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 .
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the structured second requirement information" in lines 5-6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Additionally, since “the structured second requirement information” lacks antecedent basis, it is unclear whether “the prompt” that includes “the structured second requirement information” recited in line 5 of the claim refers to the prompt recited in parent claim 2 or is referring to some new prompt that also lacks antecedent basis.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mennen et al. (WO 2025/046107, hereinafter “Mennen”).
In regard to claim 1, Mennen discloses an information processing apparatus, comprising:
at least one memory storing a set of instructions (computer-readable instructions stored in memory, paragraph [0169]); and
at least one processor configured to execute the set of instructions (CPU, paragraph [0169]) to:
acquire a first requirement information described in a natural language (Fig. 3, a set of requirements are acquired from a user problem statement, paragraphs [0085-0086]); and
generate a prompt, the prompt for being input into a first language model, to extract at least one of a component, a function of the component, and information related to performance from the acquired first requirement information (during the requirements discovery pipeline, LLM prompts are generated to extract data entities and their relationships, functions, constraints, etc., paragraphs [0095-0099]; see also exemplary prompts for feasibility checks at paragraphs [0141-0144]).
In regard to claim 2, Mennen discloses the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to verify validity of a second requirement information acquired by inputting the generated prompt into the first language model (in response to the prompt, the LLM generates new requirements, which are fed back to the user, paragraphs [0099-0101]; see also paragraphs [0149-0150] regarding generating new requirements).
In regard to claim 3, Mennen discloses the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to:
verify the validity of the second requirement information based at least on a relationship among the components included in the second requirement information or on information related to a performance indicator included in the second requirement information (each new artefact in the requirements is evaluated in relationship to previous artifacts to identifying missing/incomplete requirements, paragraphs [0099-0101]; see also feasibility checking examples at paragraphs [0141-0144]); and
detect an element that can be added to the second requirement information if the second requirement information is determined to be not valid (the LLM determines assumptions needed to implement a particular requirement, paragraphs [0099-0101]; see also paragraphs [0141-0144]).
In regard to claim 4, Mennen discloses the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to provide an interface that enables a user to identify the element that can be added and/or an interface that enables the user to input additional information related to the element that can be added (user feedback is collected through a user interface, see Figs. 5A-C, Fig. 6, and paragraphs [0099] and [0103-0104]).
In regard to claim 5, Mennen discloses the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to:
verify the validity of the second requirement information based at least on a relationship among the components included in the second requirement information or on information related to a performance indicator included in the second requirement information (each new artefact in the requirements is evaluated in relationship to previous artifacts to identifying missing/incomplete requirements, paragraphs [0099-0101]; see also feasibility checking examples at paragraphs [0141-0144]); and
detect a plurality of conflicting components in the second requirement information or a plurality of conflicting performance indicators in the second requirement information if the second requirement information is determined to be invalid (the system detects conflicting requirements, paragraph [0092]).
In regard to claim 6, Mennen discloses the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to provide an interface that enables a user to identify the plurality of conflicting components or the plurality of conflicting performance indicators, and/or an interface that enables the user to input the component or the performance indicator that the user prioritizes from among the plurality of conflicting components or the plurality of conflicting performance indicators (user feedback is collected through a user interface, see Figs. 5A-C, Fig. 6, and paragraphs [0099] and [0103-0104]).
In regard to claims 7-12, Mennen discloses the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to generate a prompt, the prompt for being input into a second language model, for converting the first requirement information based on sentence example information stored in advance (a prompt comprising sentences describing requirement formatting and content examples is used to evaluate the input user problem statement, paragraphs [0085-0086] and paragraphs [0135-0140]; the language model used being different than the language model used for feasibility testing, paragraph [0144]).
In regard to claim 13, Mennen discloses the at least one processor is further configured to execute the set of instructions to:
generate the prompt that includes an instruction to generate the structured second requirement information (the prompt adding new requirements is generated until a complete set of requirements has been generated, paragraphs [0149-0151]);
generate a concrete draft design for the structured second requirement information based on the structured second requirement information (once a complete set of requirements has been generated, a technical design document is generated, paragraphs [0152-0154]); and
present the generated draft design to a user (the user is provided feedback during the generation process using human-in-the-loop features, paragraphs [0106-0107]).
In regard to claim 14, Mennen discloses a control method of an information processing apparatus, comprising:
acquiring a first requirement information described in a natural language (Fig. 3, a set of requirements are acquired from a user problem statement, paragraphs [0085-0086]); and
generating a prompt, the prompt for being input into a first language model, to extract at least one of a component, a function of the component, and information related to performance from the acquired first requirement information (during the requirements discovery pipeline, LLM prompts are generated to extract data entities and their relationships, functions, constraints, etc., paragraphs [0095-0099]; see also exemplary prompts for feasibility checks at paragraphs [0141-0144]).
In regard to claim 15, Mennen discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program causing a computer to perform processing (paragraph [0169]) for:
acquiring a first requirement information described in a natural language (Fig. 3, a set of requirements are acquired from a user problem statement, paragraphs [0085-0086]); and
generating a prompt, the prompt for being input into a first language model, to extract at least one of a component, a function of the component, and information related to performance from the acquired first requirement information (during the requirements discovery pipeline, LLM prompts are generated to extract data entities and their relationships, functions, constraints, etc., paragraphs [0095-0099]; see also exemplary prompts for feasibility checks at paragraphs [0141-0144]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rambow et al., Yogesha et al., Medford, Kasper et al., Atighetchi et al., Behr et al., Seshan et al., and Carignano et al. disclose additional methods of prompting language models to determine software requirements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN LOUIS ALBERTALLI whose telephone number is (571)272-7616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-3PM, 4PM-5PM.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at 571-272-7453. 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.
BLA 9/11/26
/BRIAN L ALBERTALLI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights