DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09 July 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues on page 5 of the response, “Applicant notes that regarding the Examiner allegations of the specification’s failure to describe what information from the modification will be used to what the information will be compared, applicant notes that the claims do not claim a comparison, nor do they claim using a subset of information within the modification for such a comparison.” In response, Applicant has failed to address the issues identified in Final rejection mailed 09 April 2026 (“Final”). Specifically, the Final stated on page 4 that the nature of the invention and the state of the prior art suggests that such a detection would require the comparison of something specific to the received modification to something known/expected. For example, US Patent No. 10,607,015, discloses source code being modified and the generation of risk scores that correspond with the code modifications (Col. 13, line 29 – Col. 15, line 63). These generated risk scores are compared to preset thresholds in order to determine whether the modification is considered to be an “anomaly” (Col. 16, line 38 – Col. 17, line 66). This description was presented because the claims require the detection of an anomaly within a source code modification and Applicant’s specification fail to provide an explanation of how this anomaly is detected.
Applicant argues on page 5 of the response, “Accordingly, each of the claimed elements alleged by the Examiner as non-enabled are clearly enabled, as shown by the citations above, by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In response, the citations provided by Applicant are simply term definitions. Applicant has failed to address any of the issues addressed in the Final. The rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The breadth of the claims requires the receiving of a modification to source code elements, detecting an anomaly with the received modification, and validating the modifications for compliance with a set of predetermined rules. The nature of the invention and the state of the prior art suggests that such a detection would require the comparison of something specific to the received modification to something known/expected. For example, US Patent No. 10,607,015, discloses source code being modified and the generation of risk scores that correspond with the code modifications (Col. 13, line 29 – Col. 15, line 63). These generated risk scores are compared to preset thresholds in order to determine whether the modification is considered to be an “anomaly” (Col. 16, line 38 – Col. 17, line 66).
The amount of direction provided by the inventor would be considered to be minimal since Applicant’s specification merely describes the existence of source code anomaly detection engine 703 ([0071]-[0072]) without providing a description of the functionality of the source code anomaly detection engine 703/730. Specifically, the specification is silent regarding how the source code anomaly detection engine 703 actually detects anomalies. Applicant points to paragraphs [0011]-[0015] and [0067]-[0068] in the remarks for support for the amended claim language. However, these sections of the specification merely provide overly generic descriptions of source code validation without any specific functional steps outlining how the validation is performed. Additionally, the specification provides no detail regarding how the claimed anomaly detection is to be performed. Specifically, the specification does not describe what information from the modification will be utilized and to what that information will be compared. Paragraph [0070] suggests that the system can include “tokens” that store the style of the developer. However, no information is provided that dictates what constitutes the “style” of the developer in a manner that would allow for those of ordinary skill in the art to generate a corresponding style value from the modification such that this generated style value could be compared to the style information stored in the tokens. Therefore, the amount of direction provided by the inventor in insufficient to allow those having ordinary skill in the art to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation.
Claims 2-4 are rejected based upon their dependence upon claim 1.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN E LANIER whose telephone number is (571)272-3805. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 5:30-4:00.
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, Alexander Lagor can be reached at 5712705143. 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.
/BENJAMIN E LANIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2437
Prosecution Insights