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 is in response to Application filed 11/01/24. Claims 1 – 12 have been examined and are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 - 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Myers et al. US 20260004204 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 11 and 12, Myers anticipates a method for checking a dynamic behavior of code generated using a language model, the method comprising the following steps:
providing a first executable file from a program code generated using a language model [see 0021, “…generate a first output associated with the first code snippet and a second output associated with the second code snippet …by providing the code snippets to a large-language model for generation of respective validation statuses), also see 0131, for executing first operation for first code, also refer to 0306, see first artificial intelligence model, generate first modified input];
providing a second executable file, wherein the second executable file is a previous first executable file or is an original source code of the program code [0306, shows analyzing inputs previously processed];
executing differential fuzzing using a fuzzer, wherein the fuzzer injects identical inputs into the first executable file and into the second executable file [0161, shows utilizing fuzzy logic] ;
monitoring a behavior and an output of the first executable file and the second executable file [0110-0112 see behavior]; and
outputting the program code when the fuzzing found no inconsistencies and/or no errors and/or no worse runtime behavior of the first executable file compared to the
second executable file [0179, see potential errors and issues].
Regarding claim 2, the method according to claim 1, wherein the program code is instrumented for differential fuzzing [0161, see fuzzy logic].
Regarding claim 3, the method according to claim 1, wherein a corpus with inputs for the fuzzer is provided, which corpus contains initial test cases: (i) from code repositories of the program code and/or (ii) from provided tests and test harnesses [0307, see test rule engine and altered scenarios].
Regarding claim 4, the method according to claim 3, wherein the corpus filled by all program codes and/or all executable software programs is maintained [0306].
Regarding claim 5, the method according to claim 1, wherein the behavior of the first executable file and the second executable file includes and actual runtime for each test case [0348, see dataflow analysis and runtime].
Regarding claim 6, the method according to claim 1, wherein the generated code is corrupted when the output of the first executable file and the second executable file does not match, and/or when the runtime behavior of a newer executable file deteriorates and/or when an error occurs [0348 see errors].
Regarding claim 7, the method according to claim 1, wherein the behavior and/or the output of the first executable file and/or the second executable file is fed back to the fuzzer [0161, see fuzzy logic].
Regarding claim 8, the method according to claim 1, wherein the program code or parts of the program code are updated using a behavior of the program code and/or an output of the program code, and wherein the updated program code is fed back as an input for the
language model [0306].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 – 10 are allowed. Prior art doesn’t teach or render obvious the following limitations:
“…inputting a source code into a language model and generating a program code; checking the program code by: providing a first executable file from the program code generated using the language model; providing a second executable file, wherein the second executable file is a previous first executable file or is an original source code of the program code, executing differential fuzzing using a fuzzer, wherein the fuzzer injects identical inputs into the first executable file and into the second executable file, monitoring a behavior and an output of the first executable file and the second executable file, and outputting the program code when the fuzzing found no inconsistencies and/or no errors and/or no worse runtime behavior of the first executable file compared to the second executable file; generating a reward for the language model, wherein the reward is based on the monitoring of the behavior and
the output of the first executable file and the second executable file; and updating weights of the language model with a value of the reward…”.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chuck Kendall whose telephone number is 571-272-3698. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00 am - 6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hyung 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only [0060 – 0080].
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHUCK O KENDALL/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights