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 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 9.
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 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 1-20 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 1 recites “executing a function, by at least one of a multitude of building block components”, “transmitting, by a run engine responsive to the function, one or more messages that are generated by at least one of a multitude of adaptors”, “receiving the message by at least one of the multitude of adaptors”, and “ executing a function of at least one of a multitude of building block components responsive to receiving the message”. The language used in these limitations render the claim indefinite. More specifically, it is not clear if:
“executing a function” recited in line 2 and line 6 are referring to the same function or to different functions;
“at least one of a multitude of building block components” recited in line 2 and line 6 are referring to the same building block component or to different building block components; and
“at least one of the multitude of adaptors” (line 4) that generated the message is the same as the “at least one of the multitude of adaptors” (line 5) that receives the message or if these are different adaptors (i.e. an adaptor generates and sends a message to another adaptor).
For the following analysis, based on the description in paragraphs [0135]-[0138], the Examiner will consider the limitations “executing a first function, by at least one of a multitude of building block components”, “transmitting, by a run engine responsive to the function, one or more messages that are generated by at least one of a multitude of adaptors”, “receiving the message by at least one of the multitude of adaptors”, and “ executing a function of at least one of a multitude of building block components responsive to receiving the message” as referring to --executing a first function, by at least a first one of a multitude of building block components--, --transmitting, by a run engine responsive to the first function, one or more messages that are generated by at least a first one of a multitude of adaptors--, --receiving the message by at least a second one of the multitude of adaptors--, and --executing a second function of at least a second one of a multitude of building block components responsive to receiving the message--, respectively.
Claims 2-8 inherit the features of claim 1 and are rejected accordingly. For the following analysis, the Examiner will consider the limitations recited therewith in accordance with the abovementioned interpretation of claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “execute a function, by at least one of a multitude of building block components”, “transmit, by a run engine responsive to the function, one or more messages that are generated by at least one of a multitude of adaptors”, “receive the message by at least one of the multitude of adaptors”, and “ execute a function of at least one of a multitude of building block components responsive to receiving the message”. The language used in these limitations render the claim indefinite. More specifically, it is not clear if:
“execute a function” recited in line 4 and line 8 are referring to the same function or to different functions;
“at least one of a multitude of building block components” recited in line 4 and line 8 are referring to the same building block component or to different building block components; and
“at least one of the multitude of adaptors” (line 6) that generated the message is the same as the “at least one of the multitude of adaptors” (line 7) that receives the message or if these are different adaptors (i.e. an adaptor generates and sends a message to another adaptor).
For the following analysis, based on the description in paragraphs [0135]-[0138], the Examiner will consider the limitations “execute a first function, by at least one of a multitude of building block components”, “transmit, by a run engine responsive to the function, one or more messages that are generated by at least one of a multitude of adaptors”, “receive the message by at least one of the multitude of adaptors”, and “ execute a function of at least one of a multitude of building block components responsive to receiving the message” as referring to --execute a first function, by at least a first one of a multitude of building block components--, --transmit, by a run engine responsive to the first function, one or more messages that are generated by at least a first one of a multitude of adaptors--, --receive the message by at least a second one of the multitude of adaptors--, and --execute a second function of at least a second one of a multitude of building block components responsive to receiving the message--, respectively.
Claims 10-16 inherit the features of claim 9 and are rejected accordingly. For the following analysis, the Examiner will consider the limitations recited therewith in accordance with the abovementioned interpretation of claim 9.
Claim 17 recites “executing a function, by at least one of a multitude of building block components”, “transmitting, by a run engine responsive to the function, one or more messages that are generated by at least one of a multitude of adaptors”, “receiving the message by at least one of the multitude of adaptors”, and “ executing a function of at least one of a multitude of building block components responsive to receiving the message”. The language used in these limitations render the claim indefinite. More specifically, it is not clear if:
“executing a function” recited in line 4 and line 8 are referring to the same function or to different functions;
“at least one of a multitude of building block components” recited in line 4 and line 8 are referring to the same building block component or to different building block components; and
“at least one of the multitude of adaptors” (line 6) that generated the message is the same as the “at least one of the multitude of adaptors” (line 7) that receives the message or if these are different adaptors (i.e. an adaptor generates and sends a message to another adaptor).
For the following analysis, based on the description in paragraphs [0135]-[0138], the Examiner will consider the limitations “executing a first function, by at least one of a multitude of building block components”, “transmitting, by a run engine responsive to the function, one or more messages that are generated by at least one of a multitude of adaptors”, “receiving the message by at least one of the multitude of adaptors”, and “ executing a function of at least one of a multitude of building block components responsive to receiving the message” as referring to --executing a first function, by at least a first one of a multitude of building block components--, --transmitting, by a run engine responsive to the first function, one or more messages that are generated by at least a first one of a multitude of adaptors--, --receiving the message by at least a second one of the multitude of adaptors--, and --executing a second function of at least a second one of a multitude of building block components responsive to receiving the message--, respectively.
Claims 18-20 inherit the features of claim 17 and are rejected accordingly. For the following analysis, the Examiner will consider the limitations recited therewith in accordance with the abovementioned interpretation of claim 17.
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 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 17-20 are directed to a computer readable storage medium having data stored therein representing software executable by a computer. Currently presented the storage medium is not limited to non-transitory embodiments. Furthermore, the specification does not provide any description regarding the claimed “computer readable storage medium” that explicitly limits the medium to non-transitory embodiments. As such, the storage medium recited in claims 17-20 encompasses transitory embodiments 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 1-6, 9-14, and 17-20 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 of operating a device application, the method comprising:
executing a function (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 44: “a Python user calls a function 14”), by at least one of a multitude of building block components (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 12: “language constructs written in that first scripting language. Language constructs include… Functions”);
transmitting, [by a run engine] responsive to the function (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 44: “when a Python user calls a function 14”), one or more messages (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 44: “redirects the call to the CoreFunction interface 12”) that are generated by at least one of 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 paragraph 44: “an adapter pattern for use when a Python user calls a function 14… executes the call in PyWrappedFunction 10, which is a Language Adapter, and redirects the call to the CoreFunction interface 12”);
receiving the message by at least one of the multitude of adaptors (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 44: “redirects the call to the CoreFunction interface 12, which in this case happens to be a CoreFunctionFromDSL implementation. This CoreFunctionFromDSL implementation 12 is a Core Adapter”); and
executing a function (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 44: “DSLFunction”) of at least one of a multitude of building block components responsive to receiving the message (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 44: “an adapter pattern for use when a Python user calls a function 14… CoreFunctionFromDSL implementation 12 is a Core Adapter that redirects the call to the DSLFunction”), the multitude of building block components, comprising one or more functions (see e.g. Thunemann, paragraph 12: “Language constructs include… Functions”; and paragraph 44: “DSLFunction”), are ignorant 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).
Thunemann does not but Balko teaches:
by a run engine (see e.g. Balko, Fig. 1: “State Correlation Engine 120”; paragraph 20: “adapter 122 adapts in the sense that it may provide a layer to transform communications between a correlation engine (e.g., state correlation engine 120) and outside components, such as other systems (e.g., application 180)”; and paragraphs 14-15)
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, wherein the multitude of component adaptors comprise 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) that is configurable to execute one or more functions of the multitude of building block components (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 3, Thunemann as modified teaches: The method of claim 2, 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 4, Thunemann as modified teaches: The method of claim 3, 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 5, Thunemann as modified teaches: The method of claim 1,
Thunemann does not but Balko teaches:
further comprising storing a state of the run engine (see e.g. Balko, paragraph 15: “state correlation engine 120 may process the ECA rules (also referred to herein as rules) to effectively correlate a state of execution of the process represented by results of execution of rules with new events”; and paragraph 42: “external state (e.g., of backend application 180) is written to a database”) responsive to the message (see e.g. Balko, paragraph 42: “state correlation engine 120 may mark a transaction as "persistent" (e.g., where the default for a transaction is transient-only execution), enforcing thus a database save point, where both the internal state (e.g., internal to state correlation engine 120) and external state (e.g., of backend application 180) is written to a database”).
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 6, Thunemann as modified teaches: The method of claim 5,
Thunemann does not but Balko teaches:
wherein the state is retrievable by at least one of the multitude of adaptors (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 claims 9-14: Claims 9-14 are directed to a computer system comprising a processor configured to implement functions corresponding to the method disclosed in claims 1-6, respectively; please see the rejections directed to claims 1-6 above which also cover the limitations recited in claims 9-14. 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 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 1-6, respectively; please see the rejections directed to claims 1-6 above which also cover the limitations recited in claims 17-20. 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 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thunemann in view of Balko as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Spolnicki et al. (US 12,132,693 B2; hereinafter Spolnicki).
With respect to claim 7, Thunemann as modified teaches: The method of claim 1,
Thunemann does not but Spolnicki teaches:
wherein the message is transmitted on a channel that is selectable by the component adaptor (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 8, Thunemann as modified teaches: The method of claim 7,
Thunemann does not but Spolnicki teaches:
further comprising subscribing, by at least one of the multitude of adaptors, to a topic on the channel (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”); and
wherein the message comprises a topic (see e.g. Spolnicki, column 3, lines 12-13: “message may be routed to the listener channel based on a topic associated with the message”).
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 claims 15-16: Claims 15-16 are directed to a computer system comprising a processor configured to implement functions corresponding to the method disclosed in claims 7-8, respectively; please see the rejections directed to claims 7-8 above which also cover the limitations recited in claims 15-16.
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).
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
Prosecution Insights