DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is in response to the communication filed on 07/31/2024.
3. Claims filed 07/31/2024 have been acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
5. 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 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.
6. 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 of this title, 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.
7. Claims 1-5, 9-14, 18-20 are rejected under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tang et al. (Pub. No. US 2025/0045185 A1; hereinafter referred to as Tang), in view of Farre Guiu et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0192385 A1; hereinafter referred to as Guiu).
As per claim 1, Tang discloses a method for translating a first coding language into a second coding language, comprising:
training, by a processor, a first machine learning (ML) model at least in part on a first coding language specific data set relating to the first coding language (See p. [0021] – training),
wherein the first ML model is trained to translate one or more code sets of the first coding language to respective one or more code sets of the second coding language (See p. [0022-0023] – translating to second language);
using the first ML model, generating, by the processor, at least one unit test case (See p. [0004] – test cases generation),
wherein the at least one unit test case runs the one or more code sets of the second coding language in parallel with the one or more code sets of the first coding language (See p. [0026-0030], also Fig. 2 – running in parallel);
and
containerizing by the processor, the one or more code sets of the second coding language into an application See abstract and Fig. 3 – deploying containerized the code).
Tang does not explicitly states - iteratively testing and refining, by the processor, the first ML model based at least in part on a maturity level of the first ML model until a maturity threshold is reached.
Guiu discloses - iteratively testing and refining, by the processor, the first ML model based at least in part on a maturity level of the first ML model until a maturity threshold is reached (See p. [0003] – utilizing a maturity level assessment for the ML model).
Tang and Guiu are directed to software program development, which are analogous prior art.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (first inventor to file provisions of the AIA ) to incorporate and combine Tang’s LLM for creating a multi-lingual code translation method, and combine it with Guiu’s maturity testing on ML models, thus, the combination provides modernization of legacy programming languages by translation, while measuring ML model capability, readiness and reliability by providing maturity assessment before deploying the translated programming language (See Tang’s and Guiu’s abstracts and backgrounds).
As per claim 2, Tang and Guiu disclose the method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the first coding language specific data set comprises one or more of at least one of a language reference document, library, historical input file, historical output file, runtime log, parameter set, or control point, relating to a first coding language (See Tang’s p. [0022] – parameters and control point/functions; also see [0058] – historical data).
As per claim 3, Tang and Guiu disclose the method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the first coding language is Common Business-Oriented Language (COBOL) (See Tang’s p. 0021] – COBOL).
As per claim 4, Tang and Guiu disclose the method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the second coding language is one of Java, Golang, Python, Angular, or C++ (See Tang’s p. [0026] – second languages such as Java).
As per claim 5, Tang and Guiu disclose the method of claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), wherein the first machine learning model is a Natural Language Model (NLM) (See Tang’s abstract – subset of NLM – LLM).
As per claim 9, Tang and Guiu disclose the method as in claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 103), further comprising: tracking, by the processor, progress of the at least one test case (See Tang’s Fig. 2 – acquiring progress of test case).
Guiu discloses - based at least in part on the maturity level of the first ML model (See p. [0003] – utilizing a maturity level assessment for the ML model).
Tang and Guiu are directed to software program development, which are analogous prior art.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (first inventor to file provisions of the AIA ) to incorporate and combine Tang’s LLM for creating a multi-lingual code translation method, and combine it with Guiu’s maturity testing on ML models, thus, the combination provides modernization of legacy programming languages by translation, while measuring ML model capability, readiness and reliability by providing maturity assessment before deploying the translated programming language (See Tang’s and Guiu’s abstracts and backgrounds).
Claims 10-14, 18 are essentially the same as claims 1-5, 9 except that they are set forth the claimed invention as a system, and they are rejected with the same reasoning as applied hereinabove.
Claims 19-20 are essentially the same as claims 1-3 except that they are set forth the claimed invention as a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and they are rejected with the same reasoning as applied hereinabove.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 6-8, 15-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art of record fails to disclose the limitations: “… wherein iteratively testing the first ML model comprises: implementing a plurality of iterative regression tests based on historical input data of at least one of the one or more code sets of the first coding language and comparing corresponding output data of the first ML model against historical output of the at least one of the one or more code sets of the first coding language… dynamically scaling, by the processor, one or more containerized applications based at least in part on one or more of a second ML model or at least one second unit test case that has reached the maturity threshold”, as specified by the claims.
9. Please see M.P.E.P. 2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reasonable Interpretation [R-9]; 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-9]: III. “Plain Meaning” Refers to the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art”
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation during examination, and limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claims (See M.P.E.P. 2111 [R-I]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCISCO JAVIER APONTE whose telephone number is (571)270-7164. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-4.
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, James Trujillo can be reached on (571)272-3677. 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.
/FRANCISCO J APONTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
08/03/2026.
Prosecution Insights