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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claims 4, 13 and 18 recite “unique job,” and this unique job is not disclosed within the applicant’s specification as filed;
Claims 11 and 16 recite “one or more computer readable hardware storage devices,” and these computer readable hardware storage devices are not disclosed/defined within the applicant’s specification as filed.
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.
Claims 4, 13 and 18 recite “unique job,” however, this unique job is not defined within the applicant’s specification such that it is unclear what a unique job entails. Therefore, the claims are rejected for failing to clearly and distinctly define what a unique job entails. Claim 5 is also rejected for its dependency on claim 4.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 13, 16 and 18 recite the limitation "the statistical data." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims as independent claims 1, 11 and 16 recite “a plurality of statistical data.” Claims 2, 3, 6-10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 20 are also rejected for their dependency on their respective claims.
Claim 16 recites the limitation " said one or more hardware storage devices." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim recites “one or more computer readable hardware storage devices.” Claims 17-20 are also rejected for their dependency on claim 16.
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 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to signals per se. Claim 11 is directed to a computer program product comprising one or more computer readable hardware storage devices having computer readable program code stored therein; and claim 16 is directed to a computer system comprising one or more computer readable hardware storage devices, said one or more hardware storage devices containing program code. As described in the Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0014] does not expressly and unambiguously limit the computer readable hardware storage devices to solely non-transitory forms via a definition or similar limiting language; however, there is a disclosure of a disavowal for a computer readable storage medium (i.e., A computer readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se…). Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0014] does not disclose that this these computer readable hardware storage devices are synonymous with the computer readable storage mediums nor that the computer readable hardware storage devices exclude transitory signals such that the claimed devices encompass transitory forms and are ineligible. Claims 11 and 16 therefore fail to definitely and clearly recite computer readable hardware storage devices that are non-transitory. The examiner suggests amending the computer readable hardware storage devices to computer readable storage mediums to conform to the applicant’s specification, paragraph [0014].
Support for Amendments and Newly Added Claims
Applicants are respectfully requested, in the event of an amendment to claims or submission of new claims, that such claims and their limitations be directly mapped to the specification, which provides support for the subject matter. This will assist in expediting compact prosecution and reducing potential 35 USC § 112(a) or 35 USC § 112, 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended. MPEP 714.02 recites: “Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive. See MPEP § 714.” Amendments not pointing to specific support in the disclosure may be deemed as not complying with provisions of 37 C.F.R. 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) and therefore held not fully responsive. Generic statements such as “Applicants believe no new matter has been introduced” may be deemed insufficient. The examiner thanks the Applicant in advance for providing support for any amendments or newly added claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Collins (WO 2020036590 A1): uses input data to generate decisions about actions to be applied to a real-world system to improve a state of the real-world system;
Gutierrez (US 2022/0215141): enhanced creation and maintenance of one or more data models and their related datasets for improving the complexity of data available for training machine learning models;
Le (US 2018/0240138): collecting survey information, performing a statistical test on the collected survey information, and providing a presentation of meaningful and useful statistical analysis results via a virtual workspace.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIEDRA M MCQUITERY whose telephone number is (571)272-9607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 am - 6 pm (C.S.T.).
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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571)272-4098. 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.
/Diedra McQuitery/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights