DETAILED ACTION
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “interface engine . . . provide an interface for creating a custom resource in a virtualized environment . . . a first portion configured to receive summary information corresponding to the custom resource; and a second portion configured to receive a schema corresponding to the custom resource; and a creation engine configured to create the custom resource according to the summary information and the schema . . . a name of the custom resource; a description of the custom resource; and a type of the custom resource . . . second portion is configured to receive code as the schema corresponding to the custom resource . . . wherein the code is in a YAML format . . . the second portion includes a form configured to receive properties of the custom resource . . . wherein the creation engine is configured to create the schema based on the received properties of the custom resource” in claims 15-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation ““interface engine . . . provide an interface for creating a custom resource in a virtualized environment . . . a first portion configured to receive summary information corresponding to the custom resource; and a second portion configured to receive a schema corresponding to the custom resource; and a creation engine configured to create the custom resource according to the summary information and the schema . . . a name of the custom resource; a description of the custom resource; and a type of the custom resource . . . second portion is configured to receive code as the schema corresponding to the custom resource . . . wherein the code is in a YAML format . . . the second portion includes a form configured to receive properties of the custom resource . . . wherein the creation engine is configured to create the schema based on the received properties of the custom resource” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. [0031] recites: “The system 644 can include a database 646 and/or a number of engines, for example interface engine 648 and/or creation engine 650, and can be in communication with the database 646 via a communication link. The system 644 can include additional or fewer engines than illustrated to perform the various functions described herein. The system can represent program instructions and/or hardware of a machine (e.g., machine 752 as referenced in Figure 7, etc.). As used herein, an "engine" can include program instructions and/or hardware, but at least includes hardware. Hardware is a physical component of a machine that enables it to perform a function.“ There is a lack of algorithm and/or flow chart on functions. A case in point: no algorithm and/or flow chart on how a custom resource is created according to the summary. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by REDDY et al ( US 2024/0061719) (hereinafter REDDY) .
As per claim 1, REDDY teaches:
A non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
provide an interface for creating a custom resource in a virtualized environment (REDDY, [0036], [0041], [0042]—under BRI, an interface can be the interface that accept incoming requests from the one or more service consumer tenants 160; a custom resource can be one or more artificial intelligence resources 113) , wherein the interface includes:
a first portion configured to receive summary information corresponding to the custom resource (REDDY, [0042]—under BRI, summary information can be custom resource file); and
a second portion configured to receive a schema corresponding to the custom resource (REDDY, [0043]—under BRI, a schema can be the outline of AIFunction.yaml); and
create the custom resource according to the summary information and the schema (REDDY, [0042]).
As per claim 2, REDDY teaches:
The medium of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1), wherein the summary information includes:
a name of the custom resource (REDDY, Table 1—under BRI, a name can be cashapp);
a description of the custom resource (REDDY, Table 1—under BRI, a description can be spec); and
a type of the custom resource (REDDY, Table 1—under BRI, a type can be cashapp service type).
As per claim 3, REDDY teaches:
The medium of claim 1(see rejection on claim 1) , wherein the second portion is configured to receive code as the schema corresponding to the custom resource (REDDY, [0043])
As per claim 4, REDDY teaches:
The medium of claim 3 (see rejection on claim 3) , wherein the code is in a YAML format (REDDY, [0043]).
As per claim 5, REDDY teaches:
The medium of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1), wherein the second portion includes a form configured to receive properties of the custom resource (REDDY, Table 1).
As per claim 6, REDDY teaches:
The medium of claim 5 (see rejection on claim 5), including instructions to create the schema based on the received properties of the custom resource (REDDY, [0043], Table 1).
As per claim 7, REDDY teaches:
The medium of claim 1 (See rejection on claim 1), wherein the custom resource represents an account associated with an employee of a business (REDDY, Table 1—under BRI, an account associated with an employee of a business can be an account associated with a user that has a user name).
As per claim 8, see rejection on claim 1.
As per claim 9, see rejection on claim 2.
As per claim 10, see rejection on claim 3.
As per claim 11, see rejection on claim 4.
As per claim 12, see rejection on claim 5.
As per claim 13, see rejection on claim 6.
As per claim 14, see rejection on claim 7.
As per claim 15, see rejection on claim 1.
As per claim 16, see rejection on claim 2.
As per claim 17, see rejection on claim 3.
As per claim 18, see rejection on claim 4.
As per claim 19, see rejection on claim 5.
As per claim 20, see rejection on claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12056249 teaches a method of using user data structure in a multi-tenant system .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5100. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/CHARLIE SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198