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 .
This action is responsive to the application filed September 23, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and are presenting for examination.
Specification
3. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The term “A computer readable storage media device” have been used in claim 14; however, there is no providing clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the terms appearing in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 15-20 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 15-20 recite to include the following limitation "the one or more computer readable storage media" in the claims. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7 Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As to claim14, recites to include, "A computer readable storage media device having program instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor of a computing device, direct the computing device to…”,
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow).
Since there is silent mention of "A computer readable storage media device" in applicant specification, with the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer- readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01.
Accordingly, claim 14 above is non-statutory under 35 USC 101 as software per se (computer program product) encoded on a transitory medium.
Dependent claims 15-20 recite the limitations that do not cure the deficiency of the base claim 14, which regarding to the rejection of non-statutory under 35 USC 101. Therefore, they are also rejected for the same reason.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 1-13 are allowed.
9. The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior arts of record or made of record, taken alone or in combination do not disclose and/or suggest, and/or motivation to combine, at least “generate a plan, wherein to generate the plan, the development assistant is configured to: identify, based on the behavioral model, context information corresponding to the codebase issue, wherein the context information includes at least a portion of the initial codebase and at least a portion of the behavioral model; and generate a plan prompt to elicit a reply from a foundation model, wherein the plan prompt tasks the foundation model with generating the plan, and wherein the plan prompt includes the context information and the codebase issue, generate a solution comprising new code to include in the initial codebase, wherein to generate the solution, the development assistant is configured to: generate a solution prompt to elicit a reply from the foundation model, wherein the solution prompt includes the context information and the plan, and the solution prompt tasks the foundation model with generating the solution for the codebase issue based on the plan, and verify the solution, wherein to verify the solution, the development assistant is configured to: generate test cases corresponding to the codebase issue; generate a revised codebase comprising the new code; and execute the test cases against the revised codebase; determining, by the refining agent, a quality score for the solution based on executing the test cases; and executing, based on the quality score, a second iteration of the refining process” as limitations recited in as such manners as in independent claim 1.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon (cited on 892 form) is considered pertinent to application disclosure.
Lawler et al. (US-20250238344-A1) disclosed identifies a run-time complication in a codebase and generates a solution for the run-time complication via a foundation model integration. In an implementation, the system accesses a behavioral model of a codebase. The behavioral model represents a run-time behavior of the codebase based on a run-time analysis of the codebase. The system interrogates the behavioral model to predict run-time complications within the codebase. The system receives, in a user interface, a selection of a run-time complication and generates a prompt tasking a foundation model with generating a solution for the selected run-time complication. The prompt includes a portion of the codebase which corresponds to the selected complication. The system causes display of the solution generated by the foundation in response to the prompt in the user interface.
WANG et al. (US-20250370726-A1) disclosed automatically integrating features into a codebase using generative artificial intelligence (AI) models.
Morales (US-20250342017-A1) disclosed code optimization and refinement using large language models (LLMs) for hardware-adaptive code generation and performance enhancement.
Hahn et al. (US-12411685-B2) disclosed providing a more reliable and more efficient computer-implemented method for verifying a plurality of commits in codebase.
Tong et al. (US-12675388-B1) disclosed automated impact analysis for code changes in codebases.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARINA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8 am to 4: 30 pm ET).
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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached on (571)-272-6799. 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.
/MARINA LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights