DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 9-10 and 19 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.
Claims 9 and 19 recite the limitations "the root module in the module relationship diagram as well as the count" in lines 5-6 and lines 6-7 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the root module,” “the module relationship diagram” and “the count” limitations in the claim based on the current dependency to claim 1 and 12 respectively, however, if they depended from claim 3 or 14 or one of the other claims that dependent from those then they would have proper antecede basis.
Claim 10 depends from claim 9 above and does not overcome the issues and thus rejected under the same reasoning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-20 are claims that are directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 12 and 20: The limitation of “determining whether a code change associated with the PR is related to a target object”, as drafted, are functions thus under its broadest reasonable interpretation recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion or even with the aid of pen and paper to analyze code change information seen in a PR and see if related/associated/match to a target object. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
The claims have been identified to recite an abstract idea, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 12 and 20: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the following additional element “An electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor and having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to perform following operations” and “A computer program product, the computer program product being tangibly stored on a non-volatile computer-readable medium and comprising machine-executable instructions, wherein the machine-executable instructions, when executed, cause a machine to perform the following” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Additionally, the claim recites additional elements of “performing, in response to that the code change is related to the target object, a test associated with the target object on the PR; and avoiding, in response to that the code change is not related to the target object, performing the test associated with the target object on the PR” fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “testing” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception base on the determination of condition being meet. 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(g).
After having evaluating the inquiries set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 12 and 20 not only recite an abstract idea but that the claims are directed to the abstract idea as the abstract idea has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 12 and 20: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “An electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor and having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to perform following operations” and “A computer program product, the computer program product being tangibly stored on a non-volatile computer-readable medium and comprising machine-executable instructions, wherein the machine-executable instructions, when executed, cause a machine to perform the following” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Additionally, the additional element of “performing, in response to that the code change is related to the target object, a test associated with the target object on the PR; and avoiding, in response to that the code change is not related to the target object, performing the test associated with the target object on the PR” does not require any particular application of the recited testing and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception based on the mental determination that condition is meet to perform testing. The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception and mere instructions to apply an exception, do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 12 and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 2 and 13 they recite additional abstract idea limitations of “determining a correlated module set comprising a code module related to the target object; determining whether the PR comprises a module in the correlated module set; determining, in response to that the PR comprises the module in the correlated module set, that the PR is related to the target object; and determining, in response to that the PR does not comprise the module in the correlated module set, that the PR is not related to the target object.” is an additional mental process under prong 1. Moreover, claims 2 and 13 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 2 and 13 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 2 and 13 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 3 and 14 they recite additional abstract idea limitations of “determining, based on a distance between a corresponding module and a root module in a module relationship diagram and a count of the corresponding module being depended on by another module, a correlation score of the corresponding module, wherein the module relationship diagram comprises a module associated with the target object; comparing the correlation score with a threshold to determine whether the corresponding module is related to the target object; and determining the module related to the target object as the correlated module set.” is an additional mental process under prong 1. Moreover, claims 3 and 14 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 3 and 14 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 3 and 14 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 4 and 15 they recite additional abstract idea limitations of “detecting whether the PR introduces a bug in the master branch; detecting whether the bug is associated with the target object; and adjusting, in response to the bug in the PR being related to the target object, the correlated module set to comprise a module associated with the bug” is an additional mental process under prong 1. Further, Claims 4 and 15 recite additional elements of “merging the PR that succeeds in the test and the PR that avoids the test into a master branch” which fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “merging” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception base on the determination of condition being meet. Moreover, claims 4 and 15 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 4 and 15 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 4 and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 5 and 16 they recite additional abstract idea limitations of “wherein adjusting the correlated module set comprises: adjusting a first weight and a second weight to adjust the correlated module set, wherein the first weight corresponds to the distance between the module and the root module, and the second weight corresponds to the count of the module being depended on by another module” is an additional mental process under prong 1. Moreover, claims 5 and 16 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 5 and 116 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 5 and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regards to claims 6 and 17 they recite additional abstract idea limitations of “wherein adjusting the correlated module set comprises: reducing the threshold to increase the number of code modules comprised in the correlated module set” is an additional mental process under prong 1. Moreover, claims 6 and 17 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 6 and 17 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 6 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regards to claim 7 it recites additional elements of “wherein the added code module comprises an underlying module in the module relationship diagram, and the underlying module is common code related to the target object” which is merely a field of use/technological environment which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Moreover, claim 7 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 7 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 8 and 18 they recite additional abstract idea limitations of “wherein the module relationship diagram of the target object is created as follows: determining the root module of the target object as a first level of the module relationship diagram; acquiring, according to a configuration file of the root module, a downstream module depended on by the root module as a second level of the module relationship diagram; and determining, according to a configuration file of the corresponding downstream module, a further downstream module depended on by the downstream module as a next level of the module relationship diagram” is an additional mental process under prong 1. Moreover, claims 8 and 18 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 8 and 18 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 8 and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 9 and 19 they recite additional abstract idea limitations of “determining a corresponding module in the PR; determining a correlation score of the corresponding module in the PR based on a distance between the corresponding module in the PR and the root module in the module relationship diagram as well as the count of the corresponding module being depended on by another module, wherein the module in the PR comprises the code change; and comparing the correlation score of the corresponding module of the PR with a threshold to determine whether the PR is related to the target object” is an additional mental process under prong 1. Moreover, claims 9 and 19 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 9 and 19 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 9 and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 10 it recites additional abstract idea limitations of “determining that the PR is related to the target object in response to that the PR comprises the module of which the correlation score is greater than the threshold; and determining that the PR is not related to the target object in response to that the correlation scores of the modules comprised in the PR are all less than or equal to the threshold” is an additional mental process under prong 1. Moreover, claim 10 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 10 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 11 it recites additional abstract idea limitations of “repairing the PR in response to the PR failing the test until the PR is capable of being merged into a master branch” is an additional mental process under prong 1. Moreover, claim 11 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 11 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pallapolu et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0350646 A1) in view of Dwars et al. (Pub. No. US 2025/0061046 A1).
As to claims 1 and 20 Pallapolu discloses a method for merging a pull request (PR), comprising: determining whether a code change associated with the PR is related to a target object (Pallapolu [0072] lines 3-23; which shows in response to a pull request associated with code change, being able to determine from the code change metadata what associated/specific/target objects that are part of the code change).
Pallapolu does not specifically disclose performing, in response to that the code change is related to the target object, a test associated with the target object on the PR; avoiding, in response to that the code change is not related to the target object, performing the test associated with the target object on the PR.
However, Dwars disclose performing, in response to that the code change is related to the target object, a test associated with the target object on the PR (Dwars [0073] lines 1-10, [0092] lines 1-14, [0093] lines 1-4, [0095] lines 1-4 and [0096] lines 1-7; which shows the specifics of performing test is response to a code change where the testing perform including specific unit test classes that test a specific class or component/object of the system where by determining that code includes components/objects of the program being tested the unit test are generated and executed for that associated target method/function/object associated with that specific unit test, where the specifics of determine that the pull request includes change for identified/determined/specified object is seen in Pallapolu above); and
avoiding, in response to that the code change is not related to the target object, performing the test associated with the target object on the PR(Dwars [0073] lines 1-10, [0092] lines 1-14, [0093] lines 1-4, [0095] lines 1-4 and [0096] lines 1-7; which shows the specifics of performing test is response to a code change where the testing perform including specific unit test classes that test a specific class or component/object of the system where by determining that code includes components/objects of the program being tested the unit test are generated and thus would also not perform the generation and execution for specific object/component if determine the object/component are not part of code and thus not have an associated test to perform since object not part of code, where the specifics of determine that the pull request includes change for the object is seen in Pallapolu above)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Dwars showing the specifics of testing code changes into the code changes associated with the pull request of Pallapolu for the purpose of increasing correct functionality by being able to perform test to verify the correcting of the individual elements that are determined to have been change by individual testing, as taught by Dwars [0092] lines 1-14.
As to claim 12, Pallapolu discloses an electronic device, comprising: at least one processor (Pallapolu [0077] lines 1-11); and
a memory coupled to the at least one processor and having instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the electronic device to perform following operations (Pallapolu [0077] lines 1-11)
The remaining limitations of the claim are comparable to claim 1 above and rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pallapolu and Dwars as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Maddila et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0043779 A1) and Zhang et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0289084 A1).
As to claims 2 and 13 Pallapolu as modified by Dwars do not specifically discloses wherein determining whether the PR is related to the target object comprises: determining a correlated module set comprising a code module related to the target object; determining whether the PR comprises a module in the correlated module set; determining, in response to that the PR comprises the module in the correlated module set, that the PR is related to the target object; and determining, in response to that the PR does not comprise the module in the correlated module set, that the PR is not related to the target object.
However, Maddila disclose determining whether the PR comprises a module in the correlated module set (Maddila [0032] lines 3-18 and [0035] lines 1-6; which shows being able to break down the content of the pull request to determine information content that in includes including connected/correlated source code files/modules, viewed as a type of correlate module set where the content can be further tokenized into smaller elements including classes, functions, lines characters, etc. viewed as including object thus viewed as being able to determine if the PR includes a specific file/module associated with a specific/target object);
determining, in response to that the PR comprises the module in the correlated module set, that the PR is related to the target object (Maddila [0032] lines 3-18 and [0035] lines 1-6; which shows being able to break down the content of the pull request to determine information content that in includes including connected/correlated source code files/modules, viewed as a type of correlate module set where the content can be further tokenized into smaller elements including classes, functions, lines characters, etc. viewed as including object thus viewed as being able to determine if the PR includes a specific file/module associated with a specific/target object the specifics of a target object being included in the set is seen specifically in Zhang below); and
determining, in response to that the PR does not comprise the module in the correlated module set, that the PR is not related to the target object (Maddila [0032] lines 3-18 and [0035] lines 1-6; which shows being able to break down the content of the pull request to determine information content that in includes including connected/correlated source code files/modules, viewed as a type of correlate module set where the content can be further tokenized into smaller elements including classes, functions, lines characters, etc. viewed as including object thus viewed as being able to determine if the PR includes a specific file/module associated with a specific/target object and thus would also determine if the PR does not include the file/module information and associated specific object as well).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Maddila showing the specifics of determining additional information associate with the pull request, into the pull request and analysis of Pallapolu as modified by Dwars for the purpose of increasing the adaptability of the pull request analysis by including determination of additional content associated with the pull request for improved details analysis, as taught by Maddila [0032] lines 3-18.
Pallapolu as modified by Dwars and Maddila do not specifically disclose determining a correlated module set comprising a code module related to the target object.
However, Zhang discloses determining a correlated module set comprising a code module related to the target object (Zhang [0056] lines 1-3 and[0059] lines 1-6; which shows the specifics of determining if a target file object is part of the set of files/module/applications set comprising code files/module where the specifics of determine the correlated/related file/module set is seen specifically disclosed in Maddia above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Zhang showing the specifics determining that an target object is part of a set, into the analysis of information including set and elements made from it of Pallapolu as modified by Dwars and Maddila for the purpose of increasing the adaptability of analysis of group of data to determine the specifics of target object included in the large set of data for improved details analysis, as taught by Zhang [0059] lines 1-6.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pallapolu and Dwars as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Templeton et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0145461 A1)
As to claim 11, Pallapolu as modified by Dwars do not specifically disclose repairing the PR in response to the PR failing the test until the PR is capable of being merged into a master branch.
However, Templeton discloses repairing the PR in response to the PR failing the test until the PR is capable of being merged into a master branch (Templeton [0019] lines 6-13, [0021] lines 9-11, [0022] lines 1-7, [0023] lines 1-7; which shows that a pull request testing and pass review/test being performed and passing before merging the pull request into the master branch, where developer can fix/repair issues/problems determine at the local branch, viewed as associated with the pull request and thus fix problems with failing a required test as well).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Templeton showing the specifics of pull request testing analysis, into the pull request analysis of information of Pallapolu as modified by Dwars for the purpose of maintaining desired functionality in a collaborative editing environment by helping to ensure each pull request passes testing and fixing determined issues before merged back into master branch, as taught by Templeton [0022] lines 1-7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and the remaining 101 rejection issues are also addressed.
Claims 4-8 and 15-18 depend from claims 3 and 14 above and are objected to under similar reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD F WHEATON whose telephone number is (571)270-1779. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 EST.
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.
/BRADFORD F WHEATON/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights