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 .
Restriction Remarks
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-15, 17-18 and 20 are pending.
Claims 6, 10, 16 and 19 are canceled.
Claims 11-15, 17-18 and 20 are withdrawn as of November 3, 2025, without traverse. These claims have not been canceled with the amendment of April 23, 2026.
Claims 1-10 are examined.
This application contains 11-15, 17-18 and 20 are drawn to an invention nonelected without traverse in the reply filed on November 3, 2025. A complete reply to the final rejection must include cancellation of nonelected claims or other appropriate action (37 CFR 1.144) See MPEP § 821.01.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims 11-20 to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims 11-20 to a non-elected invention with Applicant’s amendment and response to this Non-final office action.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Examiner has reviewed the amendment of April 23, 2026. Although Applicant amendment the claims, Examiner believes the 101 and 112 issues still remain at this time for reasons stated infra. Examiner reviewed the arguments and the arguments are not persuasive at this time. However, the 102 rejection is formally withdrawn. Based on the deficiencies, this action is made final at this time.
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.
Claim 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without “significantly more”.
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are directed to Abstract Idea such as an idea standing alone such as an instantiated concept, pan or scheme, as well as a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper for example “broadcasting a first identification message…. Configured to indicate … data analysis…indicate type….indicate … a model”.
The apparatus and the method claim 10recites limitation, “broadcasting a first identification message … wherein the first identification message is configured to indicate a first distributed data analysis, and the first identification message comprises a first data analytic identifier and/or a first model identifier; wherein the first data analytic identifier is configured to indicate a type of the first distributed data analysis, the first model identifier is configured to indicate a model used in the first distributed data analysis”. Since the claim is directed to a process and a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The claim recites, “broadcasting a first identification message…. Configured to indicate … data analysis…indicate type….indicate … a model”. The broadcasting step recited in the claim is no more than an abstract idea i.e., mental process of broadcasting identification message where claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, etcj., (See specifically MPEP 2106.05 (f) Sec 1. (Step 2A: Prong One Abstract Idea=Yes).
The claim is then analyzed if it requires an additional elements or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception – i.e., limitation that are indicative of integration into a practical application: improving to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. In the current claims, there is no additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A: Prong Two Abstract Idea=Yes).
Next the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine if there are additional limitation recited in the claim such that the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim requires the additional limitation of a computer with the central processing unit, memory, a printer, an input and output terminal and a program. These generic computer components are claimed to perform the basic functions of storing, retrieving and processing data through the program that enables. In the current scenario, there are no additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Step 2B: No). Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible.
Further, dependent claims do not add any positive limitation or step that recite within the scope of the claim and does not carry patentable weight they are also rejected for the same reasons as independent claims.
Accordingly, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes”/” Mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as recited in Claims 1-10.
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 1-5 and 7-9 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.
Examiner is unclear as to what the Applicant intended to by the claimed, “broadcasting first identification message… configured to indicate a first distributed data analysis…. configured to indicate a type… configured to indicate a model used…”. Applicant did not indicate anything being transformed, created or generated. Examiner is unable to determine what the Applicant considers novel.
Examiner recommends the Applicant to review the specification for novelty.
Appropriate explanation and correction are required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are allowed over the prior art made of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to Independent Claim a, BRI (broadest reasonable interpretation) in light of the specification, Examiner finds the claimed invention is patentably distinct from the prior art of record, which sets forth in the following:
Gerweck et al. (US Patent No. 9948655 and Gerweck hereinafter), the closes prior made of record, relates to low latency subject database statements access subject data in a subject data structure ,and low latency subject database statements are based on a virtual multidimensional data model. The low latency subject database statements are issued to determine an authorization response, where the authorization response characterizes altered subject data structure access.
However, Gerweck fails to show “broadcasting a first identification message to at least one device comprising a second device, wherein the first identification message is configured to indicate a first distributed data analysis, and the first identification message comprises a first data analytic identifier and/or a first model identifier; wherein each of the first device and the second device is a terminal device with ProSe capability, and a direct communication between the first device and the second device is implemented through a PC5 interface, first identification message is carried in a discovery solicitation; after the operation of broadcasting the first identification message to the at least one device, the method further comprises: receiving a discovery response from the second device, the discovery response is configured to indicate a third distributed data analysis; wherein the third distributed data analysis is identical to the first distributed data analysis; or the third distributed data analysis belongs to the first distributed data analysis, the discovery response comprises a third identification message, the third identification message comprises a third data analytic identifier and/or a third model identifier; wherein the third data analytic identifier is configured to indicate a type of the third distributed data analysis, and the third model identifier is configured to indicate a model used by the third distributed data analysis” … As claimed (supports in specification Para [0049]; [0056]; [0060]; for example).
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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIANE D MIZRAHI whose telephone number is 571- 272-4079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-3:30 PM (7:30 - 4:30 p.m.).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison T. Slater can be reached on (571) 270-0375. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (703) 872-9306 for regular communications and for After Final communication.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.qov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll free).
/DIANE D MIZRAHI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Diane.Mizrahi@USPTO.gov
Prosecution Insights