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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3 are currently pending in application 18/827,950.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, U.S. Provisional Patent Applications serial numbers 62/985295 and 62/985297, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for one or more claims of this application.
While Figs. 6A-6B of U.S. Provisional Patent Application 62/985295 does disclose/ show a user interface for a user to obtain assistance with “coder’s block”, and the specification of U.S. Provisional Patent Application 62/985295 discloses the following, “FIG. 6A depicts a contributor computing device 16 displaying a creative work request for assistance with a computer code. The contributor computing device 16 may include a View Code button in order to view the code from the creator. As depicted in FIG. 6B, the contributor computing device 16 includes an input box in order for the contributor to suggest changes to the code and send it to the server for storage and aggregation to correspond to the creative work request” (Para 0033); the specification and drawings of both U.S. Provisional Patent Applications 62/985295 and 62/985297 fail to disclose an artificial intelligence system that automatically receives user requests and generates/ displays possible coding assistance answers (First disclosed in prior-filed application, U.S. Patent Application 17/192,064, Para 0040). The system disclosed in U.S. Provisional Patent Application 62/985,295 discloses a user interface that facilitates user assistance through human crowdsourcing of creative work needs (See Para 0025). The system disclosed in U.S. Provisional Patent Application 62/985,297 also discloses a system for group development/creation of a creative work (See Para 0001), but fails to disclose the use of artificial intelligence.
As explained above, prior-filed U.S. Patent Application 17/192,064 does disclose the use of artificial intelligence to receive assistance needs and automatically process the assistance needs for a user (See at least Para 0040); therefore, the current claims of the application will be examined with a priority date of 3/4/2021 (the filing date of U.S. Patent Application 17/192,064 (Abandoned)).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/9/2024, 12/20/2024, and 6/30/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,086,765 (17/933,542). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both inventions disclose equivalent elements for analyzing input code creation requests, and generating/ delivering optimized code directly to a creator's device (See comparison chart below).
18/827,950
12,086,765 (17/933,542)
1. A creative work contribution system with artificial intelligence integration, the system comprising: a server having a memory storing artificial intelligence software; and a creator computing device of a creator coupled to the server, wherein the server is programmed with the artificial intelligence software to:
receive and store a request for assistance with a computer code from the creator computing device;
automatically process and analyze the request for assistance with the computer code;
[3. The system of claim 2, wherein the server is further programmed to analyze a portion of computer code of the creator to generate the suggested computer code.]
[2. The system of claim 1, wherein the server is further programmed to determine a style of code writing of the creator. ]
generate a suggested computer code to the request for assistance with the computer code; and
automatically deliver the suggested computer code for display on the creator computing device.
1. A creative work contribution system comprising: a server having a memory storing user information comprising contributor profile information; and a creator computing device of a creator and a plurality of contributor computing devices of contributors coupled to the server, wherein the server is programmed to:
receive and store a creative work request from the creator computing device;
automatically process the creative work request and send the creative work request to a first portion of the plurality of contributor computing devices for display and for entering contributions to the creative work request,
wherein the contributor profile information is utilized by the creator to filter the plurality of contributor computing devices that receive the creative work request, and wherein the plurality of contributor computing devices comprise an input box for entering contributions;
receive and store the contributions entered by the first portion of the plurality of contributor computing devices;
automatically deliver the received contributions entered by the plurality of contributor computing devices for display on the creator computing device;
receive and store an opinion request from the creator computing device, wherein the opinion request comprises voting or polling by a second portion of the plurality of contributor computing devices, wherein the first portion of the plurality of user computing devices is different from the second portion of the plurality of contributor computing devices;
receive and store the votes or poll responses entered by the second portion of the plurality of contributor computing devices in response to the opinion request; and
weigh votes or poll responses of certain contributors greater than others based on the user profile information of the contributors and how the user profile corresponds to the creative work being voted on.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea.
Claims 1-3 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea), without providing a practical application, and without providing significantly more.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1,
Claims 1-3 are directed toward an apparatus (system). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1],
Claims 1-3 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Independent claim 1 is directed specifically to the abstract idea of automated data processing, generation, and analysis for code creation.
Regarding independent claim 1, the underlined limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
A creative work contribution system with artificial intelligence integration, the system comprising: a server having a memory storing artificial intelligence software; and a creator computing device of a creator coupled to the server, wherein the server is programmed with the artificial intelligence software to: [While these are generic computer components, the 2024 guidance suggests AI claims should be linked to concrete architecture to avoid ineligibility.]
receive and store a request for assistance with a computer code from the creator computing device; [Management of human activity/communication - This is a basic data transmission step. Without specific, novel technology for the transmission itself, this is considered conventional.]
automatically process and analyze the request for assistance with the computer code; generate a suggested (suggestion) computer code to the request for assistance with the computer code; and
[Data analysis/processing and a mental process (that could be performed by a human, particularly when it involves applying logic, syntax rules, or "best practices") - This is the core abstract idea. Applying a "black box" AI tool to analyze a request and generate output. The claim does not specify how the AI does this; therefore, it is an abstract idea without a specific technological improvement.]
automatically deliver the suggested (suggestion) computer code for display on (to) the creator computing device. [Management of human activity/communication -This is a standard output function of a computing system (displaying data)]
As the underlined claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of Mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)) [The steps of receiving, analyzing, and generating data - characterized as mental processes or steps that can be performed in the human mind (or using pen and paper) (i.e., automating tasks that a programmer could conceptually perform in their head, such as evaluating a code request and brainstorming solutions)]; and Certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) [The system acts as a broker for a, "request for assistance," which can be construed as managing a business or creative workflow].
Dependent claims 2-3 provide further details to the abstract idea of claim 1 regarding the received data, therefore, these claims include mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activities for similar reasons provided above for claim 1.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2],
Claims 1-3 fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “system”, “artificial intelligence”, a “server”, “software”, and a “computing device”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The presence of artificial intelligence or a machine learning algorithm do not necessarily restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. The artificial intelligence limitations claimed herein are simply used as a tool to apply the abstract idea without transforming the underlying abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter. As claimed, artificial intelligence is not iteratively trained to improve the accuracy of the model itself, it merely processes data to analyze a request and generate output. Examiner notes that the additional limitations of artificial intelligence do not result in computer functionality (how the AI analyzes data and generates solutions) or a specific technical/technology improvement and hence do not result in a practical application. The artificial intelligence limitations simply process the data through inputting and outputting data. Processing data is mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 Fed.Cir. 2017) or speeding up a loan application process by enabling borrowers to avoid physically going to or calling each lender and filling out a loan application, Lending Tree, LLLC v. Zillow, Inc., 656 Fed. App'x 991, 996-97 (Fed. Cir. 2019)(non-precedential). Thus, the additional limitations of artificial intelligence does not transform the abstract idea into a practical application.
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant’s claimed invention. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Examples where the Courts have found selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated to be insignificant extra-solution activity include selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Applicant’s limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits. Dependent claims 10, and 17-20 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims respectively, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims. Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B,
Claims 1-3 fail to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea. The claims recite additional limitations which are hardware or software elements or particular technological environment, such as a “system”, “artificial intelligence”, a “server”, “software”, and a “computing device”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Dependent claims 2-3 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claim, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claim 1; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits. The addition of another abstract concept to the limitations of the claims does not render the claim other than abstract. Under the Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (PEG 2019), it specifically states that narrowing an abstract idea of claims do not resolve the claims of being "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Thus, the additional elements in the dependent claims only serve to further limit the abstract idea utilizing the computer components as a tool and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim 1 that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In order to overcome the 101 rejection above, the Examiner suggests that Applicant amend the independent claim to anchor the AI features to concrete mechanisms, such as specific AI training, unique data structures, or specialized hardware architectures. The Examiner also suggests that Applicant provide arguments and specification support that demonstrates a specific improvement (e.g., faster compilation, significantly higher accuracy than human coders, or reduced memory usage) rather than just stating that code is generated. Further, the Examiner suggests that Applicant specify how the AI architecture used is not conventional, but rather specialized for this specific type of code assistance. Applicant is remined that, if the claim merely uses generic machine learning on conventional computing to do what a programmer could do (but slower), it is not patentable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wilson-Thomas et al. (US 11,074,048 B1).
As per independent Claim 1, Wilson-Thomas discloses a creative work contribution system with artificial intelligence integration, the system comprising: a server having a memory storing artificial intelligence software; and a creator computing device of a creator coupled to the server (See at least Fig.1 and Para 0034-0035) (See at least Fig.1, C5L11-C6L8, Operating Environment incorporating Automated agents to assisting computer programmers; C10L1-8, “ In some embodiments, a system which is configured for software development includes a digital memory 112, an executable software development tool 204 having a user interface 214, and a processor 110 in operable communication with the memory. The processor 110 is configured to perform software development workflow 306 steps for presentation of an autosynthesized sublanguage code snippet 210 in the user interface.”), wherein the server is programmed with the artificial intelligence software to:
receive and store a request for assistance with a computer code from the creator computing device (See at least Figs.2-3; C735-42, “ FIG. 2 illustrates an environment having an enhanced system 202, 102 with a software development tool 204 that includes sublanguage snippet presentation functionality 206. This presentation functionality 206 obtains desired result examples, submits them to a sublanguage code synthesizer 208, and displays the resulting snippets 210 of sublanguage 212 code in a user interface 214 of the software development tool 204.”; C8L32-36, “… (c) utilizing familiar user interface mechanisms (albeit in new ways) such as dialog boxes, tooltips 322, cursors, visual highlighting, and flowing of text in response to text insertion,…”; C10L8-C10L16, “The steps may include (a) detecting 804 a sublanguage delimiter 308 in a programming language source code 216 that is displayed in the user interface 214, (b) receiving 806 through the user interface as a user input a user-provided example 310, namely, an example from a user of a value taken or other result of a sublanguage code execution, (c) submitting 808 the user-provided example 310 to a sublanguage code synthesizer 208, …”);
automatically process and analyze the request for1 assistance with the computer code; generate a suggested computer code to the request for1 assistance with the computer code (See at least C10L14-18, “… (c) submitting 808 the user-provided example 310 to a sublanguage code synthesizer 208, (d) getting 810 the autosynthesized sublanguage code snippet 210 from the sublanguage code synthesizer, …”); and
automatically deliver the suggested computer code for1 display on the creator computing device (See at least Figs.8-9, C8L5-17, “The illustrated system 202 includes snippet presentation software 304 which performs operations such as detecting sublanguage delimiters 308 that indicate where a snippet 210 is to be inserted, receiving examples 310 of desired results of sublanguage snippet execution, getting autosynthesized sublanguage snippets, and displaying one or more sublanguage snippets 210 to the developer 104. In particular, the snippet presentation software 304 may perform a method 900 illustrated in one or more of FIGS. 8 and 9. In some embodiments the snippet presentation software 304 includes or invokes a snippet ranking mechanism 312 which produces a ranking 314 of sublanguage snippets, as discussed elsewhere herein.”; C10L17-23, “(e) displaying 812 the autosynthesized sublanguage code snippet 210 in the user interface 214. Consequently, the system 202 provides a software developer with autosynthesized sublanguage code 210 which has an execution that produces the example 310 entered by the developer,…”).
1Please note:
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
“For”
See e.g. In re Collier, 158 USPQ 266, 267 (CCPA 1968)(where the court interpreted the claimed phrase “a connector member for engaging shield means” and held that the shield means was not a positive element of the claim since “[t]here is no positive inclusion of ‘shield means’ in what is apparently intended to be a claim to structure consisting of a combination of elements.”
As per Claim 2 (1), Wilson-Thomas discloses wherein the server is further programmed to determine a style of code writing of the creator (See at least C8L36-42, “… (d) using sublanguage syntax and semantics that are consistent with the particular version of a sublanguage 212 that is recognized in the developer's current development context (e.g., Python® syntax and semantics for date formatting when the source code 216 receiving a sublanguage snippet insertion is written in the Python® language) (mark of Python Software Foundation), …”; See also C12L16-19, “… a machine learning model that has been trained on the developer's own code …”).
As per Claim 3 (2), Wilson-Thomas discloses wherein the server is further programmed to analyze a portion of computer code of the creator to generate the suggested computer code (See also C14L45-64, “It is contemplated that in many embodiments, sublanguage code will be located inside a literal string within the primary language source code. Python, as well as descendant languages of the C programming language, and many other programming languages, often control the format of their string outputs by using format strings. Format strings, such as “% d % b % Y” in the Python example above, are syntactically literal strings as far as these primary programming languages are concerned, but the format strings operate as sublanguage code snippets 210 inside called routines such as printf( ), strftime( ), and other library routines that produce formatted strings based on format strings. Accordingly, in some embodiments detecting 804 the sublanguage delimiter 308 in the programming language source code 216 includes detecting 912 a string literal delimiter 914. Perhaps the most frequently used string literal delimiters 914 are double quotes or single quotes (typically in a pair with the literal string between them), but teachings herein may also be advantageously applied when other string literal delimiters 914 are used.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. The Examiner suggests the applicant review all of these documents before submitting any amendments:
Jalil (US 10,708,204 B2) – Jalil discloses a data routing and system architecture for computer-based tools enabling individuals to collaborate and work as teams on solving problems or completing projects across a wide range of disciplines (See at least C9L45-52, “In one embodiment, the project UI may include a coding window and a testing window configured to enable the user group to collaborate on creating software. More specifically, the coding window is configured to receive a plurality of lines of code from one or more users from among the user group, and the testing window is configured to facilitate testing of the plurality of lines of code.”; C25L39-42, “ An example of another feature 911 is an artificial intelligence engine 919 that acts as an assistant or collaborator on the project. It will be appreciated that is Al engine 919 could interact with the users visually or through text.”).
Kulkarni et al. (A. B. Kulkarni, S. S. Karandikar, P. A. Bamhore, S. R. Gawade and D. V. Medhane, "Computational Intelligence Model for Code Generation from Natural Language Problem Statement," 2018 Fourth International Conference on Computing Communication Control and Automation (ICCUBEA), Pune, India, 2018, pp. 1-6) - discloses a knowledge-based expert system which makes use of facts and rules to build and provide solutions to user coding problems (See Pg.5 - Step 1: Input; Steps 2-4: Data Analysis (NLP and Querying domain ontology); Step 5: Code Generation (Output)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN P OUELLETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-6807. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda C Jasmin, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-6782. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
March 21, 2026
/JONATHAN P OUELLETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3629