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 .
This Office action is in response to the amendments, arguments and remarks, filed on 6/30/2026, in which claim(s) 1-20 is/are presented for further examination.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 9 and 15 has/have been amended.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment(s) to the abstract has been accepted. The objection to the abstract for informalities has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment(s) to claim(s) 6 and 8 has/have been accepted. The rejection(s) to the claim(s), under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite, has/have been withdrawn unless otherwise noted in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s) section below.
Applicant’s amendment(s) to claim(s) 1, 9 and 15 has/have been accepted. The rejection(s) of the claim(s), under 35 U.S.C. 101, as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, has/have been withdrawn. Consequently, the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-8, 10-14 and 16-20, which depend(s) from claim(s) 1, 9 and 15, has/have also been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment(s) to claim(s) 1, 6, 8, 9 and 15 has/have been accepted.
The examiner thanks applicant’s representative for pointing out where s/he believes there is support for the amendment(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20, filed on 6/30/2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-6, 8-13 and 15-19, under 35 U.S.C. 103, see pages 15-16 of applicant’s remarks, filed on 6/30/2026, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 6/30/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 12,332,861 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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(s) 1-20 is/are 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 1 recites the limitation "the section" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note: There is a “second section” in line 5.
Claim(s) 2-8 inherit(s) the deficiencies of the claim it/they depend(s) from.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the similar" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the section" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note: There is a “second section” in line 4.
Claim(s) 10-14 inherit(s) the deficiencies of the claim it/they depend(s) from.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the section" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note: There is a “second section” in line 7.
Claim(s) 16-20 inherit(s) the deficiencies of the claim it/they depend(s) from.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-13 and 15-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, CN 111562920 A (hereinafter “Xu”; Note: Citations are based on the English translation attached/provided) in view of Gass et al., US 2017/0090892 A1 (hereinafter “Gass) in further view of Elgamal, US 11,003,834 B2 (hereinafter “Elga”).
Claims 1, 9 and 15
Xu discloses a non-transitory tangible processor-readable medium including instructions executable by one or more processors (Xu, page 5, 1st paragraph, see memory and processor), and when executed configured to perform operations comprising:
parsing a first tree of a computer code into a plurality of subtrees including a first subtree of a first section of the computer code and a second subtree of a second section of the computer code (Xu, Abstract, see obtaining the abstract syntax tree [i.e., corresponds to the “first tree”] of the first small program corresponding to the small program code [i.e., corresponds to the “computer code”]; based on the parent-child relationship between nodes in the abstract syntax tree, performing feature extraction to the abstract syntax tree [i.e., the extracting corresponds to the “parsing” and the extracted features correspond to the “first subtree of a first section of the computer code” and the “second subtree of a second section of the computer code”]),
serializing the first subtree to form a first serialized data structure and the second subtree to form a second serialized data structure of the first tree (Xu, page 9, 7th paragraph, see the tree feature of the abstract syntax tree is converted into serialized code features, i.e., the code features are represented by a string sequence),
applying a metric function for pairwise comparisons of semantics of the first serialized data structure with the second serialized data structure to determine similarities in structural arrangements without regard to sibling order resulting in a pairwise metric (Xu, Abstract, see obtaining the code characteristic of the first small program; generating a first small program fingerprint of the first small program according to the code characteristic; according to the first small program fingerprint and the second small program fingerprint of the second small program in the small program fingerprint library, determining the code similarity of the first small program and the second small program [i.e., corresponds to the “metric function for pairwise comparisons of semantics” where the pair consists of the first small program and the second small program]. The method provided by the embodiment of the invention, pre-generating small program fingerprint for the existing small program based on the abstract syntax tree, subsequently, using the small program fingerprint stored in the small program fingerprint library for similarity detection, without analyzing and comparing the source code of the two small programs [i.e., corresponds to “without regard to sibling order”], improving the detection efficiency of the small program code similarity);
identifying one or more problematic or redundant other sections of the computer code by searching the computer code using the pairwise metric (Xu, Abstract, see obtaining the code characteristic of the first small program; generating a first small program fingerprint of the first small program according to the code characteristic; according to the first small program fingerprint and the second small program fingerprint of the second small program in the small program fingerprint library, determining the code similarity of the first small program and the second small program [i.e., corresponds to the “metric function for pairwise comparisons of semantics” where the pair consists of the first small program and the second small program and where code is redundant/same is when the fingerprints are the same]); and
based on identifying the one or more problematic or redundant other sections (See Xu, Abstract, above regarding “identifying one or more problematic or redundant other sections of the computer code”).
Xu does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the first section and the section are different sections of the computer code;
by stripping information pertaining to orders of siblings;
altering the computer code to increase the speed and/or functional performance of the computer code.
Gass discloses wherein the first section and the section are different sections of the computer code (Gass, [0082], see a source installation 220 on source system 204 may be analyzed to create a meta-model 254. As shown, meta-model 254 may comprise objects, or nodes, and links or structure representative of dependencies and interactions between nodes. In some embodiments, the meta-model 254 may be transformed into transformed meta-model 256, responsive to predetermined rules and/or configured rules; Gass, [0083], see an optimization engine 262 may apply modernization rules 260 to create an optimized abstract syntax tree 266. The optimized abstract syntax tree 266 may be further modified by a programmer 264 to create target code 270, associated with a target language syntax dictionary 268. Using test data 272, the target code may be tested at 274; Gass, [0086], see parser engine 284, configured on optimization engine 262 may use grammar identified by language syntax 282 to parse tokens identified by lexical analysis engine 280. This may be referred to variously as syntactic analysis, semantic parsing, parsing, or analyzing; Gass, [0087], see parser engine 284 may comprise an application, process, agent, function, routine, logic, or any type and form of executable instructions for interpreting language tokens located in a source code with language syntax 282 to create an abstract syntax tree 288, also referred to above as a meta-model 254; Gass, [0088], see programmer 264 may convert abstract syntax tree 288 to an optimized abstract syntax tree 266 [i.e., discloses comparing the computer code of the application against itself, which discloses different sections of code being compared against each other]. Programmer 264 may, in some embodiments, comprise part or all of analysis agent 228, discussed in more detail above. Optimized abstract syntax tree 266 may be a transformed meta-model 256, discussed above. In some embodiments, optimization of an abstract syntax tree 266 may be performed responsive to semantic rules and language syntax associated with a target language syntax dictionary 268. Objects of a source installation may be transformed to target code 270, responsive to differences between the optimized abstract syntax tree 266 and abstract syntax tree 288; and Gass, [0107], see, at step 338, the analysis client may determine if the source installation has changed since the snapshot was taken. This could occur, for example, if analysis, transformation, and customization have taken a significant amount of time [i.e., discloses comparing the computer code of the application against itself, which discloses different sections of code being compared against each other]);
altering the computer code to increase the speed and/or functional performance of the computer code (Gass, [0109], see post-processing the target installation may comprise optimizing the installation. For example, optimization may include compressing the installation, removing unnecessary comments and/or code, cleaning up or removing unused variables, or any other type and form of source code optimization; Gass, [0119], see once code has been filtered and selected for pushing down, at step 428, in some implementations, a transformer may modify the code by replacing remote references or calls to retrieve data from the database with local references or addresses for the data within the database, as opposed to remote procedure calls. In other implementations, the transformer may modify syntax or parameters of references (e.g. adding local directory references, removing remote directory references, etc.). At step 430, the transformer may generate remote procedure calls to the application layer code to direct the database server to execute the code segment, and may add callbacks to the code to return the appropriate results to the application layer code. In some implementations, adding remote calls and callbacks may include changing a location of a called sub-routine, while in other implementations, adding remote calls and callbacks may include adding code to generate and transmit requests or queries to the database server and receive a response. At step 432, the transformer may store the modified code or procedure in the database, and at step 434, the transformer may remove the corresponding code segment from the application layer code. In many implementations, the removed code and stored code may comprise a portion of the code segment (e.g. a portion other than remote procedure calls and callbacks). If there is further code to be analyzed at step 436, the analyzer client may repeat step 420. In some implementations, additional optimization steps may be performed, such as making code Unicode compliant, applying preconfigured database layer functions (e.g. aggregation or summing, unit of measure conversion, data analysis and prediction, or other such functions, such as those provided as part of the Business Function Library (BFL) or Predictive Analysis Library (PAL) of SAP HANA), or other such steps according to transformation rules; and Gass, [0121], see the systems and methods discussed herein provide automated analysis and transformation of a system from a data-to-code to a code-to-data paradigm, moving customized code and business logic from an application layer to a database layer for optimized performance).
Xu and Gass are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of processing large amounts of data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Xu and Gass before him/her, to modify the comparison of Xu to include the optimization of Gass because it allow breaking down large data sets.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to be able to balance significant business and technical benefits of updating and modernizing systems against considerable costs, risks and disruption, see Gass, [0015].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Gass with Xu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
The combination of Xu and Gass does not appear to explicitly disclose by stripping information pertaining to orders of siblings.
Elga discloses by stripping information pertaining to orders of siblings (Elga, Col. 2, lines 9-48, see traverse from the first child data element through a second sibling data element in order to reach a second child data element. In response to reaching the second child data element, the processor(s) remove from memory any description of the structured tree that was used to reach the first child data element and the second child data element [i.e., corresponds to “stripping information pertaining to orders of siblings”] other than the element level counter that describes the level of the structured tree; and Elga, claim 1, see traversing from the first child data element through the second sibling data element in order to reach the second child data element, removing, by an iterator parser, references in memory to the second sibling data element [i.e., corresponds to “stripping information pertaining to orders of siblings”]).
Xu, Gass and Elga are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of processing large amounts of data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Xu, Gass and Elga before him/her, to modify the comparison and optimization of the combination of Xu and Gass to include the order stripping of Elga because it allow breaking down large data sets.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to have memory efficient data processing for analyzing operations, see Elga, Col. 1, lines 64-67.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Elga with the combination of Xu and Gass to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Claim(s) 9 and 15 recite(s) similar limitations to claim 1 and is/are rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to claim 15, Xu discloses an apparatus comprising:
one or more processors (See below); and
logic encoded in one or more non-transitory tangible processor-readable media for execution by the one or more processors (Xu, page 5, 1st paragraph, see memory and processor).
Claims 2, 10 and 16
With respect to claims 2, 10 and 16, the combination of Xu, Gass and Elga discloses wherein the operations further comprise:
applying a first weight to the pairwise metric, and wherein optimizing the computer code includes comparing the first weight with another weight of another pairwise metric corresponding to at least one other subtree of respective other sections of the computer code (Xu, Abstract, see obtaining the code characteristic of the first small program; generating a first small program fingerprint of the first small program according to the code characteristic; according to the first small program fingerprint and the second small program fingerprint of the second small program in the small program fingerprint library, determining the code similarity of the first small program and the second small program [i.e., corresponds to the “metric function for pairwise comparisons of semantics” where the pair consists of the first small program and the second small program and where code is redundant/same is when the fingerprints are the same]; Xu, page 12, 5th paragraph, see traversing, the sub-tree corresponding to each son node serialization, and according to the serialization to obtain the character string sequence for sub-tree de-weight; and Xu, page 13, 10th paragraph, see in the process of constructing the code characteristic, the server de weights the same characteristic sequence, so as to obtain the code characteristic after removing the weight).
Claims 3, 11 and 17
With respect to claims 3, 11 and 17, the combination of Xu, Gass and Elga discloses wherein the operations further comprise:
applying a second weight to the first serialized data structure and the second serialized data structure, and wherein optimizing the computer code includes comparing the second weight with at least one other weight of at least one other serialized data structure corresponding to respective other sections of the computer code (Xu, Abstract, see obtaining the code characteristic of the first small program; generating a first small program fingerprint of the first small program according to the code characteristic; according to the first small program fingerprint and the second small program fingerprint of the second small program in the small program fingerprint library, determining the code similarity of the first small program and the second small program [i.e., corresponds to the “metric function for pairwise comparisons of semantics” where the pair consists of the first small program and the second small program and where code is redundant/same is when the fingerprints are the same]; Xu, page 12, 5th paragraph, see traversing, the sub-tree corresponding to each son node serialization, and according to the serialization to obtain the character string sequence for sub-tree de-weight; and Xu, page 13, 10th paragraph, see in the process of constructing the code characteristic, the server de weights the same characteristic sequence, so as to obtain the code characteristic after removing the weight).
Claims 4, 12 and 18
With respect to claims 4, 12 and 18, the combination of Xu, Gass and Elga discloses wherein the second weight is applied to a particular type of clause of the computer code and the at least other weight corresponds to a different type of clause of the computer code (Xu, page 12, 5th paragraph, see traversing, the sub-tree [i.e., corresponds to the “clause of the computer code”] corresponding to each son node serialization, and according to the serialization to obtain the character string sequence for sub-tree de-weight; and Xu, page 13, 10th paragraph, see in the process of constructing the code characteristic, the server de weights the same characteristic sequence [i.e., corresponds to the “clause of the computer code”], so as to obtain the code characteristic after removing the weight).
Claims 5, 13 and 19
With respect to claims 5, 13 and 19, the combination of Xu, Gass and Elga discloses wherein applying the metric functions further includes combining the second weight to the metric function (Xu, page 12, 5th paragraph, see traversing, the sub-tree [i.e., corresponds to the “clause of the computer code”] corresponding to each son node serialization, and according to the serialization to obtain the character string sequence for sub-tree de-weight; and Xu, page 13, 10th paragraph, see in the process of constructing the code characteristic, the server de weights the same characteristic sequence [i.e., corresponds to the “clause of the computer code”], so as to obtain the code characteristic after removing the weight, where the weight(s) helps determine the similarity which goes toward the metric function), and
wherein identifying the one or more problematic or redundant other sections includes determining the pairwise metrics does not meet an acceptable threshold value (Xu, page 15, 3rd & 4th paragraph, see the second index fingerprint of the second small program and index similarity of the first index fingerprint is greater than the threshold value. When detecting the code similarity based on the small program fingerprint, in order to improve the detection efficiency, the server firstly according to the first index fingerprint, the small program fingerprint library coarse screening the second small program index similarity greater than the threshold value).
Claim 6
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Xu, Gass and Elga discloses wherein searching the computer code includes identifying at least one redundant similar arrangement that meets a similarity value or at least one same structural arrangement of the other sections of the computer code and the operations further comprise:
consolidating the similar or same other sections of the computer code (Xu, page 11, 7th paragraph, see deletion of redundant fields in the source code, where deletion is a form of consolidating because it reduces duplicate data; and Gass, [0109], see post-processing the target installation may comprise optimizing the installation. For example, optimization may include compressing the installation, removing unnecessary comments and/or code, cleaning up or removing unused variables, or any other type and form of source code optimization).
Claim 8
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Xu, Gass and Elga discloses wherein one or more first section elements of the computer code represented by the first serialized data structure are the same as or within a similarity value to corresponding one or more second section elements of the computer code represented by the second serialized data structure, and the one or more first section elements and the one or more second section elements exhibit different orders in the computer code (Xu, Abstract, see obtaining the code characteristic of the first small program; generating a first small program fingerprint of the first small program according to the code characteristic; according to the first small program fingerprint and the second small program fingerprint of the second small program in the small program fingerprint library, determining the code similarity of the first small program and the second small program [i.e., corresponds to the “metric function for pairwise comparisons of semantics” where the pair consists of the first small program and the second small program and where code is redundant/same is when the fingerprints are the same]; Elga, Col. 2, lines 9-48, see traverse from the first child data element through a second sibling data element in order to reach a second child data element. In response to reaching the second child data element, the processor(s) remove from memory any description of the structured tree that was used to reach the first child data element and the second child data element [i.e., corresponds to “stripping information pertaining to orders of siblings” and, therefore having a different order] other than the element level counter that describes the level of the structured tree; Elga, claim 1, see traversing from the first child data element through the second sibling data element in order to reach the second child data element, removing, by an iterator parser, references in memory to the second sibling data element [i.e., corresponds to “stripping information pertaining to orders of siblings”]; and Gass, [0109], see post-processing the target installation may comprise optimizing the installation. For example, optimization may include compressing the installation, removing unnecessary comments and/or code, cleaning up or removing unused variables, or any other type and form of source code optimization).
Claim(s) 7, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu in view of Gass in further view of Elga in further view of Perkov, US 2021/0191919 A1 (hereinafter “Perkov”).
Claims 7, 14 and 20
Claims 7, 14 and 20 incorporate all of the limitations above.
With respect to claims 7, 14 and 20, the combination of Xu, Gass and Elga discloses generate the first serialized data structure and the second serialized data structure of the first tree, respectively (Xu, page 9, 7th paragraph, see the tree feature of the abstract syntax tree is converted into serialized code features, i.e., the code features are represented by a string sequence).
The combination of Xu, Gass and Elga does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein serializing further includes:
constructing a bitwise representation of the first data structure of the first tree and a second data structure of the second tree; and
using the bitwise representation or a decimal integer of the bitwise representation of the first data structure and the second data structure.
Perkov discloses wherein serializing further includes:
constructing a bitwise representation of the first data structure of the first tree and a second data structure of the second tree (Perkov, [0073], see the current node 62 includes or is otherwise associated with first metadata 68, which includes a bit-wise (i.e., binary) representation (e.g., in this case “0”) indicating whether or not the node (e.g., when the node was added to the tree 60 or when the tree 60 was first created) is a child of another node; Perkov, [0085], see illustrating a construction of a bit-wise format representation of a path in a tree segment; Perkov, Figs. 3 & 4); and
using the bitwise representation or a decimal integer of the bitwise representation of the first data structure and the second data structure (Perkov, [0073], see the current node 62 includes or is otherwise associated with first metadata 68, which includes a bit-wise (i.e., binary) representation (e.g., in this case “0”) indicating whether or not the node (e.g., when the node was added to the tree 60 or when the tree 60 was first created) is a child of another node; Perkov, [0085], see illustrating a construction of a bit-wise format representation of a path in a tree segment; Perkov, Figs. 3 & 4).
Xu, Gass, Elga and Perkov are analogous art because they are from the same problem-solving area of processing large amounts of data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Xu, Gass, Elga and Perkov before him/her, to modify the comparison with optimization and order stripping of the combination of Xu, Gass and Elga to include the bitwise representation of Perkov because it would facilitate efficient tree-based operations.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable efficiencies, see Perkov, [0008].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Perkov with the combination of Xu, Gass and Elga to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
– Gass et al., 2017/0220613 for database orientation transformation;
– Tronicek, 2023/0251859 for indexing source code;
– Zhang et al., 2022/0374232 for computer code refactoring;
– Bird et al., 11392354 for frequent source code pattern mining; and
– Bird et al., 11662984 for frequent source code pattern mining.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUBERT G CHEUNG whose telephone number is (571) 270-1396. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 8:00A-5:00P EST; alt. F 8:00A-4:00P EST.
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, Apu Mofiz can be reached at (571) 272-4080. 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.
HUBERT G. CHEUNG
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 2161
Examiner: Hubert Cheung
/Hubert Cheung/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 2161Date: August 24, 2026
/APU M MOFIZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights