DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This communication is in response to the communication filed on 09/10/2024.
3. Acknowledgement is made of Foreign Application: JAPAN 2023-219694 filed 12/26/2023.
4. Claims filed 12/23/2024 have been acknowledged. Claim 1-11 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
6. 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 obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims 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 Omum, 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(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.
7. Claim(s) 1-11 of the instant application are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of Patent Application 18/991,850. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations. This is a provisional non-statutory obviousness type double patenting rejection.
Instant Application 18/991,838
Application 18/991,850
1. An analysis result management device comprising: an input unit receiving input of static analysis result data, the static analysis result data including source code and data of multiple warnings, each of the multiple warnings being detected by statically analyzing the source code; a hash value calculation unit calculating, for each of the multiple warnings, a hash value using, as inputs, (i) warning related data, which is data related to each of the multiple warnings, and (ii) code in multiple lines within a predetermined range of the source code, the multiple lines including a warning related line from which the corresponding warning is detected; a database storing the data of each of the multiple warnings in association with the corresponding hash value; and a display unit displaying the data stored in the database.
1. An analysis result management device managing data of static analysis results obtained by analyzing source code using different analysis tools, the analysis result management device comprising: a table including multiple different warning descriptions, which are generated by analyzing a same type of warning by the different analysis tools, the table further including identification information that is associated with each of the multiple different warning descriptions; an input unit receiving the data of static analysis results of the source code analyzed by the different analysis tools; a hash value calculation unit acquiring warning related data, which includes information related to a target warning included in the received static analysis results, and calculating a hash value for the target warning by referring to the table, wherein the target warning is a warning for which the hash value is to be calculated, the hash value calculation unit calculates, in response to determining that one of the multiple different warning descriptions corresponds to the target warning, the hash value for the target warning using the identification information associated with the one of the multiple different warning descriptions in the table, without using the one of the multiple different warning descriptions; a database storing data of the target warning in association with the hash value calculated for the target warning; and a display unit displaying the data stored in the database.
Same interpretation for the other set of claims.
The examiner recognizes that the instant application discloses a broader version for a analysis report management process. The related Patent Application 18/991,838 performs a similar analysis report, with the inclusion of a table for describing different warning descriptions. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that they are functionally similar and not patentably distinct from each other; the claims as presented can be instrumented individually, or in combination without limitations, or without departing from the spirit and scope of the inventions as specified in Applicant’s Specifications. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the limitations and their differences are obvious variations of the invention defined in the claim of instant application: 18/991,838.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-11 are rejected under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henriksen (Patent No. US 9,690,690 A1; hereinafter referred to as Henriksen).
As per claim 1, Henriksen discloses an analysis result management device comprising:
an input unit receiving input of static analysis result data, the static analysis result data including source code and data of multiple warnings, each of the multiple warnings being detected by statically analyzing the source code (See column 3, lines 5-15; also lines 55-65 – collecting data from static analysis, including warnings);
a hash value calculation unit calculating, for each of the multiple warnings, a hash value using, as inputs, (i) warning related data, which is data related to each of the multiple warnings, and (ii) code in multiple lines within a predetermined range of the source code, the multiple lines including a warning related line from which the corresponding warning is detected (See column 8, lines 51-65, also column 13, line 35, also Figs 4B-19 – computing hash values);
a database storing the data of each of the multiple warnings in association with the corresponding hash value (See column 18, lines 1-15 – storing); and
a display unit displaying the data stored in the database (See column 27, lines 40-55, also column 6, lines 30-35, 50-55 – displaying to the user).
As per claim 2, Henriksen discloses the analysis result management device according to claim 1 (See claim 1 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 102(a)(1)), wherein, when a first hash value calculated using the warning related data and the code in the warning related line as inputs is same as any of previously calculated hash values (See abstract), the hash value calculation unit calculates a second hash value using, as inputs, the warning related data and the code in multiple lines within the predetermined range of the source code, and sets the second hash value as the hash value of the corresponding warning, and the multiple lines includes the warning related line from which the corresponding warning is detected (See Figs. 2-5).
As per claim 3, Henriksen discloses the analysis result management device according to claim 2 (See claim 2 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 102(a)(1)), wherein, when the first hash value calculated using the warning related data and the code in the warning related line as inputs is same as any of the previously calculated hash values, the hash value calculation unit calculates the second hash value using, as inputs, the warning related data and the code in multiple lines, and the multiple lines includes the warning related line at which duplication of the hash value first occurs to the warning related line corresponding to a calculation target of the hash value. (See column 1, lines 35-65 – duplicated/matching)
As per claim 4, Henriksen discloses the analysis result management device according to claim 2 (See claim 2 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 102(a)(1)), further comprising a selection receiving unit receiving a selection of hash value calculation method that allows or does not allow duplication of the first hash value with any of previously calculated hash values, wherein, when the selection receiving unit receives a selection of hash value calculation method that allows duplication of the first hash value with any of previously calculated hash values, the hash value calculation unit determines the first hash value as the hash value of the corresponding warning even though the first hash value is same as one of the previously calculated hash values (See Figs. 5 and 8 – matching and unmatching). .
As per claim 5, Henriksen discloses the analysis result management device according to claim 2 (See claim 2 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 102(a)(1)), wherein the hash value calculation unit calculates the hash value using, as inputs, the warning related data, the code in the warning related line, and the code in another line related to the warning related line within the source code (See Fig. 6).
As per claim 6, Henriksen discloses the analysis result management device according to claim 2 (See claim 2 rejection above, under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA , 35 USC § 102(a)(1)), wherein the hash value calculation unit calculates the second hash value every time determining that the first hash value is same as any of previously calculated hash values (See column 13, lines 10-25 – calculating second hash).
Claims 7, 9, 11 are essentially the same as claim 1 except that it is set forth the claimed invention as a device, method and medium, with the inclusion of calculating hash using code in another line related to the warning related line within the source code (See Fig. 6), and it is are rejected with the same reasoning as applied hereinabove.
Claims 8, 10 are essentially the same as claim 1 except that they are set forth the claimed invention as a method and medium, and they are rejected with the same reasoning as applied hereinabove.
11. Please see M.P.E.P. 2111 Claim Interpretation; Broadest Reasonable Interpretation [R-9]; 2111.01 Plain Meaning [R-9]: III. “Plain Meaning” Refers to the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art”
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation during examination, and limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claims (See M.P.E.P. 2111 [R-I]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANCISCO JAVIER APONTE whose telephone number is (571)270-7164. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-4.
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, James Trujillo can be reached on (571)272-3677. 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.
/FRANCISCO J APONTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
09/16/2026.
Prosecution Insights