DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The instant application having application No. 18/936,421 filed on November 4, 2024, presents claims 1-5 for examination. The instant application claims priority to the foreign-filed patent application having application No. JP2023-195210 filed on November 16, 2023.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation -- 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the first component is configured to receive a document and transfer the document to the third component, wherein the document is written in a programming language, wherein the first component is configured to receive a report and extract and provide a portion violating syntax of the programming language in the document, wherein the second component is configured to perform processing using a large language model, wherein the large language model has learned the programming language, wherein the second component is configured to generate a report sentence in accordance with a prompt and transfer the report sentence to the third component, wherein the third component is configured to perform processing using a database … wherein the third component is configured to sequentially read one line from the document, wherein the third component is configured to search for whether the read line comprises a character string registered in the database and, when finding the character string, replace the character string of the line with the alternative character string, wherein the third component is configured to generate the prompt and transfer the prompt to the second component, wherein the prompt comprises the line and a template sentence, wherein the template sentence comprises an instruction to verify the line and generate the report sentence, wherein when the line violates the syntax, the report sentence comprises the line, wherein the third component is configured to replace the alternative character string included in the report sentence with the character string and then add the report sentence to the report, and wherein the third component is configured to transfer the report to the first component” in claim 1, “the first component is configured to receive a document and transfer the document to the third component, wherein the document is written in a programming language, wherein the first component is configured to receive a report and extract and provide a portion violating syntax of the programming language in the document, wherein the second component is configured to perform processing using a large language model, wherein the large language model has learned the programming language, wherein the second component is configured to generate a report sentence in accordance with a prompt and transfer the report sentence to the third component, wherein the third component is configured to perform processing using a first database … wherein the third component is configured to sequentially read one line from the document, wherein the third component is configured to search for whether the read line comprises a character string registered in the first database and, when finding the character string, replace the character string of the line with the alternative character string, wherein the third component is configured to perform processing using a second database … wherein the third component is configured to extract a first token from the line, wherein the third component is configured to query whether the first token of the line is registered in the second database and obtain the syntax when the first token is the reserved word, wherein the third component is configured to generate the prompt and transfer the prompt to the second component, wherein the prompt comprises the line, the syntax, and a template sentence, wherein the template sentence comprises an instruction to verify the line by using the syntax and generate the report sentence, wherein when the line violates the syntax, the report sentence comprises the line, wherein the third component is configured to replace the alternative character string included in the report sentence with the character string and then add the report sentence to the report, and wherein the third component is configured to transfer the report to the first component” in claim 2, “wherein the first component is configured to receive the report and emphasize a portion violating the syntax in the document …” in claim 3, “a first component receives a document and transfers the document to a second component, wherein the document is written in a programming language … the second component sequentially reads one line from the document, wherein a process proceeds to the third step when a last line of the document has not yet been read out … the second component searches for whether the one line comprises a predetermined character string registered in a database, wherein when the predetermined character string registered in the database is found, an alternative character string is obtained and the character string of the line is replaced with the alternative character string … the second component generates a prompt and transfers the prompt to a third component, wherein the prompt comprises the line and a template sentence, wherein the template sentence comprises an instruction to verify the line and generate a report sentence, wherein when the line violates syntax, the report sentence comprises the line violating the syntax … the third component generates the report sentence in accordance with the prompt by using a large language model that has learned the programming language, and transfers the report sentence to the second component … the second component replaces the alternative character string with the character string … the second component adds the report sentence to a report … the second component transfers the report to the first component … the first component receives and provides the report” in claim 4, and “a first component receives a document and transfers the document to a second component, wherein the document is written in a programming language … the second component sequentially reads one line from the document … the second component searches for whether the one line comprises a predetermined character string registered in a first database, wherein when the predetermined character string registered in the first database is found, an alternative character string is obtained and the character string of the line is replaced with the alternative character string … the second component queries whether a first token of the line is registered in a second database, and obtains syntax when the first token is a reserved word registered in the second database … the second component generates a prompt and transfers the prompt to a third component, wherein the prompt comprises the line, the syntax, and a template sentence, wherein the template sentence comprises an instruction to verify the line and generate a report sentence, wherein when the line violates the syntax, the report sentence comprises an annotated line, wherein the annotated line comprises predetermined tags inserted to surround a portion violating the syntax … the third component generates the report sentence in accordance with the prompt by using a large language model, and transfers the report sentence to the second component … the second component replaces the alternative character string with the character string … the second component adds the report sentence to a report … the second component transfers the report to the first component … the first component receives the report, emphasizes the portion violating the syntax, and provides the report” in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
With respect to claim 1, lines 23-24 recite “sequentially read one line from the document”. In light of Applicant’s specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “the document”, as claimed, includes a document with only one line1, in which case it is unclear how the system would “sequentially read one line from the document” (emphasis added), as claimed. The scope of the claim is therefore indefinite. For purposes of compact prosecution only, and consistent with Applicant’s specification, Examiner has interpreted claim 1 as reciting -- sequentially read one line of a plurality of lines from the document --.
With respect to claims 2, 4, and 5, each recites limitation(s) similar to those identified above with respect to claim 1. Therefore claims 2, 4, and 5 are also indefinite and have been interpreted similarly to claim 1 above.
Claim 3 inherits the deficiency of claim 2.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-3 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category of machines and Claims 4-5 are directed to computer implemented methods and fall within the statutory category of processes. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.04).
Step 2A Prong 1:
With respect to claims 1 and 2, the limitations of “generate a report sentence in accordance with a prompt … sequentially read one line from the document … search for whether the read line comprises a character string … and, when finding the character string, replace the character string of the line with the alternative character string … generate the prompt … wherein the prompt comprises the line and a template sentence, wherein the template sentence comprises an instruction to verify the line and generate the report sentence, wherein when the line violates the syntax, the report sentence comprises the line, … replace the alternative character string included in the report sentence with the character string and then add the report sentence to the report”2 and “generate a report sentence in accordance with a prompt … sequentially read one line from the document … search for whether the read line comprises a character string … and, when finding the character string, replace the character string of the line with the alternative character string … generate the prompt … wherein the prompt comprises the line, the syntax, and a template sentence, wherein the template sentence comprises an instruction to verify the line by using the syntax and generate the report sentence, wherein when the line violates the syntax, the report sentence comprises the line … replace the alternative character string included in the report sentence with the character string and then add the report sentence to the report”3 as claimed, is/are a process(es) that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with no more than pen and paper. For example, a human developer, using no more than pen and paper, could perform the following through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion: (1) draft a report containing syntax violations in source code; (2) read the source code line-by-line and look for and identify specific character strings that are sensitive or confidential; (3) replace the identified character string with an obfuscated version of the string; (4) generate a natural language prompt with the read line, the proper syntax for the programming language of the source code, and instruction to verify the line using the syntax provided in the prompt, and draft a report sentence with the line that violates the syntax; (5) replace the obfuscated character in the report sentence with the original character string and add it to the report.
With respect to claims 4 and 5, the limitations of “data processing method comprising: a first step; a second step; a third step; a fourth step; a fifth step; a sixth step; a seventh step; an eighth step; and a ninth step … sequentially reads one line from the document, wherein a process proceeds to the third step when a last line of the document has not yet been read out; otherwise, the process proceeds to the eighth step … wherein in the third step … searches for whether the one line comprises a predetermined character string .. wherein when the predetermined character string … is found, an alternative character string is obtained and the character string of the line is replaced with the alternative character string … the character string and the alternative character string associated with the character string … wherein in the fourth step … generates a prompt … wherein the prompt comprises the line and a template sentence, wherein the template sentence comprises an instruction to verify the line and generate a report sentence, wherein when the line violates syntax, the report sentence comprises the line violating the syntax … wherein in the fifth step … generates the report sentence in accordance with the prompt by using … generates the report sentence in accordance with the prompt … wherein in the sixth step, when the report sentence comprises the alternative character string … replaces the alternative character string with the character string, wherein in the seventh step … adds the report sentence to a report, and the process proceeds to the second step”4 and “A data processing method comprising: a first step; a second step; a third step; a fourth step; a fifth step; a sixth step; a seventh step; an eighth step; a ninth step; and a tenth step … wherein in the second step … sequentially reads one line from the document, wherein a process proceeds to the third step when a last line of the document has not yet been read out; otherwise, the process proceeds to the ninth step … wherein in the third step … searches for whether the one line comprises a predetermined character string … wherein when the predetermined character string … is found, an alternative character string is obtained and the character string of the line is replaced with the alternative character string … the character string and the alternative character string associated with the character string … wherein in the fifth step … generates a prompt … wherein the prompt comprises the line, the syntax, and a template sentence, wherein the template sentence comprises an instruction to verify the line and generate a report sentence, wherein when the line violates the syntax, the report sentence comprises an annotated line, wherein the annotated line comprises predetermined tags inserted to surround a portion violating the syntax, wherein in the sixth step … generates the report sentence in accordance with the prompt … wherein in the seventh step, when the report sentence comprises the alternative character string, … replaces the alternative character string with the character string, wherein in the eighth step … adds the report sentence to a report, and the process proceeds to the second step … wherein in the tenth step … emphasizes the portion violating the syntax”5 as claimed, is/are a process(es) that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind with no more than pen and paper. For example, a human developer, using no more than pen and paper, could perform the following through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion: (1) read the first line of a multi-line source code document; (2) in the line, look for and identify specific character strings that are sensitive or confidential; (3) replace the identified character string with an obfuscated version of the string; (4) generate a natural language prompt with the read line, the proper syntax for the programming language of the source code, and instruction to verify the line using the syntax provided in the prompt, and generate a report sentence with the line that violates the syntax annotated with tags are the portion that violates the syntax; (5) draft a report sentence according to the prompt; (6) replace the obfuscated character in the report sentence with the original character string and add it to the report; (7) loop back to step (1) above and until the last line is read out, and then highlight the portion violating the syntax in the report.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 recite limitations that fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
As the claims have been identified as reciting a judicial exception, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)).
Step 2A Prong 2:
With respect to claims 1, 2, 4, and 5, The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements: “A data processing system comprising: a first component; a second component; and a third component … wherein the second component is configured to perform processing using a large language model, wherein the large language model has learned the programming language, wherein the second component is configured to … wherein the third component is configured to … wherein the third component is configured to … registered in the database … wherein the third component is configured to … wherein the third component is configured to”6, “A data processing system comprising: a first component; a second component; and a third component … wherein the second component is configured to perform processing using a large language model, wherein the large language model has learned the programming language, wherein the second component is configured to … wherein the third component is configured to … wherein the third component is configured to … registered in the first database … wherein the third component is configured to … wherein the third component is configured to”7, “the second component …the second component … the second component … registered in a database … registered in the database … wherein the database comprises a record, and the record comprises … the third component … by using a large language model that has learned the programming language … the second component … the second component”8, and “the second component … the second component … registered in a fist database … registered in the first database … wherein the first database comprises a first record, and the first record comprises … the second component … the third component … by using a large language model … the second component … the second component”9, which merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components to perform the abstract idea, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The claims further recite the following additional element(s): “wherein the first component is configured to receive a document and transfer the document to the third component, wherein the document is written in a programming language, wherein the first component is configured to receive a report and extract and provide a portion violating syntax of the programming language in the document … and transfer the report sentence to the third component, wherein the third component is configured to perform processing using a database, wherein the database comprises a record, wherein the record comprises a character string and an alternative character string associated with the character string … wherein the database is configured to send the alternative character string in response to a query specifying the character string, wherein the database is configured to send the character string in response to a query specifying the alternative character string … transfer the prompt to the second component … wherein the third component is configured to transfer the report to the first component”10, “wherein the first component is configured to receive a document and transfer the document to the third component, wherein the document is written in a programming language, wherein the first component is configured to receive a report and extract and provide a portion violating syntax of the programming language in the document … and transfer the report sentence to the third component, wherein the third component is configured to perform processing using a first database, wherein the first database comprises a first record, wherein the first record comprises a character string and an alternative character string associated with the character string, wherein the first database is configured to send the alternative character string in response to a query specifying the character string, wherein the first database is configured to send the character string in response to a query specifying the alternative character string … wherein the third component is configured to perform processing using a second database, wherein the second database comprises a second record, wherein the second record comprises a reserved word and the syntax associated with the reserved word, wherein the second database is configured to send the syntax in response to a query specifying the reserved word, wherein the third component is configured to extract a first token from the line, wherein the third component is configured to query whether the first token of the line is registered in the second database and obtain the syntax when the first token is the reserved word … and transfer the prompt to the second component … wherein the third component is configured to transfer the report to the first component”11, “wherein in the first step, a first component receives a document and transfers the document to a second component, wherein the document is written in a programming language … wherein the database is configured to send the alternative character string in response to a query specifying the character string, and send the character string in response to a query specifying the alternative character string … transfers the prompt to a third component … transfers the report sentence to the second component … wherein in the eighth step, the second component transfers the report to the first component, and wherein in the ninth step, the first component receives and provides the report”12, and “wherein in the first step, a first component receives a document and transfers the document to a second component, wherein the document is written in a programming language … wherein the first database is configured to send the alternative character string in response to a query specifying the character string, and send the character string in response to a query specifying the alternative character string, wherein in the fourth step, the second component queries whether a first token of the line is registered in a second database, and obtains syntax when the first token is a reserved word registered in the second database, wherein the second database comprises a second record, and the second record comprises the reserved word and the syntax associated with the reserved word, wherein the second database is configured to send the syntax in response to a query specifying the reserved word … and transfers the prompt to a third component … and transfers the report sentence to the second component … wherein in the ninth step, the second component transfers the report to the first component … the first component receives the report … and provides the report”13, which is/are merely insignificant extra-solution activity such as gathering, transmitting, and storing data, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and will be analyzed further below in Step 2B as being well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
After having evaluated the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 not only recite a judicial exception but are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, Step 2B will evaluate whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Step 2B:
With respect to claims 1, 2, 4, and 5, The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components applying the abstract idea and insignificant extra-solution activity such as gathering, transmitting, and storing data, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) for court decisions recognizing that this activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional.).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded the analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With respect to claim 3, the limitations recite “wherein the first component is configured to receive the report,” which is insignificant extra-solution activity such as gathering, data (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Furthermore, this extra-solution activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional (see § 2106.05(d)(II) for court decisions recognizing that this activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional). Additionally, the limitations “emphasize a portion violating the syntax in the document, wherein the template sentence comprises the instruction to verify the line by using the syntax and generate the report sentence, wherein the report sentence comprises an annotated line, and wherein the annotated line comprises the line in which predetermined tags are inserted to surround the portion violating the syntax” is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind with no more than pen and paper. For example, a human developer with no more than pen and paper could highlight the portion violating syntax in the report and draft the prompt with natural languages instructions to verify the line using the syntax of the programming language and generate a report sentence with the line of source code with tags around the portions that violate the syntax. Thus, the claim is directed to the judicial exception and does not have elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Additional Claim Interpretation Notes
Regarding claim 4, in accordance with the interpretation given above in the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 section, lines 16-17 have been interpreted to recite “wherein in the second step, the second component sequentially reads one line of a plurality of lines from the document, wherein a process proceeds to the third step when a last line of the document has not yet been read out; otherwise, the process proceeds to the ninth step”. Examiner notes that both of these alternative conditions are required for the following reasons. First, the condition “when a last line of the document has not yet been read out”, as recited on lines 16-17, necessarily occurs because there is more than one line and the reading is “sequential”, i.e., a line that is not the last line of the document is read out before the last line of the document is read out. Second, the alternative condition, “otherwise, the process proceeds to the eighth step”, as recited on line 17, also necessarily occurs because lines 40-41 recite “wherein in the seventh step, the second component adds the report sentence to a report, and the process proceeds to the second step” (emphasis added), i.e., the method continues to loop back to the second step until the last line is read out, thereby triggering the condition “otherwise, the process proceeds to the eighth step”. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 4 requires the limitations contingent upon each of the conditions recited in lines 16-17 (see MPEP § 2111.04(II) Contingent Limitations, citing Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016)).
Claim 5 also recites “wherein in the second step, the second component sequentially reads one line from the document, wherein a process proceeds to the third step when a last line of the document has not yet been read out; otherwise, the process proceeds to the ninth step” and for the same reasons set forth in the previous paragraph, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 5 requires the limitations contingent upon each of the above recited conditions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Specifically, (1) Zhang et al. teaches using an LLM trained on code to repair syntax errors; (2) Whalen et al. US 11093641 B1 teaches checking for syntax errors in anonymized document; (3) Chevallier-Mames et al. US 8661549 B2 discloses generating obfuscated code by replacing certain routines or data structures with equivalent routines or data structures; (4) Wendling US 7689969 B1 teaches removing obfuscation from code; (5) Huang et al. “A Chain of AI-based Solutions for Resolving FQNs and Fixing Syntax Errors in Partial Code” teaches using LLMs to fix syntax errors in partial code; and (6) Fang et al. “Large Language Models for Code Analysis: Do LLMs Really Do Their Job?” teaches LLMs processing obfuscated code.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN DAVID BERMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-7206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-6 Eastern.
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.
/STEPHEN D BERMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2192
1 See Applicant’s specification, e.g., [0035], “… the document is written in a programming language and includes one or more lines” (emphasis added).
2 See claim 1.
3 See claim 2.
4 See claim 4.
5 See claim 5.
6 See claim 1.
7 See claim 2.
8 See claim 4.
9 See claim 5.
10 See claim 1.
11 See claim 2.
12 See claim 4.
13 See claim 5.
Prosecution Insights