CTNF 18/782,137 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 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 1-20 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 “converting, by the code-generating apparatus, the high-level rule file into a low-level rule file”, “determining, by the code-generating apparatus, whether the IDL file complies with the low-level rule file”, and “based on determining that the IDL file complies with the low-level rule file, generating, by the code-generating apparatus, code based on the IDL file” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. These limitations encompass a human mid 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 “receiving, by a code- generating apparatus, an interface definition language (IDL) file and a high-level rule file”. The additional element “receiving…” does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering and transmitting data. 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 “receiving…” have been identified by the courts as mere data gathering which are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claims 2, 4-6 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. Claim 3 recites additional mental steps, as “interpreting” can be preformed in the human mind and “using machine learning model” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform/apply the abstract idea. Claim 7 recites insignificant post-solution activity by performing a step that demonstrates merely gathering and transmitting data. Claim sets 8-14 and 15-20 have similar limitations as claim set 1-7 and therefore are rejected under the same rationale. 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, 5-8, 12-15, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janson (US 8806440 B2) in view of Lang et al (US 20090077621 A1) hereinafter Lang . Regarding claim 1, Janson discloses A method for generating codes, the method comprising: receiving, by a code-generating apparatus, an interface definition language (IDL) file; (Janson Column 2, lines 41-50 discloses the IDL and a set of predefined validation rules is provided for the input parameters). determining, by the code-generating apparatus, whether the IDL file complies with the low-level rule file; and (Janson Column 2, lines 51-67 and Column 3, 17-25 discloses that when the IDL complies with the defining rules of what constitutes a valid interface. If the interface is not valid based on the set of rules, generation of code is prevented. Otherwise, the generation of executable program code is continued). based on determining that the IDL file complies with the low-level rule file, generating, by the code-generating apparatus, code based on the IDL file (Janson Column 2, lines 51-67 and Column 3, 17-25 and Column 3, lines 43-53 discloses the input parameters, i.e. the IDL, is used for automatic source code generation after passing a set of validation rules). Janson lacks explicitly the high-level rule file and converting, by the code-generating apparatus, the high-level rule file into a low-level rule file; Lang teaches the high-level rule file and converting, by the code-generating apparatus, the high-level rule file into a low-level rule file; (Lang [0019] and [0042] discloses high-level security policy capable of being transformed to generate low-level machine-enforceable rules at a lower, detailed, technical abstraction level that a machine can use to make decisions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Janson to incorporate the teachings of Lang to “converting, by the code-generating apparatus, the high-level rule file into a low-level rule file” in order to transform written rules into a form that the machine can read to automatically perform necessary functions, thus increasing automation efficiency. Regarding claim 5, Janson discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the low-level rule file comprises at least one rule of an element or a combination of elements which cannot be included in the IDL file. (Janson column 8, lines 51-64 discloses the set of validation rules comprising rules preventing the use of particularly known unsafe element definitions. For example, the rules may prevent the use of “any”, “anyType”, or “anySimpleType” elements). Regarding claim 6, Janson discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the low-level rule file comprises at least one rule of a boundary which cannot be exceeded in the IDL file. (Janson column 7, lines 62-67 and column 8, lines 1-6 and 51-64 discloses bounds for allowable input values, where input values out of the expected range are detected by the validation system. Further, the validation rules prevent unbounded elements). Regarding claim 7, Janson discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: based on determining that the IDL file does not comply with the low-level rule file, sending a warning message. (Janson column 3, lines 48-53 discloses generating a warning or error message when interface description is not provided or if a provided interface description is not valid/complies with respect to the input parameters or the set of validation rules). With regards to claim 8, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above. Lang [0037] and [0083] further discloses program instructions being executed by one or more processors and loaded from memory. With regards to claim 12, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above. With regards to claim 13, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above. With regards to claim 14, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above. With regards to claim 15, it is a non-transitory medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above. Lang [0037] computer readable storage medium having stored a set of computer instructions. With regards to claim 19, it is a non-transitory medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above. With regards to claim 20, it is a non-transitory medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janson (US 8806440 B2) in view of Lang et al (US 20090077621 A1) hereinafter Lang in further view of Wang et al. (CN 120523445 A) hereinafter Wang . Regarding claim 2, Janson in view of Lang discloses The method of claim 1, Janson in view of Lang lacks explicitly wherein the IDL file comprises at least one data-type or interface with dynamic memory allocation. Wang teaches wherein the IDL file comprises at least one data-type or interface with dynamic memory allocation. (Page 3, paragraph 7 and 9, Page 9, paragraph 8 discloses IDL comprising of static and dynamic data objects. Dynamic data objects are stored in the dynamic shared memory allocation interface) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Janson in view of Lang to incorporate the teachings of Wang to “wherein the IDL file comprises at least one data-type or interface with dynamic memory allocation” in order to flexible memory rather than static, allowing for system to use exactly what is needed per application, rather than a hard-set value, thus increasing system memory efficiency. With regards to claim 9, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above. With regards to claim 16, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3-4, 10-11, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Janson (US 8806440 B2) in view of Lang et al (US 20090077621 A1) hereinafter Lang in further view of Naser et al. (US 20220229423 A1) hereinafter Naser . Regarding claim 3, Janson in view of Lang discloses The method of claim 1, Janson in view of Lang lacks explicitly wherein converting the high-level rule file into a low-level rule file comprises interpreting the high-level rule file using a machine learning model. Naser teaches wherein converting the high-level rule file into a low-level rule file comprises interpreting the high-level rule file using a machine learning model. (Naser [0051]-[0053] discloses using a machine learning device to extract safety rules from a safety standard document to generate the safety rules in a computer-readable predetermined format. While Naser lacks explicitly “high-level rule file” and “low-level rule file”, high-level rule file as interpreted from the specification, can be a safety-standard document and low-level rule file is interpreted as machine-executable instructions, and thus is taught by Naser. Further, in combination with Janson in view of Lang, Lang teaches the limitation of converting high-level instructions into low-level instructions, and thus it would be obvious to incorporate Naser in order to do so using a machine-learning model). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Janson in view of Lang to incorporate the teachings of Naser to “wherein converting the high-level rule file into a low-level rule file comprises interpreting the high-level rule file using a machine learning model” in order to add automation to the system to quickly convert text into code format, thus improving the system’s efficiency and speed. Regarding claim 4, Janson in view of Lang discloses The method of claim 1, Janson in view of Lang lacks explicitly wherein the high-level rule file comprises a safety standard document. Naser teaches wherein the high-level rule file comprises a safety standard document. (Naser [0051]-[0053] discloses the rule file being a safety standard document, where the rules are analyzed and extracted and then turned into a computer-readable predetermined format. This demonstrates both a high-level rule file being converted into a low-level rule file, whether the high-level rule file is a safety standard document). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Janson in view of Lang to incorporate the teachings of Naser to “wherein the high-level rule file comprises a safety standard document” in order to provide the system with necessary safety standards/rules necessary to perform the applications involved in safety-critical situations. Therefore, this allows the IDL to be capable of performing/adapting to different safety situations, thus improving IDL’s capabilities/flexibility and performance. With regards to claim 10, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above. With regards to claim 11, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above. With regards to claim 17, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above. With regards to claim 18, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above. 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: 18/782,137 Page 2 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/782,137 Page 3 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/782,137 Page 4 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/782,137 Page 5 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/782,137 Page 6 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/782,137 Page 7 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/782,137 Page 8 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/782,137 Page 9 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/782,137 Page 10 Art Unit: 2193
Prosecution Insights