DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 .
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.
Examiner’s Notes
The Examiner cites particular sections in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant(s) fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 8: “a device” (line 4) should have been –the device—.
Claims 9-14 inherit the features of claim 8 and are objected to accordingly.
Appropriate corrections are required. Applicant is advised to review the entire claims for further needed corrections.
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:
“A computer system configured to develop” in claim 8.
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.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19 of co-pending Application No. 18/325,026 (hereinafter “reference application”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 are anticipated by claims 1, 4, 3, 2, 5, 6, 18, 11, 10, 9, 12, 13, 8, 15, 18, 17, 16, 19, and 13 of the reference application, respectively.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 15-20 are directed to a “computer readable storage medium”. Currently presented, neither the claims nor the specification limit the claimed “computer readable storage medium” to non-transitory embodiments. As such, the “computer readable storage medium” recited in claim 15-20 encompasses transitory media which are non-statutory. See MPEP §2106.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thunemann et al. (US 2014/0317642 A1; hereinafter Thunemann) in view of Balko et al. (US 2010/0146243 A1; hereinafter Balko).
With respect to claim 1, Thunemann teaches: A method for operating a device application, the method comprising:
receiving, by a device application (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 5: “applications”) containing a multitude of adaptors (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 41: “adapters wraps the implementation of the language construct type in the specific scripting language”) and a multitude of building block components (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 12: “language constructs”), a building block component (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 5: “Scripting languages are added to applications”; and paragraph 12: “language constructs written in that first scripting language”) that is configured to perform a function (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 12: “Language constructs include… Functions”);
receiving an output (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 46: “Py objects”) from the building block component (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 44: “when a Python user calls a function 14… The Python interpreter determines that a call should be made. It executes the call in PyWrappedFunction 10”; paragraph 46: “function is called from Python, the system converts from Py objects”; and paragraph 47: “extends PyObject”, “PyObject_call_( PyObject args[ ], String keywords[ ] )”);
translating, by an adaptor (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 44: “PyWrappedFunction 10, which is a Language Adapter”) of the multitude of adaptors (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 40: “For each language, two adapters need to be implemented for each type of language construct” ; and Fig. 1), the output from the building block component (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 46: “converts from Py objects to Core objects”; paragraph 47: “Language Adapter for converting a Python function to a Core function”; and paragraph 51: “Py objects are converted into Core objects”) into a message (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 44: “executes the call in PyWrappedFunction 10, which is a Language Adapter, and redirects the call to the CoreFunction interface 12”; and paragraph 51: “Py objects are converted into Core objects and the Core function is called with those Core object inputs”) that is receivable by the multitude of adaptors (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 16: “a core application programming interface which is language-neutral relative to a plurality of scripting languages, the core application programming interface comprising a respective core interface for each of a plurality of types of language constructs”; and paragraph 51); and
Thunemann does not but Balko teaches:
storing, based on the output, one or more states of the device application (see e.g. Balko, paragraph 15: “a state of execution of the process represented by results of execution”) in a database (see e.g. Balko, paragraph 42: “external state (e.g., of backend application 180) is written to a database”) that is accessible by the multitude of adaptors in the device application (see e.g. Balko, paragraph 25: “adapter API calls may include one or more of the following: "persist", "eradicate", "recover", "evict", "depart", and "arrive", to store, delete, or retrieve external state in an (external) database transaction”).
Thunemann and Balko are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: managing inter-process communications via adapters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thunemann with the teachings of Balko. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve application execution management; thus increasing the overall reliability of the system.
With respect to claim 2, Thunemann as modified teaches: The method of claim 1, further comprising subscribing, by at least one of the multitude of adaptors, to the message (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 28: “adapter contains the adaptee and implements an interface in the existing API (or extends a class in the existing API) by making use of the adaptee”; paragraph 44: “The Python interpreter determines that a call should be made. It executes the call in PyWrappedFunction 10, which is a Language Adapter”; and paragraph 47: “public PyObject_call_( PyObject args[ ], String keywords[ ] )”).
With respect to claims 8 and 9: Claims 8 and 9 are directed to a computer system comprising a processor configured to implement functions corresponding to the method disclosed in claims 1 and 2, respectively; please see the rejections directed to claims 1 and 2 above which also cover the limitations recited in claims 8 and 9. Note that, Thunemann also discloses a system comprising a processor to implement the method disclosed in claims 1 and 2 (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 18).
With respect to claims 15 and 16: Claims 15 and 16 are directed to a computer readable storage medium having software data to implement functions corresponding to the method disclosed in claims 1 and 2, respectively; please see the rejections directed to claims 1 and 2 above which also cover the limitations recited in claims 15 and 16. Note that, Thunemann also discloses a computing system comprising software to implement the method disclosed in claims 1 and 2 (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 18).
Claims 3-7, 10-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thunemann in view of Balko as applied to claims 2, 9, and 16 above, and further in view of Spolnicki et al. (US 12,132,693 B2; hereinafter Spolnicki).
With respect to claim 3, Thunemann as modified teaches: The method of claim 2,
Thunemann does not but Spolnicki teaches:
wherein translating comprises transmitting the message on a channel (see e.g. Spolnicki, column , lines : “message may be routed to the listener channel”); and
wherein subscribing comprises selecting a channel to listen for the message (see e.g. Spolnicki, column 3, lines 12-16: “message may be routed to the listener channel based on a topic associated with the message. A subscriber of the listener channel is determined, using the message and a subscriptions data repository that indicates topics corresponding to subscribers”).
Thunemann and Spolnicki are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: communication management via adapters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Thunemann with the teachings of Spolnicki. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve communication efficiency.
With respect to claim 4, Thunemann as modified teaches: The method of claim 3, wherein the at least one adaptor of the multitude of adaptors comprises a custom logic section (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 43: “A user would need to write a Core Adapter that implements the CoreFunction interface and redirects method calls made upon it to method calls in PyFunction. The user also needs to write a Language Adapter that emulates a Python Function and redirects all calls to the CoreFunction that is being wrapped”; and paragraphs 41-42).
With respect to claim 5, Thunemann as modified teaches: The method of claim 4, wherein the custom logic section is configurable to execute a function of at least one of the multitude of building block components responsive to receiving the message (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 41: “The first of the two adapters wraps the implementation of the language construct type in the specific scripting language”; paragraph 42: “for each type of language construct, one takes an existing language class definition and the corresponding existing Core interface and then writes a new class definition that implements that Core interface (hereinafter called a Core Adapter) and the other adapter allows the Core interface for that language construct type to be used within the API of the language implementation (hereinafter called a Language Adapter)”; and paragraph 43: “A user would need to write a Core Adapter that implements the CoreFunction interface and redirects method calls made upon it to method calls in PyFunction. The user also needs to write a Language Adapter that emulates a Python Function and redirects all calls to the CoreFunction that is being wrapped”).
With respect to claim 6, Thunemann as modified teaches: The method of claim 5, wherein the custom logic section is configurable by a machine readable specification (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 28: “adapter is a new class definition that conforms to the existing API. The existing class definition (which is not in the API) is called the adaptee. The adapter contains the adaptee and implements an interface in the existing API (or extends a class in the existing API) by making use of the adaptee”; paragraph 43: “A user would need to write a Core Adapter that implements the CoreFunction interface and redirects method calls made upon it to method calls in PyFunction. The user also needs to write a Language Adapter that emulates a Python Function and redirects all calls to the CoreFunction that is being wrapped”; and paragraph 47).
With respect to claim 7, Thunemann as modified teaches: The method of claim 6, wherein each of the multitude of building block components comprise one or more functions that are ignorant of functions of other building block components (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 14: “different scripting languages… using that scripting language need not consider or have any expertise in or knowledge of other scripting languages”; and paragraph 12).
With respect to claims 10-14: Claims 10-14 are directed to a computer system comprising a processor configured to implement functions corresponding to the method disclosed in claims 3-7, respectively; please see the rejections directed to claims 3-7 above which also cover the limitations recited in claims 10-14.
With respect to claims 17-20: Claims 17-20 are directed to a computer readable storage medium having software data to implement functions corresponding to the method disclosed in claims 3-6, respectively; please see the rejections directed to claims 3-6 above which also cover the limitations recited in claims 17-20.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hoerle et al. (US 2006/0085799 A1) discloses a business logic layer that transforms requests and other outputs of an application into standardized objects understandable to multiple adapters (see paragraph 38).
Duggal et al. (US 2024/0311211 A1) corresponding to U.S. Patent Application No. 18/325,026.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Umut Onat whose telephone number is (571)270-1735. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00-7:30.
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, Kevin L Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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.
/UMUT ONAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
