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 .
Priority
The present application has claimed priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 from Chinese Patent Application No. CN202111504046.3 filed 12/10/2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) were filed on 6/16/2023, 11/4/2024, 1/15/2025, 5/9/2025, 10/9/2025, and 1/5/2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings filed 6/14/2023 were accepted.
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 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:
“Edition module configured for…” in claim(s) 5.
“software platform kernel module is configured for…” in claim(s) 6-7;
“derived software management module” in claims 6 and 8;
“derived software interface display module” in claim(s) 6. (note: the “derived software management module” and the “derived software interface display module” are both “controlled” to edit or generate, so they are interpreted as a placeholder coupled with functional language)
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 § 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al (US20090327926A1; filed 6/23/2009; hereinafter Sun).
With regards to claim 1, Sun et al discloses a method for constructing a derived software based on a native system comprising (Sun et al, abstract: “system for fulfilling software customization modules is also provided herein, wherein function modules of the system may be added or deleted without modifying the codes”):
editing a user interface of the derived software and saving the user interface of the derived software as a derived software interface configuration file (Sun et al, abstract: “configuring a Graphic User Interface (GUI) view and an event processing class based on the function module customization request, modifying an interface configuration file based on the function module customization request, and determining an implementation class of the event processing class based on the modified interface configuration file;” paragraph 31: “For example, as regards a “save” menu, the function of saving may be available in the menu, toolbar, and shortcut menu”); and
generating a user-designed interface according to the derived software interface configuration file (Sun et al, paragraph 18: “The system includes a receiving unit, adapted to receive a function module customization request; a first configuring unit, adapted to configure a Graphic User Interface (GUI) view and event processing class based on the function module customization request, and modify an interface configuration file based on the function module customization request; a second configuring unit, adapted to determine an implementation class of the event processing class based on the modified interface configuration file”). Also see the rest of the abstract, paragraphs 16-19, 27-29, figs. 2, 3, 5.
With regards to claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Sun et al discloses wherein a step of editing the user interface of the derived software and saving the user interface of the derived software as the derived software interface configuration file comprises: editing the user interface of the derived software and saving the user interface of the derived software as the derived software interface configuration file through a derived software interface editor of a software platform (Sun et al, abstract: “receiving a function module customization request, configuring a Graphic User Interface (GUI) view and an event processing class based on the function module customization request, modifying an interface configuration file based on the function module customization request”); and
operating the software platform and the derived software through a software platform kernel module of the software platform (Sun et al, paragraph 8: “(1) Kernel function: The kernel function of the platform is an important function of the whole software. A majority of the functions of the software are undertaken by the kernel function;” paragraph 14: “Most functions of the software are undertaken by the kernel function. Therefore, if the requirements have changed substantially, the kernel codes must be modified, and it is not practicable to add or delete function modules of a platform flexibly”).
Claim 5 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
With regards to claim 6, Sun et al discloses A derived software device comprising: a software platform kernel module, a derived software management module, and a derived software interface display module (Note: these modules aren’t defined in the claims or the specification, so they can be interpreted as any of the modules or units disclosed by Sun in abstract, Fig. 6, or paragraphs 16-19);
wherein the software platform kernel module is configured for controlling the derived software management module to edit a user interface of a derived software and save the user interface of the derived software as a derived software interface configuration file (Sun et al, abstract: “configuring a Graphic User Interface (GUI) view and an event processing class based on the function module customization request, modifying an interface configuration file based on the function module customization request, and determining an implementation class of the event processing class based on the modified interface configuration file”); and
the software platform kernel module is configured for controlling the derived software interface display module to generate a user-designed interface according to the derived software interface configuration file (Sun et al, paragraph 18: “The system includes a receiving unit, adapted to receive a function module customization request; a first configuring unit, adapted to configure a Graphic User Interface (GUI) view and event processing class based on the function module customization request, and modify an interface configuration file based on the function module customization request; a second configuring unit, adapted to determine an implementation class of the event processing class based on the modified interface configuration file”). Also see the rest of the abstract, paragraphs 16-19, 27-29, figs. 2, 3, 5.
With regards to claim 7, which depends on claim 6, Sun discloses wherein the derived software device further comprises other software modules of a software platform; wherein the other software modules of the software platform are configured for operating depending on the software platform kernel module (Sun et al, paragraph 8: “(1) Kernel function: The kernel function of the platform is an important function of the whole software. A majority of the functions of the software are undertaken by the kernel function;” the wording “configured for operating depending on the … kernel module” is very broad, and could describe any software running on a device).
With regards to claim 8, which depends on claim 7, Sun discloses wherein the derived software management module comprises a derived software interface editor; wherein the derived software interface editor is configured for editing the user interface of the derived software and saving the user interface of the derived software as the derived software interface configuration file (Sun et al, abstract: “receiving a function module customization request, configuring a Graphic User Interface (GUI) view and an event processing class based on the function module customization request, modifying an interface configuration file based on the function module customization request;” paragraph 31: “For example, as regards a “save” menu, the function of saving may be available in the menu, toolbar, and shortcut menu”).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Winter et al (US20090217259A1; filed 2/26/2008; hereinafter Winter).
With regards to claim 3, which depends on claim 2, Sun et al discloses first reading, by the software platform, the derived software interface configuration file under a user module-operating state (Sun et al, paragraph 18: “A system for implementing a software customization module is also provided.”).
However, Sun et al does not disclose obtaining a kernel module from the derived software interface configuration file, wherein a current user module depends on the kernel module; loading, by the software platform, only the kernel module and a derived software interface display module.
Winter teaches obtaining a kernel module from the derived software interface configuration file, wherein a current user module depends on the kernel module (Winter, paragraphs 13-14: “FIG. 1 shows an example system 100 used to build a customized operating system image on an embedded device. The example system 100 includes an operating system base module… The operating system base is a shell of the full operating system that contains basic functions such as a kernel, a file system, core components, etc.”); loading, by the software platform, only the kernel module and a derived software interface display module (Winter, Fig. 1: the systems 100 is interpreted as including both the kernel (in the base module) and the derived software interface display module (104-112)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Sun and Winter such that the software depends on a kernel module. This would have enabled the invention to include all required dependencies for the software (Winter, paragraph 15: “The software application module 104 may require support in the operating system from one or more system components. Such requirements are called dependencies.”).
With regards to claim 4, which depends on claim 3, Sun discloses reading, by the derived software interface display module in the software platform, the derived software interface configuration file, and generating the user-designed interface according to information in the derived software interface configuration file (Sun, abstract: “modifying an interface configuration file based on the function module customization request, and determining an implementation class of the event processing class based on the modified interface configuration file. A system for fulfilling software customization modules…”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Albrecht (US5950011A): teaches changing configuration capabilities of editors.
Millward et al (US 20040003221 A1): Teaches tuning multiple instances of kernel modules.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRODERICK C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (313)446-6566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday, Thursday-Saturday 9-5 PST.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at 5712724124. 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.
/B.C.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2178
/STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights