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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on6/19/24. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202410797310.4 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-20 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 1, 10 and 19 recite “acquiring a relevant code segment required by a recommended code from a current code file” in lines 2-3, 8-9 and 5-6 respectively and it is unclear what is meant by the relevant code segment required by recommended code, is it the code segment used in generating the recommended code and that is why it is required or has the recommend code already been generated and the relevant code has a required relationship to that already generated code or some other possible interpretation, for claim analysis it is viewed that the relevant code segment required for the generation/creation of the recommended code but appropriate clarification is required.
Claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 depend from claims 1, 10 and 19 above and do not overcome the issue and thus rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 2, 11 and 20 further recite the limitation "the code recommend position" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 4 and 13 further recite the limitation "the codes " in lines 5 and 6 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 10 and 19: The limitation of “performing code recommendation based on the relevant code segment, the code dependence information” as drafted, are process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function of determining and recommending code based on provided information through observation, evaluation judgment 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 Prong 2:
Claims 1, 10 and 19: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the following additional element “a pre-trained code recommendation model,” “An electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory communicatively connected with the at least one processor; wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor, and the instructions are executed by the at least one processor to enable the at least one processor to perform a method for code recommendation, wherein the method for code recommendation comprises” and “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium with computer instructions stored thereon, wherein the computer instructions are used for causing a method for code recommendation, wherein the method for code recommendation comprises”, 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, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Additionally, the claim recites additional elements of “acquiring a relevant code segment required by a recommended code from a current code file” and “acquiring code dependence information required by the recommended code” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely receiving or transmitting data which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 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).
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 10 and 19: 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 “a pre-trained code recommendation model,” “An electronic device, comprising: at least one processor; and a memory communicatively connected with the at least one processor; wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor, and the instructions are executed by the at least one processor to enable the at least one processor to perform a method for code recommendation, wherein the method for code recommendation comprises” and “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium with computer instructions stored thereon, wherein the computer instructions are used for causing a method for code recommendation, wherein the method for code recommendation comprises” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Additionally, the additional elements of ““acquiring a relevant code segment required by a recommended code from a current code file” and “acquiring code dependence information required by the recommended code” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity information of receiving or transmitting data which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity” i. receiving or transmitting data over a network where the in acquiring limitations are akin to receiving the specific data. The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception and merely receiving data information 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, 10 and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 2, 11 and 20 they recite additional abstract idea elements of “generating the recommended code by adopting the code recommendation model based on the relevant code segment” is an additional mental process under prong 1. Further, the claims recite additional elements of “displaying the recommended code at the code recommended position” which is merely insignificant extra-solution activity information of presenting displaying data which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity” i. presenting offers and gathering statistics where the displaying limitation is akin to presenting the data. Moreover, claims 2, 11 and 20 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, 11 and 20 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, 11 and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 3 and 12 they recite additional elements of “acquiring a code recommendation position from the current code file; and acquiring the relevant code segment from the code file based on the code recommendation position” which is merely insignificant extra-solution activity information of receiving or transmitting data which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity” i. receiving or transmitting data over a network where the acquiring limitations are akin to receiving the associated data. Moreover, claims 3 and 12 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 12 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 12 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 4 and 13 they recite additional elements of “acquiring the relevant code segment from a code before the code recommendation position in the code file; or acquiring the relevant code segments from the codes before and after the code recommendation position in the code file” which is merely insignificant extra-solution activity information of receiving or transmitting data which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity” i. receiving or transmitting data over a network where the acquiring limitations are akin to receiving the associated data. Moreover, claims 4 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 4 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 4 and 13 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 5 and 14 they recite additional elements of “wherein the acquiring code dependence information required by the recommended code comprises: acquiring a first code file which is located in a same directory as the current code file; and acquiring the code dependence information based on the first code file and the current code file” which is merely insignificant extra-solution activity information of receiving or transmitting data which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity” i. receiving or transmitting data over a network where the acquiring limitations are akin to receiving the associated data. Moreover, claims 5 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 5 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 5 and 14 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 6 and 15 they recite additional abstract idea elements of “based on the dependence information of the first code file and the dependence information of the current code file,…a code segment which exists in the dependence information of the first code file but does not exist in the dependence information of the current code file as the code dependence information” is an additional mental process under prong 1. Further, the claims recite additional elements of “acquiring dependence information of the first code file and dependence information of the current code file separately; and… acquiring a code segment which exists in the dependence information of the first code file but does not exist in the dependence information of the current code file as the code dependence information” which is merely insignificant extra-solution activity information of receiving or transmitting data which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity” i. receiving or transmitting data over a network where the acquiring limitations is akin to presenting the data. Moreover, claims 6 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 6 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 6 and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 7 and 16 they recite additional abstract idea elements of “a matched dependent code file from a code library based on a name of the current code file; and based on the relevant code segment, …a matched code segment” is an additional mental process under prong 1. Further, the claims recite additional elements of “acquiring a matched dependent code file from a code library based on a name of the current code file; and based on the relevant code segment, acquiring a matched code segment from the dependent code file as the code dependence information” which is merely insignificant extra-solution activity information of receiving or transmitting data which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity” i. receiving or transmitting data over a network where the acquiring limitations is akin to presenting the data. Moreover, claims 7 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 7 and 16 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 7 and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 8 and 17 they recite additional elements of “acquiring dependence service information of the current code file; acquiring a second code file comprising the dependence service information of the current code file from the code library based on the dependence service information of the current code file; acquiring dependence service information of the second code file; and acquiring the code dependence information required by the recommended code based on the dependence service information of the current code file and the dependence service information of the second code file” which are merely insignificant extra-solution activity information of receiving or transmitting data which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity” i. receiving or transmitting data over a network where the acquiring limitations are akin to receiving the associated data. Moreover, claims 8 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 8 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 8 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 9 and 18 they recite additional abstract idea elements of “acquiring service … based on the dependence service information of the current code file and the dependence service information of the second code file” is an additional mental process under prong 1. Further, the claims recite additional elements of “acquiring service that the second code file depends on but the current code file does not depend on as the code dependence information required by the recommended code” which is merely insignificant extra-solution activity information of receiving or transmitting data which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity” i. receiving or transmitting data over a network where the acquiring limitations is akin to presenting the data. Moreover, claims 9 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 9 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 9 and 17 do 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, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haze et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0303447 A1) and further in view of Kurmi et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0266949 A1).
As to claims 1 and 19 Haze discloses a method for code recommendation, comprising: acquiring a relevant code segment required by a recommended code from a current code file (Haze [0040] lines 6-18; which shows receiving a code snippet, viewed as relevant code segment, lines of code of a code file/current code file, and used that for generating code recommendation, viewed as being required by a recommended code );and
performing code recommendation based on the relevant code segment, the code dependence information and a pre-trained code recommendation model (Haze [0040] lines 6-18; which shows being able to process the lines of code/relevant code segment as part of a machine learning model, viewed as a pre-trained model, to perform/generate code recommendation, where the specifics of also using dependency information to generate code in a ML model are seen in the specific teachings of Kurmi below).
Haze does not specifically disclose acquiring code dependence information required by the recommended code.
However, Kurmi discloses acquiring code dependence information required by the recommended code (Kurmi [0071] lines 4-17; which shows being able to acquire/receive target code requirements, viewed as dependence information required by the recommended/target code where the code requirements are fed into the ML model to generate target code scripts).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Kurmi showing the specifics of using target code requirement dependence information in generation of target code script into the generation of code recommendation of Haze for the purpose of improving the predicted generated target code by including more data in training and used by the machine learning model to generate results, at taught by Kurmi [0002] lines 10-15 and [0071] lines 4-17.
As to claim 10 Haze discloses an electronic device, comprising: at least one processor (Haze [0077] lines 6-8); and
a memory communicatively connected with the at least one processor (Haze [0077] lines 6-9);
wherein the memory stores instructions executable by the at least one processor, and the instructions are executed by the at least one processor to enable the at least one processor to perform a method for code recommendation, wherein the method for code recommendation comprises (Haze [0077] lines 6-17):
The remaining limitations of the claim are comparable to claim 1 above and rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 2-4, 11-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haze and Kurmi as applied to claims 1, 10 and 19 above, and further in view of Groenewegen et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0311527 A1).
As to claim 2, 11 and 20 Haze as modified by Kurmi does not specifically disclose wherein the performing code recommendation based on the relevant code segment, the code dependence information and a pre-trained code recommendation model comprises: generating the recommended code by adopting the code recommendation model based on the relevant code segment and the code dependence information; and displaying the recommended code at the code recommended position.
However, Groenewegen discloses wherein the performing code recommendation based on the relevant code segment, the code dependence information and a pre-trained code recommendation model comprises: generating the recommended code by adopting the code recommendation model based on the relevant code segment and the code dependence information; and displaying the recommended code at the code recommended position (Groenewegen [0019] lines 1-12 and [0025] lines 5-9; which shows the use/adoptions of an AI model for code/suggestion based on specific section of code, viewed as type of relevant code segment information and presenting/displaying the suggested/recommend code as the specific location/position of code, where the specifics of the code suggestion based on relevant code segment and dependence information is seen specifically disclosed in Haze and Kurmi 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 Groenewegen showing the specifics of code suggestion base on location information into the code recommendation of Haze as modified by Kurmi for the purpose of increasing the adaptability of the code recommendation by also taking into account specific location variables for the generation of code, as taught by Groenewegen [0022] lines 1-14.
As to claim 3 and 12 Haze as modified by Kurmi do not specifically disclose, however, Groenewegen discloses wherein the acquiring a relevant code segment required by a recommended code from a current code file comprises: acquiring a code recommendation position from the current code file; and acquiring the relevant code segment from the code file based on the code recommendation position (Groenewegen [0012] lines 4-6, [0019] lines 1-12, [0022] lines 1-14, [0024] lines 1-14 and [0025] lines 5-9; which shows being able to determine where to apply code suggestion at either the current location of cursor or based on received relevant context information that includes at least a portion of the current content of source code being worked on, viewed as type of indication/acquisition of the relevant position and relevant code at the current position used to generate code suggestion/recommendation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Groenewegen showing the specifics of code suggestion base on location information into the code recommendation of Haze as modified by Kurmi for the purpose of increasing the adaptability of the code recommendation by also taking into account specific location variables for the generation of code, as taught by Groenewegen [0022] lines 1-14.
As to claim 4 and 13 Haze as modified by Kurmi do not specifically disclose, however, Groenewegen discloses wherein the acquiring the relevant code segment from the code file based on the code recommendation position comprises: acquiring the relevant code segment from a code before the code recommendation position in the code file; or acquiring the relevant code segments from the codes before and after the code recommendation position in the code file (Groenewegen [0012] lines 4-6, [0019] lines 1-12, [0022] lines 1-14 and [0024] lines 1-14; which shows that the context information acquired/determined/received for providing code suggestion of a specific portion can be based on the current content of the source code being editing and a portion of prior content of the source code document being edited, viewed as relevant code segments from code before the current recommendation location/position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Groenewegen showing the specifics of code suggestion base on location information into the code recommendation of Haze as modified by Kurmi for the purpose of increasing the adaptability of the code recommendation by also taking into account specific location variables for the generation of code, as taught by Groenewegen [0022] lines 1-14.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haze and Kurmi as applied to claims 1, and 10 above, and further in view of Leupold et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0034273 A1)
As to claim 5, and 14 Haze does not specifically disclose, however, Kurmi discloses acquiring the code dependence information based on the first code file and the current code file (Kurmi [0071] lines 4-17; which shows being able to acquire/receive target code/current code file requirements, viewed as dependence information required by the recommended/target code that in light of the teachings of the plurality of code files in same database seen in Leupold below are seen as discloses the specifics the acquiring the specifics of the dependence/requirements of code files in the database including first and current code files).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Kurmi showing the specifics of using target code requirement dependence information in generation of target code script into the generation of code recommendation of Haze for the purpose of improving the predicted generated target code by including more data in training and used by the machine learning model to generate results, at taught by Kurmi [0002] lines 10-15 and [0071] lines 4-17.
Haze as modified by Kurmi does not specifically disclose wherein the acquiring code dependence information required by the recommended code comprises: acquiring a first code file which is located in a same directory as the current code file.
However, Leupold discloses wherein the acquiring code dependence information required by the recommended code comprises: acquiring a first code file which is located in a same directory as the current code file (Leupold [0032] –[0033]; which shows a control database/directory that stores source code corresponding to different versions of the program, viewed as a first and current code file information stored in the same directory/database).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Leupold of comparison source code files to determine information differences between them into the code analysis and generating based on code information of Haze as modified by Kurmi for the purpose of increasing the context data determined for use in specific code files and thus increase the accuracy of information generated from those code files, as taught by Leupold [0032]-[0033] and [0038].
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haze, Kurmi and Leupold as applied to claims 5, and 14 above, and further in view of Matz et al. (Pub. No. US 2025/0284487 A1)
As to claims 6 and 15 Haze as modified by Kurmi and Leupold do not specifically disclose, wherein the acquiring the code dependence information based on the first code file and the current code file comprises: acquiring dependence information of the first code file and dependence information of the current code file separately; and based on the dependence information of the first code file and the dependence information of the current code file, acquiring a code segment which exists in the dependence information of the first code file but does not exist in the dependence information of the current code file as the code dependence information.
However, Matz discloses wherein the acquiring the code dependence information based on the first code file and the current code file comprises: acquiring dependence information of the first code file and dependence information of the current code file separately; and based on the dependence information of the first code file and the dependence information of the current code file, acquiring a code segment which exists in the dependence information of the first code file but does not exist in the dependence information of the current code file as the code dependence information (Matz [0006] lines 1-22, [0028] lines 1-13, [0031] lines 1-6 and [0033] lines1-6; which shows being able to retrieve/acquire planned requirement identifiers, viewed as first code dependence information and implemented requirement identifiers, viewed as current code dependence information, and as they are separate elements they separately and by comparing the two determining missing requirements/dependences, thus acquiring/generating the code requirement/dependence missing from implemented code to be added to the implemented code).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Matz of comparison source code files to determine missing requirement dependence information differences between code information into the code analysis and generating based on code information of Haze as modified by Kurmi and Leupold for the helping to maintain code functionality by determining potentially missing information that is required, as taught by Matz [0006] lines 1-22.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haze and Kurmi as applied to claims 1, and 10 above, and further in view of Barry et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0329959 A1)
As to claims 7 and 16 Haze disclose based on the relevant code segment, acquiring a matched code segment from the dependent code file as the code dependence information (Haze [0044] lines4-9, [0045] lines 1-14, [0056] lines 8-15; which shows being able to match input to code data information to determine relevant code data for recommendation, where the code data can include input code information code segment/snippet information and context and profile information, that in light of the teachings of Barry below showing the specifics of dependent code file/code data information based on the relevant code segment, acquiring a matched code segment from the dependent code file as the code dependence information)
Haze as modified Kurmi does not specifically disclose wherein the acquiring code dependence information required by the recommended code comprises: acquiring a matched dependent code file from a code library based on a name of the current code file.
However, Barry discloses wherein the acquiring code dependence information required by the recommended code comprises: acquiring a matched dependent code file from a code library based on a name of the current code file (Barry [0047] lines 1-10; which shows being able to matching different dependent code files based on name of the code files, thus including name of current code file, with the specifics of the current code file seen disclosed in the teachings of Haze 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 Barry showing the specifics of matching different dependent code file information into the code file information analysis of Haze as modified by Kurmi for the purpose of increasing detail available in code analysis to determine additional information and increase the accuracy of data information associated with code file information, as taught Barry [0047] lines 1-10.
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haze and Kurmi as applied to claims 1 and10 above, and further in view of Matz et al. (Pub. No. US 2025/0284487 A1) and Mohiseen et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0091825 A1)
As to claim 8 and 17 Haze discloses wherein the acquiring code dependence information required by the recommended code comprises: acquiring dependence service information of the current code file (Haze [0032] lines 8-15, [0044] lines4-9, [0045] lines 1-14, [0046] lines 1-6, [0047] lines 1-18 and [0048] lines 1-26; which shows for current code file/snippet information being able to determine and provide relevant code data for recommendations, that can include code data, developer context and profile and domain/organization information associated with requirements/dependence for that code that can include associated code repositories and systems for the code, viewed as a type of dependence service information being acquired );
acquiring dependence service information of the second code file (Haze [0032] lines 8-15, [0044] lines4-9, [0045] lines 1-14, [0046] lines 1-6, [0047] lines 1-18 and [0048] lines 1-26; which shows for current code file/snippet information being able to determine and provide relevant code data for recommendations, that can include code data, developer context and profile and domain/organization information associated with requirements/dependence for that code that can include associated code repositories and systems for the code, viewed as a type of dependence service information being acquired where the information is acquired based on input received and thus can include input for a plurality of code/code files input with the specifics of the second code file being disclosed in Mohiseen below).
Haze as modified Kurmi does not specifically disclose acquiring the code dependence information required by the recommended code based on the dependence service information of the current code file and the dependence service information of the second code file.
However, Matz discloses acquiring the code dependence information required by the recommended code based on the dependence service information of the current code file and the dependence service information of the second code file (Matz [0006] lines 1-22, [0028] lines 1-13, [0031] lines 1-6 and [0033] lines1-6; which shows being able to retrieve planned requirement identifiers, viewed as current code dependence information and implemented requirement identifiers, viewed as a second code dependence information, where code dependence information including service information is seen in Haze above and by comparing the two determining missing requirements/dependences and then acquiring/generating the code requirement/dependence missing from implemented code to be added to the implemented code).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Matz of comparison source code files to determine missing requirement dependence information differences between code information into the code analysis and generating based on code information of Haze as modified by Kurmi for the helping to maintain code functionality by determining potentially missing information that is required, as taught by Matz [0006] lines 1-22.
Haze as modified by Kurmi and Matz do not specifically disclose acquiring a second code file comprising the dependence service information of the current code file from the code library based on the dependence service information of the current code file.
However, Mohiseen discloses acquiring a second code file comprising the dependence service information of the current code file from the code library based on the dependence service information of the current code file (Mohiseen [0007] line 4-17; which shows being able to match requirements associated with code snippet, viewed as types of of files and being able to generate/acquire the code viewed as second code file/snippet, where the specifics of the requirements being dependent service information is seen specifically disclosed in Haze 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 Mohiseen determining code by matching code requirement information into the code analysis and generating based on code information of Haze as modified by Kurmi and Matz for the purpose of increasing the adaptability of code generation by being able to determine/generate specific code to include based on further additional data requirements about code being determined, as taught by Mohiseen [0007] lines 4-17.
As to claim 9 and 18 Haze as modified Kurmi does not specifically disclose, however, Matz discloses wherein the acquiring the code dependence information required by the recommended code based on the dependence service information of the current code file and the dependence service information of the second code file comprises: acquiring service that the second code file depends on but the current code file does not depend on as the code dependence information required by the recommended code based on the dependence service information of the current code file and the dependence service information of the second code file (Matz [0006] lines 1-22, [0028] lines 1-13, [0031] lines 1-6 and [0033] lines1-6; which shows being able to retrieve planned requirement identifiers, viewed as current code dependence information and implemented requirement identifiers, viewed as a second code dependence information, where code dependence information including service information is seen in Haze above, and by comparing the two determining missing requirements/dependences between the two options, viewed as an indication of what the current code file does not indicate a dependence on/missing and the second code file does indicate a dependence on as a required/dependence information for the recommending/suggestion of code based on the based on the dependence service information of the current code file and the dependence service information of the second code file).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Matz of comparison source code files to determine missing requirement dependence information differences between code information into the code analysis and generating based on code information of Haze as modified by Kurmi for the helping to maintain code functionality by determining potentially missing information that is required, as taught by Matz [0006] lines 1-22.
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