DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The instant application having application No. 18/799,448 filed on August 9, 2024, presents claims 1-25 for examination, has no priority data.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/9/2024, was filed before the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
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.
With respect to claim 1, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a method claim under Step 1.
Under Prong 1, Step 2A:
However, the limitations of claim 1,
“creating, […], an intermediate representation of a source program […];
accessing, […], source information describing the source program;
matching, […], individual statements of the source program to corresponding portions of the intermediate representation of the source program, wherein the matching is based at least in part on the source information;
determining, […], a source program line number for at least one constraint of a plurality of constraints based on the matching;”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. E.g. the user can manually create an intermediate representation of a source program; can manually access source information describing the source program; can manually match individual statements as defined in the claim; can manually determine a source program line number as defined in the claim. Thus, these limitations recite and fall 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 claim recites the following additional elements
“a processor set”, “by disassembling a compiled executable file” and
“outputting the source program line number for the at least one constraint.”
Wherein “a processor set” is cited as a generic computer system, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. “by disassembling a compiled executable file” is merely using a computer and disassembling software as tools to implement the identified abstract idea. The “outputting …” is insignificant extra-solution activity, such as data transmitting, according to MPEP 2106.05(g); thus, not indicative of an integration into a practical application.
Under Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element “a processor set” that is mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, thus, is not an inventive concept. “by disassembling a compiled executable file” is merely using a computer and disassembling software as tools to implement the identified abstract idea, does not constitute an inventive concept. The “outputting …” is insignificant extra-solution activity, such as transmitting data which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), Symantec for receiving and transmitting data. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claim 8, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a computer program product claim under Step 1.
This claim recites a computer program product to implement a method that is disclosed in claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, please see the office action analysis regarding claim 1.
Claim 8 recites one additional element, i.e. one or more computer readable storage media. But the storage media are generic computer elements in the computer system, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
With respect to claim 15, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a system claim under Step 1.
This claim recites a system to implement a method that is disclosed in claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, please see the office action analysis regarding claim 1.
Claim 15 recites additional elements, i.e. computer readable storage media that is not recited in claim 1. But the storage media are generic computer elements in the computer system, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
With respect to claims 2, 9, and 16, “further comprising accessing the compiled executable file at a remote device.” That is insignificant extra-solution activity, such as retrieving data which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. for retrieving and storing data.
With respect to claims 3 and 10, “further comprising determining whether the at least one constraint may be coalesced with an additional constraint to form a single coalesced constraint.” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the user can manually perform the determining process as defined in the claim.
With respect to claims 4 and 11, “further comprising determining whether a candidate symbol of the at least one constraint may be refined.” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the user can manually perform the determining process as defined in the claim.
With respect to claim 17, it recites same features as claims 3 and 4, please refer to analysis regarding claims 3 and 4 above.
With respect to claims 5, 12, and 18, “further comprising determining whether a candidate line of the at least one constraint may be refined.” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the user can manually perform the determining process as defined in the claim.
With respect to claims 6, 13, and 19, “further comprising propagating information describing the at least one constraint to other constraints of the plurality of constraints.” The propagating is insignificant extra-solution activity, such as transmitting data which is recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II), Symantec for receiving and transmitting data.
With respect to claims 7, 14, and 20, “wherein the other constraints of the plurality of constraints are adjacent to the at least one constraint.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 20250117200 A1, hereinafter “Lin”) in view of Kemper et al. (US 6804682 B1, hereinafter “Kemper”).
With respect to claim 1, Lin discloses A computer-implemented method, comprising:
creating, by a processor set, an intermediate representation of a source program by disassembling a compiled executable file (e.g. Fig. 3, para [0092], “… Step 304 extracts the executable manifest, such as Android manifest 106, from the application package. Step 306 decoding the executable manifest into an intermediate manifest, such as android manifest 114.”);
accessing, by the processor set, source information describing the source program (e.g. para [0095], “FIG. 4 depicts code 400 in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure. Code 400 illustrates an instruction (e.g., hooks) defining a code signature for instruction code to be instrumented (e.g., “Web ViewClient”). In one embodiment, code 400 illustrates hooks as an example of hooking configurations 116.”);
matching, by the processor set, individual statements of the source program to corresponding portions of the intermediate representation of the source program, wherein the matching is based at least in part on the source information (e.g. para [0093], “Step 308 matches a portion of the intermediate manifest, such as a portion of android manifest 114, comprising an object to be instrumented. … Instrumentation may be proximate to the object that matches the signature or the object that directly precedes and/or directly follows the object to be instrumented. ….” Wherein the signature reads on individual statements of the source program);
Lin does not appear to explicitly disclose
determining, by the processor set, a source program line number for at least one constraint of a plurality of constraints based on the matching; and
outputting the source program line number for the at least one constraint.
However, in analogous art, Kemper discloses
determining, by the processor set, a source program line number for at least one constraint of a plurality of constraints based on the matching (e.g. col 23 line 54 to col 24 line 7, “At step 609, the annotated parse trees are traversed to locate nodes that match the short name(s) and type(s) of interest. The position and line number of the matching nodes can then be obtained from the repository. ….” Wherein the nodes read on constraints); and
outputting the source program line number for the at least one constraint (e.g. col 23 line 54 to col 24 line 7, “At step 609, the annotated parse trees are traversed to locate nodes that match the short name(s) and type(s) of interest. The position and line number of the matching nodes can then be obtained from the repository. The position information (i.e., the line number in the source file in which the matching node is located) is used to locate this code in the appropriate source file. ….”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Lin with the invention of Kemper because it provides improved techniques for refactoring of a software application including matching source code line numbers with nodes in intermediate representation. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing improved techniques for refactoring of a software application including matching source code line numbers with nodes in intermediate representation as suggested by Kemper (see Summary of The Inventions, and col 23 line 54 to col 24 line 7).
With respect to claim 2, Lin discloses further comprising accessing the compiled executable file at a remote device (e.g. para [0088], “Process 200 begins and, in step 202, an application package comprising executable application code is accessed. Step 202
may access the application package, such as application package 102, from a local or remote repository, …”).
With respect to claim 8, it is directed to a computer program product to implement the method disclosed in claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 8. Note that, Lin teaches A computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media having program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable to (e.g. Fig. 15):
With respect to claim 9, it recites same feature as claim 2, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 15, it is directed to a system to implement the method disclosed in claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 15. Note that, Lin teaches A system comprising: a processor set, one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable to (e.g. Fig. 15):
With respect to claim 16, it recites same feature as claim 2, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 20250117200 A1, hereinafter “Lin”) in view of Kemper et al. (US 6804682 B1, hereinafter “Kemper”) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, in further view of Duan et al. (US 6529865 B1, hereinafter “Duan”).
With respect to claim 3, Lin as modified by Kemper discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising determining whether the at least one constraint may be coalesced with an additional constraint to form a single coalesced constraint. However, this is taught in analogous art, Duan (e.g. col 6, lines 20-45, “… Once the leaves are created, an intermediate feature structure for each branch (parent) node in the syntax parse tree is built by combining its child nodes as specified in one or more of the context-free grammar rules. …” wherein each leaf is a constraint, combining the child nodes reads on a single coalesced constraint.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Duan because it provides techniques for efficient compilation of computer instructions. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for efficient compilation of computer instructions as suggested by Duan (see Summary of The Inventions).
With respect to claim 4, Lin as modified by Kemper discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising determining whether a candidate symbol of the at least one constraint may be refined. However, this is taught in analogous art, Duan (e.g. col 6, lines 20-45, “… Once the leaves are created, an intermediate feature structure for each branch (parent) node in the syntax parse tree is built by combining its child nodes as specified in one or more of the context-free grammar rules. …” wherein each leaf is a constraint, by combining the child nodes into a syntax parse tree, the child node symbol may be refined. For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 3.)
With respect to claim 10, it recites same feature as claim 3, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 11, it recites same feature as claim 4, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 17, it recites same features as claims 3 and 4, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 20250117200 A1, hereinafter “Lin”) in view of Kemper et al. (US 6804682 B1, hereinafter “Kemper”) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, in further view of BAHRAMI et al. (US 20230096325 A1, hereinafter “BAHRAMI”).
With respect to claim 5, Lin as modified by Kemper discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising determining whether a candidate line of the at least one constraint may be refined. However, this is taught in analogous art, BAHRAMI (e.g. Figs. 4-5. Para [0088], “… By collecting such sequence of function calls, the system 102 may have detailed information of the computer-executable codes where the noises (irrelevant line of computer-executable codes) have been filtered out. …” wherein function calls read on constraints.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of BAHRAMI because it provides a better language model trained based on filtered datasets. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a better language model trained based on filtered datasets as suggested by BAHRAMI (see para [0024]).
With respect to claim 12, it recites same feature as claim 5, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 18, it recites same feature as claim 5, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 6-7, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 20250117200 A1, hereinafter “Lin”) in view of Kemper et al. (US 6804682 B1, hereinafter “Kemper”) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, in further view of Goodman (US 20250147865 A1, hereinafter “Goodman”).
With respect to claim 6, Lin as modified by Kemper discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising propagating information describing the at least one constraint to other constraints of the plurality of constraints. However, this is taught in analogous art, Goodman (e.g. Fig. 10. Para [0351], “As indicated at 1020, traverse the tree to generate a map data structure in a single pass, wherein the map data structure maps the tree, and different subtrees of the tree, to respective data structures that comprise: …” wherein the map data read on propagating information describing a constraint to other constraints.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Goodman because it provides techniques that improve or enable the production or quality of target artifacts. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques that improve or enable the production or quality of target artifacts as suggested by Goodman (see para [0003-4, 0020]).
With respect to claim 7, Lin as modified by Kemper and Goodman discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 6, Goodman further discloses wherein the other constraints of the plurality of constraints are adjacent to the at least one constraint (e.g. Fig. 10. Para [0351], “As indicated at 1020, traverse the tree to generate a map data structure in a single pass, wherein the map data structure maps the tree, and different subtrees of the tree, to respective data structures that comprise: …” wherein the subtrees of the tree are adjacent constraints. For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 6.)
With respect to claim 13, it recites same feature as claim 6, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 14, it recites same feature as claim 7, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 19, it recites same feature as claim 6, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 20, it recites same feature as claim 7, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (US 20250117200 A1, hereinafter “Lin”) in view of Ekambaram et al. (US 20160378648 A1, hereinafter “Ekambaram”) and Kemper et al. (US 6804682 B1, hereinafter “Kemper”).
With respect to claim 21, Lin discloses A computer-implemented method, comprising:
obtaining, by a processor set, a compiled executable file from a data storage device (e.g. para [0088], “Process 200 begins and, in step 202, an application package comprising executable application code is accessed. Step 202 may access the application package, such as application package 102, from a local or remote repository, …”);
creating, by a processor set, an intermediate representation of a source program (e.g. Fig. 3, para [0092], “… Step 304 extracts the executable manifest, such as Android manifest 106, from the application package. Step 306 decoding the executable manifest into an intermediate manifest, such as android manifest 114.”);
mapping, by the processor set, individual statements of the source program to corresponding portions of the intermediate representation of the source program (e.g. para [0093], “Step 308 matches a portion of the intermediate manifest, such as a portion of android manifest 114, comprising an object to be instrumented. … Instrumentation may be proximate to the object that matches the signature or the object that directly precedes and/or directly follows the object to be instrumented. ….” Wherein the signature reads on individual statements of the source program);
Lin does not appear to explicitly disclose
identifying, by the processor set, at least one underperforming portion of the compiled executable file;
determining, by the processor set, a source program line number and at least one user variable for at least one constraint of a plurality of constraints based on the mapping; and
outputting the source program line number and the at least one user variable for a constraint related to the at least one underperforming portion of the compiled executable file.
However, in analogous art, Ekambaram discloses
identifying, by the processor set, at least one underperforming portion of the compiled executable file (e.g. par a[0045], “… (i) applying static analysis or runtime analysis to a binary code of an application to detect performance anti-patterns; …” wherein performance ant-patterns read on underperforming portion of the compiled executable file);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Lin with the invention of Ekambaram because it provides techniques for improvement in identification of the performance impact of a performance anti-pattern and in resolution of performance issues. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for improvement in identification of the performance impact of a performance anti-pattern and in resolution of performance issues as suggested by Ekambaram (see para [0074-0075]).
Lin as modified by Ekambaram does not appear to explicitly disclose
determining, by the processor set, a source program line number and at least one user variable for at least one constraint of a plurality of constraints based on the mapping; and
outputting the source program line number and the at least one user variable for a constraint related to the at least one underperforming portion of the compiled executable file.
However, in analogous art, Kemper discloses
determining, by the processor set, a source program line number and at least one user variable for at least one constraint of a plurality of constraints based on the mapping (e.g. col 23 line 54 to col 24 line 7, “At step 609, the annotated parse trees are traversed to locate nodes that match the short name(s) and type(s) of interest. The position and line number of the matching nodes can then be obtained from the repository. ….” Wherein the nodes read on constraints, and name or type read on one user variable); and
outputting the source program line number and the at least one user variable for a constraint related to the at least one underperforming portion of the compiled executable file (e.g. col 23 line 54 to col 24 line 7, “At step 609, the annotated parse trees are traversed to locate nodes that match the short name(s) and type(s) of interest. The position and line number of the matching nodes can then be obtained from the repository. The position information (i.e., the line number in the source file in which the matching node is located) is used to locate this code in the appropriate source file. ….” Ekambaram as cited above teaches identifying underperforming portions of an executable file, the combination of Kemper and Ekambaram renders this limitation obvious).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Kemper because it provides improved techniques for refactoring of a software application including matching source code line numbers with nodes in intermediate representation. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing improved techniques for refactoring of a software application including matching source code line numbers with nodes in intermediate representation as suggested by Kemper (see Summary of The Inventions, and col 23 line 54 to col 24 line 7).
With respect to claim 22, Lin as modified by Ekambaram and Kemper discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 21, Ekambaram further discloses wherein identifying at least one underperforming portion of the compiled executable file comprises identifying a plurality of underperforming portions of the compiled executable file (e.g. par a[0045], “… (i) applying static analysis or runtime analysis to a binary code of an application to detect performance anti-patterns; …” wherein performance ant-patterns read on a plurality of underperforming portions of the compiled executable file. For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 21 above).
With respect to claim 23, Lin as modified by Ekambaram and Kemper discloses The computer-implemented method of claim 22, Ekambaram further discloses further comprising ranking the plurality of underperforming portions by determining which of the plurality of underperforming portions of the compiled executable file are causing greater performance issues (e.g. par a[0045], “In some embodiments of the present invention, dynamic ranking of the set of performance issues corresponding to the set of anti-patterns uses one or more of: …; and/or (xi) dynamically ranking the set of performance issues.” For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 21 above).
With respect to claim 24, it is directed to a computer program product to implement the method disclosed in claim 21, please see the rejections directed to claim 21 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 24. Note that, Lin teaches A computer program product comprising one or more computer readable storage media having program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions executable to (e.g. Fig. 15):
With respect to claim 25, it recites same features as claims 22 and 23, and is rejected for the same reason.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, Mohanan, 8166466 B2 teaches Function Matching In Binaries.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zengpu Wei whose telephone number is 571-270-1302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets, can be reached on 571-272-3338. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/ZENGPU WEI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights