Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (claims 1-20) and directed to a signal per se (claims 15-20). The claim(s) recite(s) a method (claims 1-7), a computer system (claims 8-14), and a computer readable storage medium (claims 15-20) under Step 1.
Under step 1, claims 15-20 are directing to a computer readable storage medium however, the specification does not closely define the computer readable storage medium to be specifically the non-transitory medium. Under the BRI, the computer readable storage medium can be interpreted to read on both type of medium including the transitory and/or non-transitory medium wherein the transitory medium including signal per se is not eligible for patentability.
Under Prong I Step 2A, claims 1, 8, and 15 are directing to an abstract idea under the mental processes bucket wherein the limitations “generating a machine-readable specification…for the undeveloped device application” and “generating a hardware configuration for the developer…of the machine-readable specification” are considered as limitations that can be mentally done in human mind with pen and paper given the feature/design of applications as part of evaluation and judgement processes.
Under Prong II Step 2A, other limitations in these claims including “providing a developer…” and “receiving a selection…” (claims 1, 8, and 15); “a processor coupled to a memory…” (claim 8), and “medium having data stored…” (claim 15) are considered as additional elements. However, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception wherein these additional elements including processor, storage, and/or memory are merely the well-known generic computer component and the limitations of providing and receiving are merely considered as pre-activity solution for data gathering/collecting. Thus, these additional elements either individually or in combination as whole would not sufficiently and significantly amount more than the judicial exception and does not integrate into practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception wherein these additional elements including processor, storage, and/or memory are merely the well-known generic computer component as seen in MPEP 2106.05(d) and the limitations of providing and receiving are merely considered as pre-activity solution for data gathering/collecting as seen in MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, these additional elements either individually or in combination as whole would not sufficiently and significantly amount more than the judicial exception and does not integrate into practical application.
Re claim 2, “generating the hardware configuration comprises minimizing a resource cost of the hardware configuration for the developer.” recites further mental process and there is no additional element that would integrate into the practical application. Accordingly, the additional element recited in claim 2 fails to provide a practical application under prong 2, or amount to significantly more under step 2B.
Re claim 3, “applying the hardware configuration to one or more hardware providers” recites additional element as merely the use of a computer/instructions running on the computer to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B and “determining a resource cost for the hardware configuration on each of the one or more providers.” recites further mental process.
Re claim 4, “opening an account for the developer with at least one of the one or more providers.” recites an additional element as merely the use of a computer/instructions running on the computer to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B.
Re claim 5, “generating the hardware configuration comprises using a machine learned algorithm that is trained on historical data of core features and corresponding hardware configurations.” recites an additional element as merely the use of a computer/instructions running on the computer to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B.
Re claim 6, “generating the hardware configuration further comprises mapping one or more features of the selection of features to one or more closest core features.” recites further mental process and there is no additional element that would integrate into the practical application.
Re claim 7, “receiving, from the developer, a selection of concurrent users for the undeveloped device application” is merely the use of a computer/instructions running on the computer to carry out the judicial exception, which is neither a practical application under prong 2, nor an inventive concept under step 2B; and “wherein generating the hardware configuration is based on the selection of concurrent users.” recites further mental process.
Re claim 9, it is a computer system claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 2. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Re claim 10, it is a computer system claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 3. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Re claim 11, it is a computer system claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 4. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Re claim 12, it is a computer system claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 5. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Re claim 13, it is a computer system claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 6. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Re claim 14, it is a computer system claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 7. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Re claim 16, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 2. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Re claim 17, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 3. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Re claim 18, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 4. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Re claim 19, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 5. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Re claim 20, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 6. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-11, and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Robin et al. (U.S. 2005/0114829).
Re claim 1, Robin et al. disclose in Figures 1-42 a method for configuring a hardware needed for a developer to run an undeveloped device application (e.g. abstract, Figures 14-15 and paragraphs [0008-0009] discloses a process of designing software/application with hardware support), the method comprising: providing a developer with a multitude of features, the features selectable, by the developer, for the undeveloped device application (e.g. paragraphs [0183-0184, 0191, 0256, and 0279-0281] wherein multiple features are available for the developed team to plan the software/application); receiving a selection of features from the multitude of features (e.g. paragraphs [0300-0309] wherein features are selectable or adjustable to accommodate for the project/application); generating a machine-readable specification, capable of implementing the selection of features, for the undeveloped device application (e.g. paragraphs [0203, 0424-0425, and 0427-0434] wherein all the features are documented and architected to implement the design of software/application); and generating a hardware configuration for the developer, the hardware configuration capable of performing the selection of features of the machine-readable specification (e.g. paragraphs [0083, 0351, 0454, 0467-0470] wherein specific hardware requirement/configuration is determined for the project/application).
Re claim 2, Robin et al. disclose in Figures 1-42 generating the hardware configuration comprises minimizing a resource cost of the hardware configuration for the developer (e.g. paragraphs [0353, 0424, 0789, 1222, and 1834-1842] associated with resource cost of the project).
Re claim 3, Robin et al. disclose in Figures 1-42 applying the hardware configuration to one or more hardware providers (e.g. paragraphs [0079 and 0083-0084]); and determining a resource cost for the hardware configuration on each of the one or more providers (e.g. paragraphs [0353, 0424, 0789, 1222, and 1834-1842] associated with resource cost of the project).
Re claim 4, Robin et al. disclose in Figures 1-42 opening an account for the developer with at least one of the one or more providers (e.g. paragraphs [0692, 0983, 1761]).
Re claim 7, Robin et al. disclose in Figures 1-42 receiving, from the developer, a selection of concurrent users for the undeveloped device application (e.g. paragraphs [0300-0309] wherein features are selectable or adjustable to accommodate for the project/application); and wherein generating the hardware configuration is based on the selection of concurrent users (e.g. paragraphs [0083, 0351, 0454, 0467-0470] wherein specific hardware requirement/configuration is determined for the project/application).
Re claim 8, it is a computer system claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 1. Thus, claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 9, it is a computer system claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 2. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Re claim 10, it is a computer system claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 3. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Re claim 11, it is a computer system claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 4. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Re claim 14, it is a computer system claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 7. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Re claim 15, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 1. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 16, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 2. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Re claim 17, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 3. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Re claim 18, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 4. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
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) 5-6, 12-13 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robin et al. (U.S. 2005/0114829) in view of Idicula et al. (U.S. 11,061,902).
Re claim 5, Robin et al. fail to disclose in Figures 1-42 generating the hardware configuration comprises using a machine learned algorithm that is trained on historical data of core features and corresponding hardware configurations. Idicula et al. disclose generating the hardware configuration comprises using a machine learned algorithm that is trained on historical data of core features and corresponding hardware configurations (e.g. col. 4 lines 16-31 and col. 9 lines 20-31 which disclose the concept of using ML to model the optimal configuration reflecting the changes). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add generating the hardware configuration comprises using a machine learned algorithm that is trained on historical data of core features and corresponding hardware configurations as conceptually seen in Idicula et al.’s invention into Robin et al.’s invention because it would enable to improve the system performance by reducing the search space of the optimal configurations (e.g. col. 9 lines 32-45).
Re claim 6, Robin et al. disclose in Figures 1-42 generating the hardware configuration further comprises mapping one or more features of the selection of features to one or more closest core features (e.g. paragraphs [0877-0878, 1497, and 1515]).
Re claim 12, it is a computer system claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 5. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Re claim 13, it is a computer system claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 6. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Re claim 19, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 5. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Re claim 20, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 6. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0136564
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0081819
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0012181
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0282400
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0088986
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0114829
U.S. Patent No. 8,954,931
U.S. Patent No. 11,061,902
U.S. Patent No. 12,112,287
U.S. Patent No. 10,217,053
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chat C Do whose telephone number is (571)272-3721. The examiner can normally be reached {M - Th} 4:30am - 2:30pm.
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, Dede Zecher can be reached at 571-272-0800. 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.
/Chat C Do/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193