CTNF 18/768,280 CTNF 101481 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. DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to application filed on 07/10/2024. Claims 1-7 are pending. Priority 02-27 AIA Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE 10 2023 207 158.4 , filed on 07/27/2023 . 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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. Claim 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more. Regarding claim 1, this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a method claim under Step 1. However, the limitations “sorting the program parts based on the metric values according to descending criticality of the program parts” and “by checking, for each program part to be processed and each criticality evaluation metric, whether the metric value of the criticality evaluation metric is above a predetermined threshold value associated with the criticality evaluation metric, and, when the metric value of the criticality evaluation metric is above the threshold value” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation judgement and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A. Under Prong 2 Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application the additional elements. This claim recites the following additional elements “ascertaining a respective metric value for each of the program parts based on one or more criteria for each criticality evaluation metric of a plurality of criticality evaluation metrics, wherein each criticality evaluation metric is assigned an optimization measure” and “processing the program parts in accordance with an order specified by the sorting, initiating an optimization measure that is associated with the criticality evaluation metric”. The additional element “ascertaining…” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering and transmitting data. Further, the additional element “processing…” fails to meaningfully limit the claim 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(f). Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the limitations “ascertaining…” have been identified by the courts as mere data gathering which are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Furthermore, the limitation “processing…” does not require any particular application of the recited evaluation 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. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 2-5 recites non-functional descriptive language that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 6 is also rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 for having similar limitations. Additionally, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim does not recite any physical structure, therefore products that do not have a physical or tangible form (“software per se”) does not fall within any statutory category. Claim 7 is also rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 for having similar limitations. In addition, claim 7 recites non-transitory medium and processors which merely recites generic computer or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception. Under Prong 2 Step 2A, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application the additional elements. This claim recites the following additional elements “non-transitory computer-readable medium…” and “when executed by a processor…”. The additional elements “non-transitory computer-readable medium…” and “when executed by a processor…” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and merely displaying data do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. 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) 1-4 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaFrance-Liden (US 8739143 B2) in view of Pandurangarao et al. (US 20220318008 A1) hereinafter Pandurangarao . In regards to claim 1, LaFrance-Liden discloses A method for optimizing a computer program which, for dividing the computer program into a plurality of program parts, comprises the following steps: (LaFrance-Liden abstract, column 4, lines-66-67 and column 5, lines 1-5 discloses obtaining entities, such as routine, function, and procedure, from a computer program) ascertaining a respective metric value for each of the program parts based on one or more criteria for each criticality evaluation metric of a plurality of criticality evaluation metrics, (LaFrance-Liden column 2, lines 1- 44 discloses each entity receiving a metric score, where the metric score is based on specific location to examine and procedures such as instructions per cycle, cache misses, frequency of memory requests, number of interrupts, success of branch predictions, etc. Further, in Column 4, lines 66-67 and Column 5, lines 1-11, the weighted scores are applied to each metric in order to deem which parts are more worthy of investigate/more critical). wherein each criticality evaluation metric is assigned an optimization measure; (LaFrance-Liden column 2, lines 10-26 and column 2, lines 44-54 discloses scores are computed for each metric and entity which are then given to user to provide guidance to optimize, such as where in the program the performance bottleneck is occurring and what the cause of the performance bottleneck is). sorting the program parts based on the metric values according to descending criticality of the program parts; and (LaFrance-Liden column 5 lines 61-67 and column 6, lines 1-2 disclose sorting the entities from highest to lowest, i.e., most important to least important, based on their weighted scores to determine which entities have the highest score/highest relevance for all of the metrics defined for the program). LaFrance-Liden lacks explicitly processing the program parts in accordance with an order specified by the sorting by checking, for each program part to be processed and each criticality evaluation metric, whether the metric value of the criticality evaluation metric is above a predetermined threshold value associated with the criticality evaluation metric, and, when the metric value of the criticality evaluation metric is above the threshold value, initiating an optimization measure that is associated with the criticality evaluation metric. Pandurangarao teaches processing the program parts in accordance with an order specified by the sorting by checking, for each program part to be processed and each criticality evaluation metric, whether the metric value of the criticality evaluation metric is above a predetermined threshold value associated with the criticality evaluation metric, and, when the metric value of the criticality evaluation metric is above the threshold value, initiating an optimization measure that is associated with the criticality evaluation metric. (Pandurangarao [0029]-[0030] discloses calculating a score for each file, where the score is based on frequency, number of bugs associated, skill of the developers working on the source code file, the structure of the source code file, commit history, and any other data associated. The files are then ranked based on their score, and the files with a score the exceed a threshold can be indicated as code hot spots, which are spots that indicate files that are subject to a large number of bugs and/or modification which are likely to cause problems. Further in Pandurangarao [0032], after hotspots are identified, notifications are generated which indicate files that have the hot spots and recommendations for particular developers to maintain the file, such as an experienced developer in the types of bugs occurring. Also, LaFrance-Liden discloses in column 5, lines 61-67 and column 6, lines 1-22 entities with the highest weighted score indicates a bottleneck and the performance analysis attempts to optimize a program for aspects such as speed and memory usage). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified LaFrance-Liden to incorporate the teachings of Pandurangarao to “processing the program parts in accordance with an order specified by the sorting by checking, for each program part to be processed and each criticality evaluation metric, whether the metric value of the criticality evaluation metric is above a predetermined threshold value associated with the criticality evaluation metric, and, when the metric value of the criticality evaluation metric is above the threshold value, initiating an optimization measure that is associated with the criticality evaluation metric.” In order to efficiently identify portions that cause the most problems and optimize them, thus increasing device performance and speed. In regards to claim 2, LaFrance-Liden discloses T he method according to claim 1, wherein the one or more criteria are one or more of the following: a frequency of changes to the program part, an evaluation by one or more programmers associated with the program part, an error frequency of the program part, a frequency of execution of the program part during an execution of the computer program, (LaFrance-Liden column 4, lines 51-65 discloses the weight factors for each entity are determined, where the factors can be if a routine that is infrequently called. Further, in column 6, lines 3-22 discloses measuring frequency, duration of function call, and summary of events, thus demonstrating frequency of execution of the program part during an execution of the computer program limitation). an evaluation of a size of a circle of programmers to which the program part is exposed in terms of possible changes, a degree of dependencies of the program part on other parts of the computer program, a complexity of the program part. In regards to claim 3, LaFrance-Liden discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the criticality evaluation metrics combine and/or weight the criteria differently. (LaFrance-Liden column 4, lines 37-65 and column 5, lines 6-25 discloses weight factors for different criteria, where a routine that large time spent in the routine has a higher weighting factor, while a routine with little time would have a small weight factor. Each metric has its own weight calculation determining whether a metric is good or bad). In regards to claim 4, LaFrance-Liden discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the optimization measures assigned to the criticality evaluation metrics are one or more of the following: a revision and/or review at implementation level, a revision at architecture level, an error analysis (LaFrance-Liden column 1, lines 20-26 and column 2, lines 46-51 discloses showing where performance bottlenecks occur in the program and why such performance bottleneck is occurring, such as the cause of the performance bottleneck, to the programmer to assist in modifying the code in order to increase performance of the program. Therefore, this process demonstrates error analysis) , a change of the programming language used for the program part, a verification of the program part with a specific test, and/or validation, and/or verification procedure. With regards to claim 6, it is a device with similar limitations to claim 1, therefore claim 6 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above. With regards to claim 7, it is a non-transitory computer-readable media with similar limitations to claim 1, therefore claim 7 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaFrance-Liden (US 8739143 B2) in view of Pandurangarao et al. (US 20220318008 A1) hereinafter Pandurangarao in further view of Fuhlbrigge et al. (US 7643907 B2) hereinafter Fuhlbrigge . In regards to claim 5, LaFrance-Liden in view of Pandurangarao discloses The method of claim 1 LaFrance-Liden in view of Pandurangarao lacks explicitly wherein the computer program is a control program for a robot device, and the robot device is controlled with a version of the computer program that is generated by the optimization measures initiated by the processing of the program parts. Fuhlbrigge teaches wherein the computer program is a control program for a robot device, and the robot device is controlled with a version of the computer program that is generated by the optimization measures initiated by the processing of the program parts. (Fuhlbrigge abstract column 7, lines 57-67 and column 8, lines 1-14 discloses software program for controlling a device, such as a robot, where the initial version of software is generated using metadata-infused software program which is then modified by the deployment wizard to include taught information and optimized by the optimization wizard. Further in Fuhlbrigge column 13, lines 12-33 discloses the optimization wizard being used on the software program of the robot to optimize timing of operations, sequence of actions, or the speed of the movements). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified LaFrance-Liden in view of Pandurangarao to incorporate the teachings of Fuhlbrigge to “wherein the computer program is a control program for a robot device, and the robot device is controlled with a version of the computer program that is generated by the optimization measures initiated by the processing of the program parts” in order to provide optimizations to a robot device and thus improving the robot’s effectiveness/efficiency. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER J SALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6355. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-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. /CHRISTOPHER J SALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2193 /Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/768,280 Page 2 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/768,280 Page 3 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/768,280 Page 4 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/768,280 Page 5 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/768,280 Page 6 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/768,280 Page 7 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/768,280 Page 8 Art Unit: 2193
Prosecution Insights