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 .
Claims 1 – 2, 6 – 9, 13 – 16, and 20 – 30 are pending for examination. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended.
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 – 2, 6 – 9, 13 – 16, and 20 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites
“A method comprising:
accessing, by a first application that uses an embedded configuration model, a first data object of a first system that uses a referential configuration model, the first data object comprising first object data, a configuration data identifier, and one or more identifiers of portions of configuration data applicable to the first data object;
based on the configuration data identifier, accessing configuration data from a database;
creating a first modified data object that uses the embedded configuration model, the first modified data object comprising the first object data and at least a portion of the configuration data, the first modified data object including the identified portions of the configuration data and excluding unidentified portions of the configuration data;
using, by the first application, the first modified data object;
accessing, by a second application that uses the referential configuration model, a second data object that uses the embedded configuration model, the second data object comprising second object data and second configuration data;
creating a second modified data object that uses the embedded configuration model, the second modified data object comprising the second object data and an identifier for a portion of the second configuration data that is accessible from the database, the second modified data object excluding at least a portion of the second configuration data; and
using, by the second application, the second modified data object.
Under step 2A:
Prong 1: the limitations of “creating a first modified data object that uses the embedded configuration model, the first modified data object comprising the first object data and at least a portion of the configuration data, the first modified data object including the identified portions of the configuration data and excluding unidentified portions of the configuration data; using, by the first application, the first modified data object” and “creating a second modified data object that uses the embedded configuration model, the second modified data object comprising the second object data and an identifier for a portion of the second configuration data that is accessible from the database, the second modified data object excluding at least a portion of the second configuration data; using, by the second application, the second modified data object” are all functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
Prong 2: the additional elements of “accessing, by a first application that uses an embedded configuration model, a first data object of a first system that uses a referential configuration model, the first data object comprising first object data, a configuration data identifier, and one or more identifiers of portions of configuration data applicable to the first data object”; “based on the configuration data identifier, accessing configuration data from a database”; and “accessing, by a second application that uses the referential configuration model, a second data object that uses the embedded configuration model, the second data object comprising second object data and second configuration data” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Under step 2B:
The additional elements of “accessing, by a first application that uses an embedded configuration model, a first data object of a first system that uses a referential configuration model, the first data object comprising first object data, a configuration data identifier, and one or more identifiers of portions of configuration data applicable to the first data object”; “based on the configuration data identifier, accessing configuration data from a database”; and “accessing, by a second application that uses the referential configuration model, a second data object that uses the embedded configuration model, the second data object comprising second object data and second configuration data” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to claim 2. “The method of claim 1, wherein: the configuration data identifier comprises a timestamp that indicates a time at which the first data object was created.”
is mere data gathering which the courts have held to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As to claim 6. “The method of claim 1, wherein the configuration data identifier comprises a version number.” is mere data gathering which the courts have held to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As to claim 7. “The method of claim 1, wherein the accessing of the database comprises accessing the database via a network.” is mere data gathering which the courts have held to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As to claim 8, this is system claim of claim 1. See rejection for claim 1 above.
As to claim 9. “The system of claim 8, wherein: the configuration data identifier comprises a timestamp that indicates a time at which the first data object was created.” is mere data gathering which the courts have held to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As to claims 13 and 20, this claim recites the same scope of claim 6. See rejection for 6 above.
As to claim 14, see rejection for claim 7 above.
As to claim 15, this is a non-transitory computer-readable medium claim of claim 8. See rejection for claim 8 above.
As to claim 16, this claim recites the same scope of claim 9. See rejection for 9 above.
As to claim 21, see rejection for claim 14 above.
As to claim 22, “The method of claim 1, wherein the configuration data identifier comprises a country code and a version number.” is mere data gathering which the courts have held to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As to claim 23, “The method of claim 1, wherein multiple sets of configuration data are available in the database for the configuration data identifier, and selection of one of the sets of configuration data is based on a creation time of the first data object.” is mere data gathering which the courts have held to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As to claim 24, “The method of claim 1, wherein the first application provides a user interface that allows a user to search for responsive data objects stored using different configuration models in a single user interface.” is mere data gathering which the courts have held to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As to claim 25 and 28, they recite the same scope of claim 22. See rejection for 22 above.
As to claims 26 and 29, they recite the same scope of claim 23. See rejection for 23 above.
As to claim 27 and 30, they recite the same scope of claim 24. See rejection for 24 above.
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.
Claims 1 – 2, 6 – 9, 13 – 16, and 20 – 30 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.
As to claim 1,
line 12, limitation “using, by the first application, the first modified data object” is not clear and “using” is not an operation. How the first application uses the first modified data object”. Therefore, the limitation is indefinite.
Last line, limitation “using, by the second application, the second modified data object” is not clear and “using” is not an operation. How the first application uses the first modified data object”. Therefore, the limitation is indefinite.
As to claims 2, 6 – 7, and 22 – 24, they are rejected as their independent claim.
As to claim 8, this is system claim of claim 1. See rejection for claim 1 above.
As to claims 9, 13 – 14 and 25 – 27, they are rejected as their independent claim.
As to claim 15, this is medium claim of claim 1. See rejection for claim 1 above.
As to claims 16, 20 – 21 and 29 – 30, they are rejected as their independent claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 2, 6 – 9, 13 – 16, and 20 – 30 are if they are written to overcome the rejection under 112(b) and 101 as rejected above.
Response to Arguments
The Rejection of Claims Under 101
Applicant's arguments, regarding to rejection under 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued
“Since the first application uses an embedded configuration model and the first data object uses a referential configuration model, the first application and the first data object are incompatible. Nonetheless, by performing the operation of "creating a first modified data object," a compatible data object that can be used by the first application is created. This result is not an abstract idea in itself, nor is it insignificant extra-solution activity. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of the § 101 rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15, as well as claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 16, and 20-30 that depend from them, is respectfully requested” (pages 7 - 8 of remark).
In response,
As rejected above, limitations “creating a first modified data object that uses the embedded configuration model, the first modified data object comprising the first object data and at least a portion of the configuration data, the first modified data object including the identified portions of the configuration data and excluding unidentified portions of the configuration data; using, by the first application, the first modified data object” and “creating a second modified data object that uses the embedded configuration model, the second modified data object comprising the second object data and an identifier for a portion of the second configuration data that is accessible from the database, the second modified data object excluding at least a portion of the second configuration data; using, by the second application, the second modified data object” are all functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. The processors and memory are just computing tools to implement abstract idea.
The Rejection of Claims Under § 112
Applicant's arguments, regarding to rejection under 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued
“The Rejection of Claims Under ? 112 Claims 1, 2, 6-9, 13-16, and 20-30 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as allegedly being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The Office Action asserts that "using, by the first application, the first modified data object" and "using, by the second application, the second modified data object" are indefinite. The apparent basis for the rejection is that the term "using" is broad, and the claim does not explicitly recite how the objects are used or for what purpose the objects are used.…” (page of remark).
In response,
Limitations “using, by the first application, the first modified data object” and “using, by the second application, the second modified data object” are just a plan and do not actually perform anything yet. How the first and second applications use the first and second modified data object? They are not actual steps required in method claims. Also, the system and the non-transitory computer-readable medium claims recite “…to perform operations comprising”. Limitations “using, by the first application, the first modified data object” and “using, by the second application, the second modified data object” are not operations. That is why rejection under 112(b) are rejected that both the limitations are incomplete and indefinite.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon request is considered to be pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
A, (S PUB 2021/0266220), describes a server supports server client data models from heterogeneous data sources and transform configuration data from the first to second models and vice versa (title, abstract and figures 1 – 6).
Kajino, (US PUB 2018/0197082), discloses a method for bidirectional learning of predictive models based on data sequence, wherein parameters from first model are converted into parameters in second model (title, abstract and figures 1 – 12).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG N HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3763. The examiner can normally be reached 9:5-30.
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, KEVIN YOUNG can be reached on 571-270-3180. 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.
/PHUONG N HOANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 2194
/KEVIN L YOUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194