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 . Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 14’s are objected to because there are two of them. Cancelation of one of them or re-numbering of the claims is required.
Pertinent Prior Art
Prior art that is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not currently relied upon:
US20250272068
Pars. 46-49
Automatic code generation from informal specifications of text editing and grammar correction guidelines
US7765097
Abstract
Automatic code generation via natural language processing
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. Claims 1-20 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter.
With respect to independent claims 1, 11 and 19, the edit covers performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The receive and provide limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 4 the edit, remove cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The return is recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 the edit, prepend, insert, delete, replace, remove cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). No additional elements are recited and so the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more. The claims are not eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 6, 12, 13, 14 output are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components (e.g. text characters, model, generative text model, LLM). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schaefer et al., Pub. No.; US 20240311582 A1, hereinafter Schaefer.
As per claim 11, Schaefer discloses A method, comprising:
receiving a prompt to a model, the prompt comprising a request, in natural language, for editing instructions for editing one or more lines of code according to one or more parameters indicated in the prompt (pars. 14-15, 21, 30, 50-55 disclose prompts posed as NL questions to an LLM including “…Describe How To Edit FILE.JS To Add Your Proposed New Tests…,” with the file content, requested edit objective, and required answer format included in the prompt);
based on the prompt, providing the prompt and the one or more lines of code to the model and using the model to generate the editing instructions for editing the one or more lines of code, each of the one or more lines of code indicating a respective unique identifier (ID) located at the beginning of the respective line of code (see pars. 30, 50-55 wherein the prompt includes the contents of the existing source code file with each line annotated by a respective line number, as seen in fig. 2, and instructs the LLM to return line specific update commands, wherein each line number is a respective unique identifier (ID) located at the beginning of the respective line of code);
receiving the editing instructions from the model (par. 56 discloses that the prompt generation engine receives the update commands generated by the LLM); and
editing the one or more lines of code according to the editing instructions (see rejection of previous limitation for application of received update commands).
As per claim 19, Schaefer discloses An apparatus, comprising:
at least one computer readable storage medium (CRSM) that is not a transitory signal, the at least one CRSM comprising instructions executable by a processor system to:
receive input to a model, the input comprising a request, in natural language, for editing instructions for editing one or more lines of code according to one or more parameters indicated in the input (pars. 14-15, 21, 30, 50 disclose prompts posed as input NL questions to an LLM including “…Describe How To Edit FILE.JS To Add Your Proposed New Tests…,” with the file content, requested edit objective, and required answer format included in the prompt);
based on the input, provide the input and the one or more lines of code to the model and use the model to generate the editing instructions for editing the one or more lines of code, each of the one or more lines of code indicating a respective unique identifier (ID) (see pars. 30, 50-55 wherein the prompt includes the contents of the existing source code file with each line annotated by a respective line number, as seen in fig. 2, and instructs the LLM to return line specific update commands, wherein each line number is a respective unique identifier (ID) located at the beginning of the respective line of code);
receive the editing instructions from the model (par. 56); and
edit the one or more lines of code according to the editing instructions (par. 56).
As per claim 12, Schaefer discloses The method of claim 11, wherein the model is a generative text model (pars. 23-26).
As per claim 13, Schaefer discloses The method of Claim 12, wherein the model is a large language model (LLM) (pars. 14-15, 18, 26).
As per claim 14, Schaefer discloses The method of Claim 11, the editing instructions are output by the model as a list of editing instructions for editing different lines of the one or more lines of code, each of the editing instructions in the list indicating a respective unique ID for each line of code to be edited (see rejection of claim 11 including at least pars. 30-34, 50-51, 55-56).
As per claim 14(2), Schaefer discloses The method of Claim 11, comprising: prepending the unique IDs to the respective lines of code prior to providing the one or more lines of code to the model (fig. 2, pars. 30, 50).
As per claim 15, Schaefer discloses The method of Claim 11, comprising: responsive to receiving the editing instructions from the model, editing the code according to the editing instructions, removing the unique IDs from the respective lines of code, and returning the edited code to a user (Schaefer pars. 50-56 disclose receiving commands and applying them to existing source files, which is then syntax checked. As indicated in par. 50, The line annotations are temporary prompt-specific metadata, not source code content, and are not returned as permanent parts of edited code).
As per claim 16, Schaefer discloses The method of Claim 11, wherein the editing instructions indicate an insert action to insert a chunk of code after a specific line indicated, via unique ID, in the editing instructions (see par. 53 and rejection of claims 14s).
As per claim 18, Schaefer discloses The method of Claim 11, wherein the editing instructions indicate a replace action to replace a first code snippet in a specific line of code with a second code snippet different from the first code snippet, the specific line of code identified, via unique ID, in the editing instructions (see par. 54 and rejection of claims 14s).
As per claim 20, Schaefer discloses The apparatus of Claim 19, wherein the instructions are executable to: prepend the unique IDs to the respective lines of code prior to providing the one or more lines of code to the model (see Schaefer fig. 2, pars. 30, 50); and
responsive to receiving the editing instructions from the model, edit the code according to the editing instructions, remove the unique IDs from the respective lines of code, and return the edited code at a client device (Schaefer pars. 50-56 disclose receiving commands and applying them to existing source files, which is then syntax checked. As indicated in par. 50, The line annotations are temporary prompt-specific metadata, not source code content, and are not returned as permanent parts of edited code).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer in view of Tunstall-Pedoe et al., Pub. No.: US 20230259705 A1, hereinafter Tunstall-Pedoe.
As per claim 1, Schaefer discloses An apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor system configured to: receive a prompt to a large language model (LLM), the prompt comprising a request, in natural language, for editing instructions for editing one or more lines of code according to one or more parameters indicated in the prompt (pars. 14-15, 21, 30, 50-55);
based on the prompt, provide the prompt and the one or more lines of code to the LLM and use the LLM to generate the editing instructions for editing the one or more lines of code, each of the one or more lines of code indicating a respective […] unique identifier […] located at the beginning of the respective line of code (see pars. 30, 50-55, fig. 2);
Schaefer does not explicitly disclose that the unique identifier is universally unique (UUID). However, Tunstall-Pedoe discloses this in pars. 217-218, 229. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Tunstall-Pedoe would have allowed Schaefer to utilize known UUID identifiers for line number identifiers. Tunstall-Pedoe par. 229 includes: “In a preferred example with a 128-bit address space, selecting an ID randomly from that space has an essentially zero probability of a collision if one was not intended, enabling local IDs to be coined and used without having to undergo any kind of registration process or communication or coordination.” This predictable substitution enables providing unambiguous identifiers across multiple files and editing sessions while maintaining the ability to address individual lines.
receive the editing instructions from the LLM (Schaefer, par. 56); and
edit the one or more lines of code according to the editing instructions (Schaefer, par. 56).
As per claim 2, Schaefer as modified discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the editing instructions are output by the LLM as a list of editing instructions for editing different lines of the one or more lines of code, each of the editing instructions in the list indicating a respective UUID for each line of code to be edited (see rejection of claim 1 including at least Schaefer pars. 30-34, 50-51, 55-56 and Tunstall-Pedoe pars. 217-218, 229 for UUIDs).
As per claim 3, Schaefer as modified discloses the apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the instructions are executable to: prepend the UUIDs to the respective lines of code prior to providing the one or more lines of code to the LLM (see Schaefer fig. 2, pars. 30, 50 and Tunstall-Pedoe pars. 217-218, 229 for UUIDs).
As per claim 4, Schaefer as modified discloses The apparatus of Claim 3, wherein the at least one processor system is configured to: responsive to receiving the editing instructions from the LLM, edit the code according to the editing instructions, remove the UUIDs from the respective lines of code, and return the edited code to a user (Schaefer pars. 50-56 disclose receiving commands and applying them to existing source files, which is then syntax checked. As indicated in par. 50, The line annotations are temporary prompt-specific metadata, not source code content, and are not returned as permanent parts of edited code).
As per claim 5, Schaefer as modified discloses The apparatus of Claim 3, wherein the UUIDs prepended to each respective line of code are random UUIDs (Tunstall-Pedoe, par. 229).
As per claim 6, Schaefer as modified discloses The apparatus of Claim 5, wherein the random UUIDs comprise alphabetical characters (Tunstall-Pedoe, par. 217, 218, 229).
As per claim 7, Schaefer as modified discloses The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the editing instructions indicate an insert action to insert a chunk of code after a specific line indicated, via UUID, in the editing instructions (see Schaefer par. 53, claim 1 rejection, and Tunstall-Pedoe as cited in the rejection of claim 1).
As per claim 9, Schaefer as modified discloses The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the editing instructions indicate a replace action to replace a first code snippet in a specific line of code with a second code snippet different from the first code snippet, the specific line of code identified, via UUID, in the editing instructions (see Schaefer par. 30, 51, 54, claim 1 rejection, and Tunstall-Pedoe as cited in the rejection of claim 1).
As per claim 10, Schaefer as modified discloses The apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the editing instructions indicate a replace operation to replace plural first code snippets in plural lines of code with second plural code snippets different from the first code snippets, the plural lines of code identified, via a range of UUIDs, in the editing instructions (see Schaefer par. 30, 51, 54, claim 1 rejection, and Tunstall-Pedoe as cited in the rejection of claim 1).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer as modified and further in view of Puri et al., Pub. No.: US 20240311549 A1, hereinafter Puri.
As per claim 8, Schaefer as modified discloses The apparatus of Claim 1. The combination does not disclose however the combination in view of Puri discloses wherein the editing instructions indicate a delete action to drop a code snippet from a specific line identified, via UUID, in the editing instructions (see rejection of claim 1 and see Puri, pars. 39, 72, claim 30). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Puri would have allowed Schaefer as modified to implement the known technique of automatically removing or deleting code and/or text. Par. 72 includes “For example, the at least one processor may edit an input text prompt by replacing … at least a portion of the input text prompt with language model output text… For example, the at least one processor may edit JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) code by removing, adding, refactoring, or translating code within a JSON file.”
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer in view of Puri.
As per claim 17, Schaefer discloses The method of Claim 11. Schaefer does not disclose however the Schaefer in view of Puri discloses wherein the editing instructions indicate a delete action to drop a code snippet from a specific line identified, via unique ID, in the editing instructions (see rejection of claim 11 and see Puri, pars. 39, 72, claim 30). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Puri would have allowed Schaefer as modified to implement the known technique of automatically removing or deleting code and/or text. Par. 72 includes “For example, the at least one processor may edit an input text prompt by replacing … at least a portion of the input text prompt with language model output text… For example, the at least one processor may edit JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) code by removing, adding, refactoring, or translating code within a JSON file.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5 pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
/SYED H HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights