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 .
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 process variable (PV) processing module”, “ a large object processing module”, “a configurator”, “ a data analyzing unit”, “ a PV storage unit”, “ data router”, “a object storage calculator”, “ an object storage”, “a large object threshold reader”, “ a threshold configurator” in claim 1-10. The support can be found in fig. 7 and [0034]-[0043]
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 § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dhingra (U.S. Patent 11868416 B1).
Claim 1
Dhingra discloses a large object processing system (fig. 2), comprising:
a storage device (fig. 2, template module 235), storing a plurality of large object variable forms (col 13, line 33-34, “… System uses template module 235 to store one or more templates…”), a process variable (PV) processing module (fig. 2, communication module 225), and a large object processing module (fig. 2, payload module 245); and
a processor, coupled to the storage device (fig. 2, processor 210), executing the PV processing module and the large object processing module;
wherein the PV processing module (fig. 2, communication module 225) receives a request for processing (col 12, line 28-29, “… communication module 225 configured to receive one or more queries or requests to execute tasks) and obtains a PV form and a plurality of object values (fig. 4, placeholder(s) ${id0}, ${id1}, and so on) in the PV form according to the request for processing (col 12, line 44-55, “… communication module 225 is configured to receive information and/or instruction pertaining to a test or test plan… include a definition of a template…” col 13, line 44-45, “… the template comprises one or more placeholder values for fields used in connection with generating the test load…” <examiner note: the template comprises one or more placeholder>);
wherein the large object processing module (fig. 2, payload module 245) determines whether the plurality of object values comprise object-referencing character strings (col 14, line 51-59, “… payload module 245 transforms a template…… to a payload… As an example, generating the payload comprises replacing placeholder values of a template with the appropriate field definitions…” col 18, line 62-67, “… payload 400 is generated comprises the placeholder value ${id0}… such placeholder is replaced with a value corresponding to the dataset to which the test is to be deployed (e.g., data source having an identifier “a07a5944a414018584a0002315006401”)…” <examiner note: object referencing character string as id0>;
wherein in response to the plurality of object values that comprise the object-referencing character strings, the large object processing module obtains large object data, which is corresponding to the object-referencing character strings, according to the object-referencing character strings (col 18, line 62-67, “… payload 400 is generated comprises the placeholder value ${id0}… such placeholder is replaced with a value corresponding to the dataset to which the test is to be deployed (e.g., data source having an identifier “a07a5944a414018584a0002315006401”)…” <examiner note: object referencing character string as id0 is replaced by data source has an identifier as “a07a5944a414018584a0002315006401”. Data source a07a5944a414018584a0002315006401[Wingdings font/0xF3] large object data >); and
wherein the PV processing module replaces the object-referencing character strings in the PV form with the large object data and organizes the PV form (col 18, line 62-67, “… payload 400 is generated comprises the placeholder value ${id0}… such placeholder is replaced with a value corresponding to the dataset to which the test is to be deployed (e.g., data source having an identifier …). Fig. 4 shows the template is organized as a payload>)
Claim 2
Claim 1 is included, Dhingra discloses wherein the PV processing module organizes the PV form before obtaining corresponding dataset in the PV form; and the PV processing module outputting the dataset (fig. 4 shows that the template is organized (col 18, line 55-67 thr col 19, line 1-14, “… FIG. 4 is a diagram of an example of a payload… in a JSON format. According to various embodiments, payload 400 comprises parameters or values that have been populated to configure the payload for the particular dataset, tenant, and/or environment to which the test is to be deployed. As an example, of a template from which payload 400 is generated comprises the placeholder value ${id0}, and in payload 400 such placeholder is replaced with a value corresponding to the dataset to which the test is to be deployed (e.g., data source having an identifier “a07a5944a414018584a0002315006401”)…” col 22 line 35-36, “… the system uses the payload to cause a test load to be generated. For example, a test program generates a call to a database layer, and the call is generated based at least in part on information comprised in the payload. The test program identifies the dataset to be tested (e.g., for which the test load is to be generated) from the payload, determines the parameters of the test load to be generated comprised the payload, and uses the parameters to causes a database layer to generate the test load with respect to the dataset identified in the payload…”)
Claims 11-12 are similar to claims 1-2. The claims are rejected based on the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-10 and 13-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAU HAI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5894. The examiner can normally be reached 1st biwk: Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM-5:00 PM; 2nd biwk: Mon-Thurs: 7:00 am-5:00pm, Fri: 7:00 am - 4:00pm.
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, Robert Beausoliel can be reached at 571 262 3645. 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.
HAU HAI. HOANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2167
/HAU H HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2167