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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
Applicant states: When this generated error-free source code is ultimately executed as the control program to coordinate the plurality of physical devices, it ensures a highly critical technical effect: enabling the physical air conditioning system to operate properly without malfunctioning due to description errors. Because the claimed invention provides a concrete technological solution to the complexity of system design work and directly enables the proper operation of physical hardware, it is integrated into a practical application and is not directed to an abstract idea. For at least the reasons discussed above, the applicant respectfully submits that the rejection over independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §101 should be withdrawn. Independent claim 8 is amended to recite features that parallel those of amended claim 1. The dependent claims also should overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 at least because of their dependency of the independent claim.
Examiner states: Examiner respectfully disagrees. The added limitation appears to determine if an error is present based upon consistency of a description. The added limitation does not appear to add significantly more than the abstract idea of selecting a function and applying complements to content. No further details are provided as to how selecting and complementing processing content improves the functioning of a computer or how errors of a computer program can be determined. For these reasons, Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
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, 3, 4, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claims the limitations generating a source code, defining processing content, apply processing content, determining inconsistency, as drafted, recites functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as cited above as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process.
Thus, these limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional limitations: storage medium, computer, devices, air conditioning system, user interface, interface element. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f), and steps of receiving and providing a method do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering and/or retrieving data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (Ex. v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of storage medium, computer, air conditioning system, user interface, interface element, amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Furthermore, the limitations directed to receiving and providing, the courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) (Ex. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;).
The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 3, 4 the limitations of receiving and providing process nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. Under step 2B, the courts of identified the generic function of gathering/storing data, the results of the judicial exception, is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Regarding claim 9, the limitations of calculating and generating code based upon the calculation are functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claims. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more.
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, 3, 4, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (Pub. No. US 2017/0093593) in view of Parikh (Pub. No. US 2005/0086635).
Claim 1, 8 Yang teaches “a non-transitory recording medium having stored therein a specification description program for causing a computer to execute: a receiving process for receiving processing contents of a plurality of processes to be executed in a plurality of devices that operate in cooperation with each other in an air conditioning system ([0040] For example and in one embodiment, a recipe may include one or more resource requirements (e.g., input, output, etc.) and one or more elements of business logic (e.g., functions, if/then, etc.) for achieving resource orchestration to facilitate automation and/or control household various electronic items or systems, such as lighting, sockets, air-conditioning), the receiving process providing a user with a unique representation method via a user interface as a selectable function ([Fig. 3] selecting a recipe [0054] In the illustrated embodiment, computing device 100 employing services mechanism 110 may be in communication with computing device 270A and IoT devices 281A, 281B over communication medium 260. For example and in one embodiment, as described with reference to FIG. 2A, recipes 295 may be obtained from one or more databases, computing devices, etc., over communication medium 260, such as a Cloud network, 3G/4G networks, etc., and further, as facilitated by services mechanism 110, one or more recipes 295 may be modified (e.g., modifying a resource requirement and/or business logic of a recipe), deployed, and shared between computing devices 100 and 270A to be used for managing and controlling one or more IoT device 281A and 281B at locations 280A and 280B, respective.), the unique representation method being an interface element that enables the user to define, in a description, a common processing content for devices of a same type among the plurality of devices ([0054] In the illustrated embodiment, computing device 100 employing services mechanism 110 may be in communication with computing device 270A and IoT devices 281A, 281B (i.e. IoT devices interpreted as “same type”) over communication medium 260.), a device variable included in the common processing content, and a conditional statement included in the common processing content ([0041] In one embodiment, in case of an IoT-based smart lighting system control for a house, a recipe may include one or more of the following resource requirements: 1) input =light sensor, threshold (lamination limit of 1000); 2) output: power strip; and 3) function=less than; similarly, one or more elements of business logic may include: 1) if a light sensor is less than 1000 (threshold), then set the power strip ON; and 2) if a light sensor is NOT less than 1000 (threshold), then set the power strip OFF.); and a generation process for generating a source code from the processing contents received in the receiving process, wherein in the generation process, the computer complements the common processing content to apply to the devices of the same type by referring to a hierarchical data structure representing a physical hardware configuration of the air conditioning system, the hierarchical data structure indicating an upper-lower level relationship linking an upper-level unit to lower levels at which the devices of the same type are situated ([Fig. 3, 363, 351] components of IoT devices situated in a dependency relationship interpreted as upper-lower level relationship [0046] In one embodiment, binding module 227 then sets the relevant resources into an order list and confirms whether all relevant resources have been found. If not all relevant resource have been found, binding module 227 may communicate back with discovery module 225 to continue searching for the unfound/undiscovered relevant resources. If, however, all relevant resources have been found, the discovered relevant recourses are applied to the business logic of the selected/preferred recipe in accordance with the one or more resource requirements, where recipe (including business logic and the one or more resource requirements) is deployed to be used for controlling and managing IoT devices 281A as facilitated by deployment/execution logic 207. In one embodiment, once deployment and execution of the recipe is performed by deployment/execution logic 207, the relevant IoT services may be performed using any number and type of resources. It is further contemplated that any number and type of IoT services and resources-related components and tasks may be accessed and performed, respectively, using user interface 209 at computing device, user interface 273 at computing device 270A, etc.)”.
However, Yang may be silent regarding error checking.
Parikh teaches “prior to the generation process, the computer determines consistency in the description by referring to the hierarchical data structure, outputs an error message on the user interface in response to determining that the description is inconsistent, and proceeds to the generation process after the description is corrected based on the error message ([0068] The visual programming system of the present invention also provides various consistency and error checks during different stages of the visual programming process. When a component is added to design area 150, the component is displayed in a first color if the properties associated with the component need to be set for it to be valid. Once the properties are validly set, the component color changes from the first color to a second color. Checks are also performed while adding, deleting or changing the properties of a component. If an error is detected in a component property, the component is highlighted (e.g., by use of an alternative color). Moreover, a user is prevented from entering improper data in component property fields. [0122] The foregoing source code is compiled to produce a DLL called "SOGoalCalc DLL." At Runtime, the SOGoalCalc DLL links with another DLL, "SOMathFunction," which is part of the Sequential Optimizer application software. SOMathFunction DLL contains Sequential Optimization math functions associated with each function configurable through the visual programming system (e.g., the Bound Function). FIG. 27 illustrates how the function call from the "SOGoalCalc" DLL is passed to the "SOMathFunction" DLL at runtime.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Parikh with the teachings of Yang in order to provide a system that teaches checking for consistency issues. The motivation for applying Parikh teaching with Yang teaching is to provide a system that allows for improved deployment. Yang, Parikh are analogous art directed towards visual programming. Together Yang, Parikh teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Parikh with the teachings of Yang by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 3, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Yang teaches “the non-transitory recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the receiving process provides the user with the unique representation method indicating that a statistic of the device variable is calculated for any or all of the one or more devices of the same type ([0041] In one embodiment, in case of an IoT-based smart lighting system control for a house, a recipe may include one or more of the following resource requirements: 1) input =light sensor, threshold (lamination limit of 1000); 2) output: power strip; and 3) function=less than; similarly, one or more elements of business logic may include: 1) if a light sensor is less than 1000 (threshold), then set the power strip ON; and 2) if a light sensor is NOT less than 1000 (threshold), then set the power strip OFF.)”.
Claim 4, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Yang teaches, “the specification description program non-transitory recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the receiving process provides the user with a unique representation method indicating that the conditional statement is determined for any or all of the processes of the same type ([0041] In one embodiment, in case of an IoT-based smart lighting system control for a house, a recipe may include one or more of the following resource requirements: 1) input =light sensor, threshold (lamination limit of 1000); 2) output: power strip; and 3) function=less than; similarly, one or more elements of business logic may include: 1) if a light sensor is less than 1000 (threshold), then set the power strip ON; and 2) if a light sensor is NOT less than 1000 (threshold), then set the power strip OFF.)”.
Claim/s 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, Parikh in further view of Ruehl (Pub. No. US 2015/0309780).
Claim 9, the combination may not explicitly teach the number of deployments.
Ruehl teaches “the non-transitory recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the computer complements the common processing content by: calculating a total maximum number of the devices of the same type through accumulating a maximum number for each level of the hierarchical data structure; and generating the source code for the air conditioning system, by repeating the common processing content a number of times equal to the calculated total maximum number ([0119] Here, the further deployment level is a first further deployment level DL1, which is the next deployment level in the sequence of deployment levels DL0, DL1, DL2, DL3 following the initial deployment level. Likewise, the further deployment level can be a second further deployment level DL2 or third further deployment level DL3 in subsequent second steps of the optimization method (see reference numerals 603 and 604). Preferably, the second step is sequentially carried out for each further deployment level DL1, DL2, DL3 of the sequence of deployment levels DL1, DL2, DL3. Preferably, the valid deployment configuration of the application 1 is optimized by minimizing the total number of deployment units U01, U02, U03, U01′, U02′, U03′, U11, U12, U13, U14, U21, U22, U23, U24, U31 associated with all deployment levels of the sequence of deployment levels DL0, DL1, DL2, DL3)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Ruehl with the teachings of Yang, Parikh in order to provide a system that teaches determining a maximum number of deployments. The motivation for applying Ruehl teaching with Yang, Parikh teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Yang, Parikh, Ruehl are analogous art directed towards software deployment. Together Yang, Parikh, Ruehl teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Ruehl with the teachings of Yang, Parikh by known methods and gained expected results.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYNUEL S AQUINO whose telephone number is (571)272-7478. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3759. 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.
/WYNUEL S AQUINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights