 5 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/668,107 Page 6 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/668,107 Page 7 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/668,107 Page 8 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/668,107 Page 9 Art Unit: 2193
Prosecution Insights