Detailed Action
Response to Amendment
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 1,10 and 16 are amended.
Claims 2,4-7,13,17-18 and 20 are originally presented.
Claims 3,8-911-12,14-15 and 19 are previously presented.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
This Action is Non-Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/25/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
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.
8. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 defines an “apparatus ”. However, while the preamble defines an “apparatus”, which would typically be indicative of an “apparatus”, the body of the claim lacks definite structure indicative of a physical apparatus. Furthermore, the specification indicates that the invention may be embodied as pure software,”… computational resource configured to perform a computational device program; …. one circuit configured to execute, based on receiving an identifier, the computational device program;…. the identifier comprises protocol information to pass at least one parameter to for the computational device program.”. On Paragraph 0033 of the specification “the one or more executable computational device functions 106 (e.g., software implemented functions) may be executed, for example, using one or more processing resources 115 of the compute resources 114.” .
Therefore, the claim as a whole appears to be nothing more than a “system” of software elements, thus defining functional descriptive material per se.
Functional descriptive material may be statutory if it resides on a “computer-readable medium or computer-readable memory”. The claim(s) indicated above lack structure, and do not define a computer readable medium and are thus non-statutory for that reason .When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized. The scope of the presently claimed invention encompasses products that are not necessarily computer readable, and thus NOT able to impart any functionality of the recited program. The examiner suggests:
1. Amending the claim(s) to embody the program on “computer-readable medium” or equivalent; assuming the specification does NOT define the computer readable medium as a “signal”, “carrier wave”, or “transmission medium” which are deemed non-statutory; or
2. Adding structure to the body of the claim that would clearly define a statutory apparatus.
Any amendment to the claim should be commensurate with its corresponding disclosure.
Note:
“A transitory, propagating signal … is not a “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” Those four categories define the explicit scope and reach of subject matter patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101; thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.” (In re Nuijten, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).
Should the full scope of the claim as properly read in light of the disclosure encompass non-statutory subject matter such as a “signal”, the claim as a whole would be non-statutory. Should the applicant’s specification define or exemplify the computer readable medium or memory (or whatever language applicant chooses to recite a computer readable medium equivalent) as statutory tangible products such as a hard drive, ROM, RAM, etc, as well as a non-statutory entity such as a “signal”, “carrier wave”, or “transmission medium”, the examiner suggests amending the claim to include the disclosed tangible computer readable storage media, while at the same time excluding the intangible transitory media such as signals, carrier waves, etc.
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.
9. Claim 10 is 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. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered individually and in combination because the additional elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
10. Claim 10 recites, in part, “interacting with an interface for a computational device, wherein the computational device comprises at least one computational resource configured to perform a computational device function” ; “ wherein the interacting is based on an identifier”; and “wherein the identifier comprises protocol information for the computational device function”. These limitations describe the concept of a function identification scheme in accordance with example embodiments of the disclosure may enable interoperability of computational device functions across different device implementations, sources, and/or the like. …, a function identifier may include a functionality identifier that may indicate a functionality (e.g., an algorithm and/or other type of behavior) of a computational device function. The abstract idea described in claim 1 is not meaningfully different than those abstract ideas found by the courts, therefore the claim is considered to be directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional elements of “ interacting…,…”, “… identifier…”. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination ads nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementations and functions.
11. Dependent claims 11-15 are drawn to the method comprising, interacting with an interface for a computational device, wherein the computational device comprises at least one computational resource configured to perform a computational device function. This limitation describe the concept of a function identification scheme in accordance with example embodiments of the disclosure may enable interoperability of computational device functions across different device implementations, sources, and/or the like. …, a function identifier may include a functionality identifier that may indicate a functionality (e.g., an algorithm and/or other type of behavior) of a computational device function. The abstract idea described in claim 1 is not meaningfully different than those abstract ideas found by the courts, therefore the claim is considered to be directed to an abstract idea.
12. Independent Claim 10 is therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
13. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Traasdahl et al.(US Patent Application Pub. No: 20130124309 A1) in view of Olsen et al.(US Patent No: 9,609,077 B1).
As per claim 1,Traasdahl teaches an apparatus [Fig.3,a computing device], comprising:
a device [Fig.3,Pararaph 0045, Devices 355, 360, 375, and 380 may each be computing devices (e.g., computing devices, such as a smartphone, a laptop computer, a tablet computer, etc.).], comprising: at least one computational resource configured to perform a computational device program [Paragraph 0082, The processing device 802 may also be one or more special-purpose processing devices such as an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC), a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), a Digital Signal Processor (DSP), network processor, or the like. The processing device 802 is configured to execute the identifier module 826 for performing the operations and steps discussed herein.]; and
at least one circuit configured to execute [Paragraph 0080,… The machine may be a Personal Computer (PC), a set-top box, a server, a network router, switch or bridge, or any machine capable of executing a set of instructions (sequential or otherwise)], based on receiving an identifier, the computational device program [Claim 13; Paragraphs 0080; 0081,… a processing device, coupled to the memory, the processing device configured to: receive a first identifier and a second identifier from a data source, wherein the first identifier is associated with a first device and wherein the second identifier is associated with a second device;…];
wherein the identifier comprises information that identifies a functionality of the computational device program [Abstract, Paragraphs 0006;0023,…A device identifier may be an identifier (e.g., a cookie ID, a derived identifier based on website header information, such HyperText Transfer Protocol header (HTTP) header information/ fields, and other parameters, a hardware or an operating system identifier (such as an iOS.RTM. Identifier For Advertisers (IDFA) or an Android.RTM.]; and
wherein the identifier comprises protocol information to pass, to for the computational device program [Paragraphs 0004-0006, …HyperText Transfer Protocol header (HTTP) header information/fields, and other parameters, a hardware or an operating system identifier (such as an iOS.RTM. Identifier For Advertisers (IDFA) or an Android.RTM. device ID for a smartphone, etc.), a network device identifier such as an Internet Protocol (IP) address for a laptop, ….].
Traasdahl does not explicitly disclose information to pass at least one parameter to for the computational device.
Olsen discloses information to pass at least one parameter to for the computational device [col.12,ll.35-41,…, after the requesting agent module 520 is determined, the local proxy 522 may use a routing table 528 to determine where the request 521 should sent. Information such as a parameter 523, header information, a URL 507 and/or other information may assist the routing table 528 in forwarding the requests 521 to the correct destinations.].
It would have been obvious one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to include Olsen’s computing device for forward a request into Traasdahl’s receiving identifiers from a data source, where an identifier is associated with a device and another identifier is associated with another device for the benefit of the computing device comprises a processor and a memory that is in electronic communication with the processor, where instructions are stored in the memory and a request is received at a local proxy on the computing device, and thus enables to forward request efficiently and balances network traffic (Olsen, col.14, ll.49-58) to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
As per claim 2,Traasdahl and Olsen teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, where Traasdahl teaches, an apparatus, wherein the protocol information comprises information to pass a parameter [Traasdahl, [Paragraphs 0004-0006, …HyperText Transfer Protocol header (HTTP) header information/fields, and other parameters, a hardware or an operating system identifier (such as an iOS.RTM. Identifier For Advertisers (IDFA) or an Android.RTM. device ID for a smartphone, etc.), a network device identifier such as an Internet Protocol (IP) address for a laptop, ….].
As per claim 3,Traasdahl and Olsen teach all the limitations of claim 2 above, where Traasdahl teaches, an apparatus, wherein the information to pass the parameter comprises information to pass a parameter to the computational device program [Traasdahl, Abstract, Paragraphs 0004-0006;0023,…A device identifier may be an identifier (e.g., a cookie ID, a derived identifier based on website header information, such HyperText Transfer Protocol header (HTTP) header information/ fields, and other parameters, a hardware or an operating system identifier (such as an iOS.RTM. Identifier For Advertisers (IDFA) or an Android.RTM.].
As per claim 4,Traasdahl and Olsen teach all the limitations of claim 2 above, where Oslen teaches, an apparatus, wherein the information to pass the parameter indicates a parameter passing technique [Oslen, col.12,ll.35-41,…, after the requesting agent module 520 is determined, the local proxy 522 may use a routing table 528 to determine where the request 521 should sent. Information such as a parameter 523, header information, a URL 507 and/or other information may assist the routing table 528 in forwarding the requests 521 to the correct destinations.].
As per claim 5,Traasdahl and Olsen teach all the limitations of claim 4 above, where Oslen teaches, an apparatus, wherein the parameter passing technique comprises passing the parameter with a command [Oslen, col.12,ll.35-41,…, after the requesting agent module 520 is determined, the local proxy 522 may use a routing table 528 to determine where the request 521 should sent. Information such as a parameter 523, header information, a URL 507 and/or other information may assist the routing table 528 in forwarding the requests 521 to the correct destinations.].
As per claim 6,Traasdahl and Olsen teach all the limitations of claim 4 above, where Oslen teaches, an apparatus, wherein the parameter passing technique comprises passing the parameter using a reference to the parameter [Oslen, col.12,ll.35-41,…, after the requesting agent module 520 is determined, the local proxy 522 may use a routing table 528 to determine where the request 521 should sent. Information such as a parameter 523, header information, a URL 507 and/or other information may assist the routing table 528 in forwarding the requests 521 to the correct destinations.].
As per claim 7,Traasdahl and Olsen teach all the limitations of claim 4 above, where Traasdahl teaches, an apparatus, wherein the parameter passing technique is a first parameter passing technique, and the information to pass the parameter indicates a second parameter passing technique [Traasdahl, Claim 13; Paragraphs 0080; 0081,… a processing device, coupled to the memory, the processing device configured to: receive a first identifier and a second identifier from a data source, wherein the first identifier is associated with a first device and wherein the second identifier is associated with a second device;…].
As per claim 8,Traasdahl and Olsen teach all the limitations of claim 1 above, where Traasdahl teaches, an apparatus, wherein the identifier comprises a first portion including at least a portion of the protocol information [Traasdahl, Claim 13; Paragraphs 0080; 0081,… a processing device, coupled to the memory, the processing device configured to: receive a first identifier and a second identifier from a data source, wherein the first identifier is associated with a first device and wherein the second identifier is associated with a second device;…].
As per claim 9,Traasdahl and Olsen teach all the limitations of claim 8 above, where Traasdahl teaches, an apparatus, wherein the identifier comprises a second portion including information to identify the functionality of the computational device program [Traasdahl, Claim 13; Paragraphs 0080; 0081,… a processing device, coupled to the memory, the processing device configured to: receive a first identifier and a second identifier from a data source, wherein the first identifier is associated with a first device and wherein the second identifier is associated with a second device;…].
As per claims 10-15, claims 10-15 are rejected in accordance to the same rational and reasoning as the above claims 1,3-4 and 7-9 above, wherein claims 10-15 are the method claims for an apparatus of claims 1,3-4 and 7-9.
As per claims 16-20, claims 16-20 are rejected in accordance to the same rational and reasoning as the above claims 1-4 and 8 above, wherein claims 10-15 are the system claims for an apparatus of claims 1-4 and 8.
Conclusion
RELEVANT ART CITED BY THE EXAMINER
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
References Considered Pertinent but not relied upon
Karabinis et al. (US Patent No: 11,770,756 B2) teaches a method of enabling one or more functions of a device is disclosed. Karabinis discloses sensing by a device a physiological parameter of a user of the device. and the device determines whether or not the physiological parameter that is sensed satisfies a criterion. Karabinis suggests responsive to determining that the physiological parameter that is sensed satisfies the criterion, the device enables a number of functions of the device while disabling a function of the device.
Nguyen (US Patent No: 11,532,204 B2) teaches a system, apparatus, and method for social gaming may include a gaming machine configured to play a game of chance and produce game information. Nguyen discloses a social gaming server can be configured to communicate with the gaming machine, may establish a remote gaming session between the gaming machine and a user device, and may distribute the portion of the game information to the user device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to whose telephone number is 571-270-7106. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00AM-5:00PMSDT.If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IDRISS ALROBAYE can be reached on 571-270-1023. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.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.
/GETENTE A YIMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2181