DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL action is responsive to the amendment filed 9/24/2025.
In the amendment Claims 1-15 remain pending. Claims 1 and 14-15 are the independent claims.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 6-7 and 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Please note allowability status of claims are subject to change should relevant prior art be discovered anytime during prosecution.
Withdrawn Rejections
5. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) second paragraph rejection of claims 1 and 14 has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
6. The 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejection of dependent claims 2, 6 and 10-12 has been withdrawn for the reasons provided under the 35 U.S.C. 101 heading.
7. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 1, 3, 8-10, 12 and 14-15 with cited reference of Park (U.S. Pub 2020/0272569) has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
8. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 2, 4-7, 11 and 13 with cited references of Park (U.S. Pub 2020/0272569) in view of Pardo (U.S. 8,150,988) has been withdrawn in light of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. 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.
10. With respect to the first prong of this analysis, a claim element that does not include the term “means” or “step” triggers a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply. When the claim limitation does not use the term “means,” examiners should determine whether the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6 does not apply is overcome. The presumption may be overcome if the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder (a term that is simply a substitute for the term “means”). The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for.”.
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 elements in this application that use the word “configured to” are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. In claim 15 “interim processing operation”, “target processing operation” and “evaluate the time information” are a generic placeholders while the linking word “configured to provide …” are the 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 wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
11. 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.
12. Claim 1, 3, 5, 8-9 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without significantly more.
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a 2-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), see MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: see MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and 2106.05(a) thru (d) for explanations.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? see MPEP 2106.05
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to “A method for …” (process). Claim 14 is directed to “A non-transitory computer-readable medium…” (composition of matter). Claim 15 is directed to “A distributed system…” (process). Therefore, the claims are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes. see MPEP 2106(A)(II)(1) and MPEP 2106.04(a)-(c)
Independent claims 1, 14 and 15 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below [with the category of abstract idea in brackets]). Furthermore, Independent claims 14-15 recites similar subject matter has in claim 1 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 1, A method for providing an item of time information related to a piece of communication content in a distributed system of at least one application, the method comprising the following steps:
providing the time information about a time of a generation of the communication content [MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, data gathering];
providing the communication content for a chained processing of the communication content, the chained processing including at least one interim processing operation and a target processing operation, which are executed by different processing blocks of the at least one application, wherein the at least one interim processing operation is upstream of the target processing operation [MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment];
wherein the time information is provided for at least one of the different processing blocks [MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception]
to evaluate the time information at least during the target processing operation [mental process]
for assessing the processed communication content to determine a data age of the communication content based on the time of a generation [mental process] & [mathematical concept].
The Examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) above: constitute a “mathematical concept” & “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind.
Claim 1 recites evaluating time information to assess processed content. However, a user can mentally perform an evaluation process based on collected data for comparison of timestamp information and/or perform other informational checks. Furthermore assessing/determining data age involves calculation via subtraction of timestamps and evaluation which involves both a mathematical concept and mental process.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2) and MPEP 2106.04(d)(2). It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations”, while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”.):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding the additional limitations of “providing the time information” & “providing the communication content for a chained processing”. The Examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a computer to collect timestamp data, which amounts to data gathering. Furthermore, providing the communication content for a chained processing only describing the environment where the method operates (distributed processing chain) and where the method is used instead of the improvement. The interim processing operation being upstream only describes the processing relationship without any technical implementation details.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the Revised Guidance, representative claims 1, 14 and 15 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “wherein the time information is provided”, amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The claims recite generic data processing that provides data to components without specific technical implementation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) in addition to -Collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), Collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set and storing the recognized data in memory (Content Extraction).
Dependent claims 3, 5 and 8-9, -do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claims describe performing steps of evaluation of a response time, comparison of time information, evaluation against a requirement & ascertain processing period (mental process). These limitations fall under a mental process of performing evaluations, comparisons and judgements of collected time data. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of the Independent claims. Therefore, the claims are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Dependent claims 7 and 13, does describe significantly more than an abstract idea has it performs activation of an actuator based on the evaluation. Thus, this is not a mental process nor is it simply generic data collection or generic use of a computer to carry out an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 4, 6 and 10-11, does describe significantly more than an abstract idea has it describes specific middleware architecture that improves distributed system communication and is tied to technological implementation. Thus, this is not a mental process nor is it simply generic data collection or generic use of a computer to carry out an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 12, does describe significantly more than an abstract idea has it involves integration of cyber physical system having functional cause-effect chain with system wide timing analysis which improves real-time system reliability. Thus, this is not a mental process nor is it simply generic data collection or generic use of a computer to carry out an abstract idea.
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 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, 3, 8-10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. Pub 2020/0272569, filed May 12, 2020) in view of Dongxiao Yu herein Yu (NPL-Distributed Scheduling Algorithm for Optimizing Age of Information In Wireless Networks, 2020, IEEE, pgs. 1-8 (pdf)).
Regarding Independent claims 1, 14 and 15, Park discloses A method for providing an item of time information related to a piece of communication content in a distributed system of at least one application, the method comprising the following steps:
providing the time information about a time of a generation of the communication content (see abstract & paragraphs 19-20, discloses writers that time stamp outgoing messages in a distributed system);
providing the communication content for a chained processing of the communication content, the chained processing including at least one interim processing operation and a target processing operation, which are executed by different processing blocks of the at least one application, wherein the at least one interim processing operation is upstream of the target processing operation (see abstract & paragraphs 19-20, discloses that the writers communicate with readers to receive the message and comprise chained processing via sequencing has depicted in Fig. 1B. In paragraph 36 he discloses that outgoing messages may be targeted to one or more readers and only targeted readers receive the message. Furthermore, each reader receives messages from multiple writers thereby comprising an interim processing operation via writers that are upstream from the targeted one or more readers);
wherein the time information is provided for at least one of the different processing blocks to evaluate the time information at least during the target processing operation for assessing the processed communication content to determine a data age of the communication content based on the time of a generation (see abstract & paragraphs 19-20, discloses creating a time accurate event stream by the readers thereby assessing the processed communication content comprising the message generated by the writer). Park teaches a distributed system with consistent ordering but fails to teach determining data age of communication content. Yu discloses age of information (AOI) to model information freshness for message deliveries thus explicitly teaching “determining data age” (see abstract & section 1 pg. 1). He further discloses that the peak age indicates maximum value of the AOI prior to data packet reception with a data collector monitoring how old data is when received. Thus, AOI calculation involves generation of timestamps thereby being based on time of generation. Both Park and Yu are from the same field of endeavor regarding distributed systems with real-time requirements. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have implemented known concepts of AOI into the distributed system of Park has it provides the benefit of information freshness and data delivery timeliness has outlined by Yu in the abstract.
Regarding Dependent claim 3, with dependency of claim 1, Park teaches a distributed system with consistent ordering but fails to teach determining data age of communication content. Yu discloses wherein the time information is provided by assigning the time information to the communication content, wherein the time information includes an item of latency information about the time of the generation, up to a target processing of the processed communication content, wherein the assigned time information is retrieved during the target processing operation for the evaluation to evaluate a response time of the application and/or a data age of the communication content during the assessment (see abstract & section 1 pg. 1). He further discloses that the peak age indicates maximum value of the AOI prior to data packet reception with a data collector monitoring how old data is when received. Thus, AOI calculation involves generation of timestamps thereby being based on time of generation. Both Park and Yu are from the same field of endeavor regarding distributed systems with real-time requirements. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have implemented known concepts of AOI into the distributed system of Park has it provides the benefit of information freshness and data delivery timeliness has outlined by Yu in the abstract.
Regarding Dependent claim 8, with dependency of claim 1, Park discloses wherein the time information is provided for a plurality or all of the different processing blocks to evaluate the time information during the at least one interim processing operation and during the target processing operation for assessing the processed communication content (see abstract & paragraphs 19-20, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
Regarding Dependent claim 9, with dependency of claim 1, Park teaches a distributed system with consistent ordering but fails to teach determining data age of communication content. Yu discloses wherein the at least one application and/or the processing blocks are each allocated a real-time requirement or different real-time requirements, wherein the real-time requirement or the different real-time requirements include at least one of the following requirements: a maximum execution time of the application and/or of the at least one interim processing operation and/or of the target processing operation; a maximum response time of the application; a maximum data age of the processed communication content, wherein the data age is derived from the time information about the time of the generation of the communication content and a current time during the chained processing operation; wherein the provided time information is evaluated at least during the target processing operation to assess compliance with the at least one requirement (see abstract & section 1 pg. 1). He further discloses that the peak age indicates maximum value of the AOI prior to data packet reception with a data collector monitoring how old data is when received. Thus, AOI calculation involves generation of timestamps thereby being based on time of generation. Both Park and Yu are from the same field of endeavor regarding distributed systems with real-time requirements. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have implemented known concepts of AOI into the distributed system of Park has it provides the benefit of information freshness and data delivery timeliness has outlined by Yu in the abstract.
Regarding Dependent claim 10, with dependency of claim 1, Park discloses wherein the different processing blocks are each executed as different processes of the at least one application or as different parts of the at least one application and by different, heterogeneous computing nodes of a network (see abstract & paragraphs 19-20, including the explanation provided in the Independent claim).
14. Claims 2, 4-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (U.S. Pub 2020/0272569, filed May 12, 2020) in view of Yu (NPL-Distributed Scheduling Algorithm for Optimizing Age of Information In Wireless Networks, 2020, IEEE, pgs. 1-8 (pdf)) further in view of Pardo-Castellote herein Pardo (U.S. 8,150,988, filed Dec. 10, 2010).
Regarding Dependent claim 2, with dependency of claim 1, Park teaches a distributed system with consistent ordering but fails to teach determining data age of communication content. Yu discloses age of information (AOI) to model information freshness for message deliveries thus explicitly teaching “determining data age” (see abstract & section 1 pg. 1). Yu is silent regarding use of a middleware for processing the messages between nodes. Pardo discloses the providing steps are performed by a piece of middleware that provides communication between the processing blocks to provide the time information during the chained processing operation in a manner assigned to the communication content (see abstract & col. 11, lines 35-67 & col. 12, lines 1-25, discloses middleware to process blocks of time information). Park, Yu and Pardo are from the same field of endeavor regarding distributed systems with real-time requirements. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have implemented middleware architecture for processing the messages to provide an improved communication protocol for real-time communication networks has outlined in column 2, lines 32-35.
Regarding Dependent claim 4, with dependency of claim 1, Park teaches a distributed system with consistent ordering but fails to teach determining data age of communication content. Yu discloses age of information (AOI) to model information freshness for message deliveries thus explicitly teaching “determining data age” (see abstract & section 1 pg. 1). Yu is silent regarding use of a middleware for processing the messages between nodes. Padro discloses wherein the providing steps are performed by a piece of middleware that is configured to register a real-time requirement to detect a breach of the real-time requirement based on the time information, wherein the real-time requirement defines a maximum duration of a latency of the application (see abstract & col. 11, lines 35-67). Park, Yu and Pardo are from the same field of endeavor regarding distributed systems with real-time requirements. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have implemented middleware architecture for processing the messages to provide an improved communication protocol for real-time communication networks has outlined in column 2, lines 32-35.
Regarding Dependent claim 5, with dependency of claim 4, Park teaches a distributed system with consistent ordering but fails to teach determining data age of communication content. Yu discloses age of information (AOI) to model information freshness for message deliveries thus explicitly teaching “determining data age” (see abstract & section 1 pg. 1). Yu is silent regarding use of a middleware for processing the messages between nodes. Padro discloses wherein the assessment of the processed communication content includes: comparing the time of the generation with a current time and with the real-time requirement to detect the breach of the real-time requirement (see abstract & col. 11, lines 35-67). Park, Yu and Pardo are from the same field of endeavor regarding distributed systems with real-time requirements. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have implemented middleware architecture for processing the messages to provide an improved communication protocol for real-time communication networks has outlined in column 2, lines 32-35.
Regarding Dependent claim 11, with dependency of claim 1, Park teaches a distributed system with consistent ordering but fails to teach determining data age of communication content. Yu discloses age of information (AOI) to model information freshness for message deliveries thus explicitly teaching “determining data age” (see abstract & section 1 pg. 1). Yu is silent regarding use of a middleware for processing the messages between nodes. Pardo discloses wherein a plurality of interim processing operations are provided as the at least one interim processing operation, wherein the communication content is provided by initially providing the generated communication content for the chained processing operation for the interim processing operations by way of a communication, and by providing a result of the interim processing operations as the processed communication content for the target processing operation, wherein the communication is provided by a piece of messaging middleware, between the processing blocks at an application level, wherein the time information is provided at the application level (see abstract & col. 11, lines 35-67). Park, Yu and Pardo are from the same field of endeavor regarding distributed systems with real-time requirements. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have implemented middleware architecture for processing the messages to provide an improved communication protocol for real-time communication networks has outlined in column 2, lines 32-35.
It is noted that any citation [[s]] to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. [[See, MPEP 2123]]
Response to Arguments
15. Applicant’s arguments filed 9/24/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. However, some arguments to the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea & previous art relied upon under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been addressed below.
Applicant Argues: The coordination of these two computer operations is not a concept that a human mind can perform because it is neither an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion. Instead, the coordination represented by the wherein clause is an interrelationship that only computing technology can execute. (see pg. 9)
…a POSITA “would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement” in the technology of determining “time information related to a piece of communication content in a distributed system.” (see pg. 13)
However, this is not enough because the Office Action fails to explain how the particular claims here “are the same as those found to be well-understood, routine, conventional…” (see pg. 14)
Examiner Respectfully Disagrees: Evaluation/comparison are a mental process while generic instructions to provide data to components without specific technical implementation amounts to apply an exception (apply it). Simply using two computers for coordinating operations of an abstract idea amounts to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. In addition, assessing/determining data age involves calculation via subtraction of timestamps and evaluation which involves both a mathematical concept and mental process.
Furthermore, the claim lacks specific technological implementation details regarding how the time information is technically propagated through the processing chain with the specific data structures, mechanism for timestamp preservation across distributed nodes and protocols involved to enable technical improvement to computer functionality. It is unclear which claim limitation has been identified has well-understood, routine or conventional has concluded by the Applicant.
Applicant Argues: Based on the amendment, which expressly calls for the interim processing to be upstream of the target processing… (see pg. 16)
Applicant has misunderstood Examiners position; it has already been established that the writers communicate with readers has they receive message thus outgoing messages may be targeted to one or more readers. If something is targeted to the reader the reader is receiving form the writer and consequently writers are the interim processing operations (upstream) while readers are the target processing operations (downstream). Thus, Applicants argument is flawed by trying to force readers into both roles when Park clearly shows writers as upstream interim operators.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANGLESH M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5937. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 10:30 am to 7:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin D. Bishop, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-3713. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Manglesh M Patel/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665
12/18/2025
Prosecution Insights