CTNF 18/190,413 CTNF 93849 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1-20 remain pending and are ready for examination. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 23, 2018, was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Step 1: Independent claim 1 recites a method, independent claim 8 recites a system, independent claim 16 recites a computer program product. Therefore, step 1 is satisfied for claims 1-20. Step 2A Prong One: The claim(s) recite(s) mental process steps of: defining a plurality of field types and field characteristics for syntax information; (this step recite abstract mental processes that can be performed by the human mind or practicably with pen and paper. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). The concept of defining a plurality of field types and field is a mental process (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) that is applied and performed in a computing environment—i.e., an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I]); see also Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354 (“[A]nalyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.”’). ). transforming the syntax formats of the set of text files based on the plurality of field types and field characteristics to create a syntax tree structure with a syntax convention extension for each text file; (this step recite abstract mental processes that can be performed by the human mind or practicably with pen and paper. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). The concept of transforming the syntax formats is a mental process (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) that is applied and performed in a computing environment—i.e., an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I]); see also Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354 (“[A]nalyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.”’). ). mapping the content of each of the text files to the syntax tree structure to generate a syntax field-value content tree structure for each text file; (this step recite abstract mental processes that can be performed by the human mind or practicably with pen and paper. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). The concept of mapping the content of each of the text is a mental process (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) that is applied and performed in a computing environment—i.e., an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I]); see also Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354 (“[A]nalyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.”’). ). validating the syntax convention extension for each of the text files based on the syntax field-value content tree structure. (this step recite abstract mental processes that can be performed by the human mind or practicably with pen and paper. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II). The concept of validating the syntax convention extension is a mental process (e.g., observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions) that is applied and performed in a computing environment—i.e., an abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I]); see also Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354 (“[A]nalyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.”’). ). Step 2A Prong Two: The claim/s recites the combination of the additional elements, the additional elements in the claim are: receiving a set of text files, each text file having a syntax format and content; (claim 1, 11 and 16) a processor; (claim 11) a memory, (claim 11) a computer-readable storage medium having computer-readable program code embodied therewith, the computer-readable program code executable by one or more computer processors (claim 16) The above bold elements are directed to mere insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and 2106.05(g). The act of transmitting data based on the abstract idea fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it does not differ from those actions that have previously been held to be extra-solution activity, such as “presenting offers to potential customers and gathering statistics generated based on the testing about how potential customers responded to the offers; the statistics are then used to calculate an optimized price”, “selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display”, and “requiring a request from a user to view an advertisement and restricting public access.” The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining additional elements amount to nothing more than generic components recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and 2106.05(f). Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above , the additional elements amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component(s) and insignificant extra-solution activity. These cannot provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are patent-ineligible. Claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-20 directed to the same abstract idea without significantly more. The claims either recite an additional insignificant extra-solution activity OR recite an additional mental process to evaluate and judge using pen and paper. There are no additional elements recited in these claims that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are rejected under the same abstract idea as claim 1, 11 or 16. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Michael et al., U.S. Pub No: US 9026903 B1 (Hereinafter “Michael”) . Michael teaches: 1. A method comprising: receiving a set of text files, each text file having a syntax format and content (see col.4 line 4-10 and col. 12 line 30-32, wherein template files (text files) is accessed and parsed) ; defining a plurality of field types and field characteristics for syntax information (see col.4 line 17-24, wherein defining typed data structures in a .proto file, defining a record of information in series of name-value pairs fields with specific data-type (e.g. an integer, a string)) ; transforming the syntax formats of the set of text files based on the plurality of field types and field characteristics to create a syntax tree structure (see col.7 line 58-61 and col. 12 line 43-46, wherein the system generates Abstract Syntax Trees (ASTs) from templates, building nodes from the tags, expressions, instructions, and custom attributes) with a syntax convention extension for each text file (see col.7 line 45-51 and col. 12 line 50-54, when code generator encounters a custom attribute, it attaches an AST tag to the node. This AST tag contains processing instructions/directives for interpreter) ; mapping the content of each of the text files to the syntax tree structure to generate a syntax field-value content tree structure for each text file (see col.7 line 14-17 and col. 13 line 16-19, the template module binds the input parameters included in the template to the definition of the typed data structures that hold actual input data. A fill () method maps the protocol buffer message data into the template objects) ; and validating the syntax convention extension for each of the text files based on the syntax field-value content tree structure (see col. 5 line 54-58, col. 6 line 65-67 and col. 7 line 1-3, wherein the parser verifies that data-types of the input parameter are consistent with the data types of the input data. This binding eliminates data type mismatches during runtime and guarantees the production of a valid HTML document) . 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the received text files comprise at least one of text parameter files, text command files or text security command files (see col.4 line 4-10 and col. 12 line 30-32, template 201 typically includes formatted code, such as HTML markup code, processing instructions, expressions and custom attributes) . 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the text file content comprises an actual parameter value of the syntax format of a given text file (see col. 5 line 34-39, wherein during execution, custom attributes like jscontent indicate to the interpreter to substitute the element’s content with an actual value of the input data specified in the message) . 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the field characteristics comprise defined character sequences to define selected field characteristics (see col. 6 line 14-25, wherein defining specific sequences using a jsselect custom attribute. This attribute iterates over an array and keeps track of an order/counter I to manage the number of iterations and field ordering) . 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the field characteristics comprise character sequences used to define at least one of an order of fields, an ordered field input, an out of order field input, or a column number limitation (see col. 6 line 14-25, wherein defining specific sequences using a jsselect custom attribute. This attribute iterates over an array and keeps track of an order/counter I to manage the number of iterations and field ordering) . 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the field types are defined for modeling syntax format and actual content of text files (see col.3 line 64-67 and col. 4 line 14-20) . 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the field types define at least one of a keyword, an association between fields, a field role of each field type, a syntax recognition method, or a content matching method see col.4 line 20-24 and col. 5 line 34-39, wherein custom attribute act as keyword) . 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the syntax convention extension comprises definition blocks to define comments, semantics, synonyms, library elements of text files of comments, semantics, synonyms, and library elements of text files (see col. 6 line 50-58 and col. 8 line 55-61) . 9. The method of claim 1, further comprising providing automated support for multiple applications based on the syntax tree structure with the syntax convention extension for each text file (see col. 11 line 20-24 and col 12 line 16-22) . 10. The method of claim 1, further comprising enabling programmatic querying and override functions based on the syntax field-value content tree structure (see col. 5 line 52-61 and col. 6 line 14-18) . Claims 11-15 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1, 3, 5-6 and 9. Claims 16-20 are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1, 3, 5-6 and 10. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHER N ALGIBHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-0718. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday. 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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on (571) 270-1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1264. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MAHER N ALGIBHAH/Primary Examiner , Art Unit 2165 Application/Control Number: 18/190,413 Page 2 Art Unit: 2165 Application/Control Number: 18/190,413 Page 3 Art Unit: 2165 Application/Control Number: 18/190,413 Page 4 Art Unit: 2165 Application/Control Number: 18/190,413 Page 5 Art Unit: 2165 Application/Control Number: 18/190,413 Page 6 Art Unit: 2165 Application/Control Number: 18/190,413 Page 7 Art Unit: 2165 Application/Control Number: 18/190,413 Page 8 Art Unit: 2165 Application/Control Number: 18/190,413 Page 9 Art Unit: 2165 Application/Control Number: 18/190,413 Page 10 Art Unit: 2165 Application/Control Number: 18/190,413 Page 11 Art Unit: 2165
Prosecution Insights