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
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/15/26 has been entered.
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.
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 1-4, 7-8 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, 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. 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, 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 2, 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 7 the limitations of determining 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, 2, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Games (Pub. No. US 2020/0301686) in view of Tremblay (Pub. No. US 2008/0127168) in view of Micallef (Pub. No. US 2021/0286602).
Claim 1, Games 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 ([Fig. 8] App deployment system receiving process [Fig. 5] plurality of devices in cooperation) …, the receiving process providing a user with a unique representation method as a selectable function, the unique representation method indicating that processing contents are targeted for one or more devices of a same type among the plurality of devices ([0046] The consumption engine 201 exemplarily consumes an application specification associated with one or more devices or application in a network environment. In a general sense, an application specification may be a task/program/algorithm here that may result in an application or an instance of a device. The application specification may be comprised of security layers, relevant libraries, communication channels, and other information that may be crafted or instantiated as part of the compilation process. In one embodiment of the invention, the application specification may be source code, script based, GUI based, etc. [0047] The splitting engine 202 exemplarily analyzes the network to identify independent components in the network. In one exemplary embodiment, the component splitting engine 202 identifies independent components by identifying message-passing boundaries and data dependencies between code paths. In one exemplary embodiment, an independent component is identified as such if it does not share a data dependency with another component. [0048] The target assignment engine 204 exemplarily maps independent components to independent target hardware nodes. A variety of different methodologies may be used to map independent components to independent target hardware nodes. For example, the independent components may be mapped to hardware nodes based on an explicit configuration in the deployed network. For example, a user may define a set of configuration information that details the available network resources upon which the application is to be deployed. This may include a given fixed networked compute node, a networked system of homogeneous compute nodes, or a heterogeneous fixed network of compute nodes. In another example, the independent components may be mapped based on dependency on a specific target peripheral, such as dependence on specific compute or network resources, i.e., network bandwidth, certain hardware acceleration, etc. …. [0068] FIG. 6 illustrates an exemplary example of resolving proxy classes and objects for the identified components. Exemplarily, the resulting code 610 can be identified and generated from the various libraries including a generic library 620, an architecture-optimized library 630, and a part-specific library 640 to result in the most target architecture and peripheral specific implementation possible. In this example, the libraries arranged from a least specific and generic version of code in the generic library 620 to the more specific, the architecture-optimized library 630, and to the most specific, the part-specific library 640. In the example presented within FIG. 6, the code for proxy class Y can be found in all three libraries, and accordingly, the most specific code from the part-specific library is chosen. On the other hand, the code for proxy class X is only available in two of the three libraries, and in this instance the more specific code from the architecture-optimized library 630 is chosen (i.e. selectable function).); and a generation process for generating a source code from the processing contents received in the receiving process, the generation process complementing the processing contents … and a hierarchical structure indicating an upper-lower level relationship among the plurality of devices in the … system ([Fig. 4] downstream dependency of devices [0049] The target specialization engine 206 exemplarily leverages the generic library 208, the architecture-optimized library 210, and/or a part-specific library 212 to generate code that is specialized for each target hardware node and/or independent component. Generally, the three libraries mentioned above, the generic library 208, the architecture-optimized library 210, and part-specific library 212, include one or more implementations that may be deployed at specific components in the network and at specific target hardware nodes. For example, the generic library 208 includes implementation code that is less specific. The part-specific library, on the other hand, includes code that is more specific. The target specialization engine 206 exemplarily selects one or more appropriate libraries for each target hardware node and selects an implementation code that is appropriate for a deployment. As such, the target specialization engine 206 exemplarily resolves proxy classes and objects against the most target-architecture and peripheral-specific implementation that may be available to it. [0077] The application deployment system 810 can then update the downstream components (i.e. hierarchal structure), such as edge device 870, gateway 880, and server 890 with updated code, division of work, and the addition or removal of components to the heterogenous system. [Fig. 6] addition of code)”.
However, Games may not explicitly teach further details about the code generation.
Tremblay teaches “complementing the processing contents based on data of a maximum number of the one or more devices of the same type ([0038] The product key may map (i.e. configuration of games) to a product definition that may indicate the maximum number and types of servers that may be utilized and the services that may be installed under licensing agreements associated with the product.)”.
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 Tremblay with the teachings of Games in order to provide a system that teaches details of using a maximum number. The motivation for applying Tremblay teaching with Games teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Games, Tremblay are analogous art directed towards software configuration. Together Games, Tremblay 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 Tremblay with the teachings of Games by known methods and gained expected results.
However, the combination may not explicitly teach further details about environments.
Micallef teaches as evidence sensors and actuators of Games may be implemented in HVAC systems “air conditioning system ([0002] The devices interact with their environment in numerous ways, many of which use sensors to measure physical properties of the environment, such as temperature, relative humidity, air pressure, light level, sound level, etc. or otherwise exert an action on their environment using an actuator such as turning a motor, sounding a buzzer or blinking a light. These devices are being used in a wide variety of applications such as workplace occupancy management, HVAC management, supply chain management, manufacturing, logistics, home security etc.)”.
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 Micallef with the teachings of Games, Tremblay in order to provide a system that teaches details of different environments. The motivation for applying Micallef teaching with Games, Tremblay teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Games, Tremblay, Micallef are analogous art directed towards software configuration. Together Games, Tremblay, Micallef 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 Micallef with the teachings of Games, Tremblay by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 2, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Games 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 for a predetermined process as a selectable function, the unique representation method indicating that the predetermined process is executed for the one or more devices of the same type [0048] The target assignment engine 204 exemplarily maps independent components to independent target hardware nodes. A variety of different methodologies may be used to map independent components to independent target hardware nodes. For example, the independent components may be mapped to hardware nodes based on an explicit configuration in the deployed network. For example, a user may define a set of configuration information that details the available network resources upon which the application is to be deployed. This may include a given fixed networked compute node, a networked system of homogeneous compute nodes, or a heterogeneous fixed network of compute nodes. In another example, the independent components may be mapped based on dependency on a specific target peripheral, such as dependence on specific compute or network resources, i.e., network bandwidth, certain hardware acceleration, etc. In another exemplary embodiment, the independent components may be mapped by performing various cost analysis functions. For example, the component target assignment engine 204 may identify available networked computer resources and partition the application according to a given cost criteria, such as compute performance, power consumption, bandwidth requirements, etc. Networks upon which a given target application is deployed may be fixed in terms of network architecture (i.e. same type as further describer below), may be fluid in terms of self-organizing networks, or may be varied in terms of networked swarm intelligence such as rapidly evolving systems of drone like devices.)”.
Claim/s 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Games, Tremblay, Micallef in view of Manghirmalani (Pat. No. US 5,819,028).
Claim 3, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Ganes teaches providing different variables as selectable inputs for the user [0062] In one embodiment, the heterogeneous system 400 can represent a temperature monitoring system which exemplarily measures a temperature of an environment over time and provides a graph of that temperature versus time. In this example, the heterogeneous system 400 can include a timer 410 which triggers a temperature sensor that provides a read temperature value 420. The read temperature value 420 can be used to exemplarily create a rolling average value 425 which can then be stored as a stored value 430. In this embodiment, the stored value 430 can be analyzed to exemplarily provide a graph in the Showgraph function 430. Exemplarily, the Showgraph function 430 output is served or transmitted to a user client device.).
However, the combination may not explicitly teach statistics relating to the different parameters.
Manghirmalani 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 for a device variable, included in processing contents of a predetermined process, as a selectable function, the unique representation method indicating that a statistic is calculated for variables of any or all of the one or more devices of the same type ([Co. 12, Lines 1-15] (66) FIG. 11 illustrates a window 1100 which contains two scroll boxes 1101 an 1102. The device type scroll box 1101 contains a list of network devices. The meter type scroll box 1102 displays the meter types which have been defined for the selected device type. The user can select a particular device and meter type. The selected device 1103 and meter 1104 type will be highlighted. A file menu 1105 maintains a configuration file for each specific meter type. The configuration file contains information about the meter formula, MIB objects that are used in the formula, and settings for determining when the dial meter enters the green, yellow, or red areas. A print command allows the configuration file for the selected device and meter type to be printed. The edit menu 1106 allows the user to modify the current configuration of the selected meter type.)”.
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 Manghirmalani with the teachings of Games, Tremblay, Micallef in order to provide a system that teaches statistics for parameters. The motivation for applying Manghirmalani teaching with Games, Tremblay, Micallef teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Games, Tremblay, Micallef, Manghirmalani are analogous art directed towards software configuration. Together Games, Tremblay, Micallef, Manghirmalani 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 Manghirmalani with the teachings of Games, Tremblay, Micallef by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim/s 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Games, Tremblay, Micallef in view of Wholey (Pub. No. US 2007/0011668).
Claim 4, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Games 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 for a conditional statement, included in processing contents of a predetermined process, as a selectable function, the unique representation method indicating that the conditional statement is determined for any or all of the one or more processes of the same type ([0038] The application deployment system 108 interfaces with the entire network to generate code that can be deployed at the sensor devices 102, gateway devices 104, and the servers 106. More specifically, the application deployment system 108 analyzes the network environment, splits it among one or more configured targets including a sensor level target, a gateway level target, and a server level target. In addition, the application deployment system 108 generates serialization code that is synthesized for each intra-node message-passing boundary. For example, in one embodiment of the invention, the application deployment system 108 generates intermediate code that is built by native compilers and transactionally deployed to physical nodes. As such, the application deployment system 108 enables deployment at build time, which is a significant breakthrough over the traditional systems for deploying devices or applications in a network of heterogenous devices. The specific components of the application deployment system 108 are described in greater detail below in reference to FIG. 2.)”.
The combination may not explicitly teach a parameter provided to the user is a conditional statement.
Wholey teaches as evidence a parameter may be a conditional parameter ([0119] Because runtime parameter values can are determined at runtime, and PL scripts can provide conditional testing, conditional" runtime parameters can be created. A conditional runtime parameter causes a prompt to be generated for user input only if all of the conditions for the parameter--determined at runtime--are enabling. Thus, for example, if a user responds to a first prompt requesting whether a data set is to be sorted with "NO", a second, conditional prompt that requests a sort key need not be displayed)”.
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 Wholey with the teachings of Games, Tremblay, Micallef in order to provide a system that teaches conditional parameters. The motivation for applying Wholey teaching with Games, Tremblay, Micallef teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Games, Tremblay, Micallef, Wholey are analogous art directed towards software configuration. Together Games, Tremblay, Micallef, Wholey 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 Wholey with the teachings of Games, Tremblay, Micallef by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim/s 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Games, Tremblay, Micallef in view of Bateman (Pub. No. US 2006/0236302).
Claim 7, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitations of the claim.
Bateman teaches “the specification description program non-transitory recording medium according to claim 1, further causing the computer to execute a determination process for determining consistency of the processing contents based on the unique representation method, the unique representation method being selected by the user ([0067] The model validation 620 of the service layer 614 provides facilities for the UI layer 606 such as validating the design time data model 608. The Model Validator 620 is used to check that the Design Time Data Model 608 representation of application 105 messages is in line with the backend data source 106 presentation of messaging operations. The Model Validator 620 can be responsible to validate the model 608 representation of the application 105 to be generated, for example such as but not limited to elements of: workflow sanity of the workflow component 406; consistency of parameters and field level mappings of the components 400, 402, 404, 406; screen control mappings and screen refresh messages of the screen components 402; message and/or data duplications inter and intra component 400,402,404,406. Another function of the validation 620 can be to validate the model's 608 representation of backend data source 106 messaging relationships.)”.
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 Bateman with the teachings of Games, Tremblay, Micallef in order to provide a system that teaches validation. The motivation for applying Bateman teaching with Games, Tremblay, Micallef teaching is to provide a system that allows for ensuring consistency. Games, Tremblay, Micallef, Bateman are analogous art directed towards software configuration. Together Games, Tremblay, Micallef, Bateman 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 Bateman with the teachings of Games, Tremblay, Micallef by known methods and gained expected results.
Conclusion
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