DETAILED ACTION
The Office Action is in response to Amendments filed 11/18/2025.
Claims 1, 2, and 6 are currently amended.
Claims 7-13 are newly added claims.
The objection to the specification has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments to the specification.
The current objection to the claims has been withdrawn in view of applicant’s remarks.
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 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 8-9, 11-13 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 8 recites the limitation "placeholders" in line 6. It is unclear if placeholders refer to aforementioned “placeholders” in claim 1 or to something else entirely. Thus, claim 8 is rejected for vague and indefiniteness.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "a schedule optimization" in lines 2-3. It is unclear if placeholders refer to aforementioned “schedule optimization system” in claim 1 or to something else entirely. Thus, claim 9 is rejected for vague and indefiniteness.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "inserting insertion elements" in line 7. It is unclear if placeholders refer to aforementioned “insertion elements” in claim 11 (line 5) or to something else entirely. Thus, claim 11 is rejected for vague and indefiniteness.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "a schedule optimization system" in lines 2-3. It is unclear if placeholders refer to aforementioned “schedule optimization system” in claim 1 or to something else entirely. Thus, claim 12 is rejected for vague and indefiniteness.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "a schedule optimization system" in line 5. It is unclear if placeholders refer to aforementioned “schedule optimization system” in claim 1 or to something else entirely. Thus, claim 13 is rejected for vague and indefiniteness.
The term “complex scheduling problems” in claim 13 lines 5-6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “complex” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 6 recite a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that can be reasonably performed by the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, the limitations disclose “…generates the source code by replacing placeholders with the information based on the optimization problem information and the scheduled data” which can be practically performed by the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations fall under the “Mental Processes” group of abstract ideas.
The claims recite additional elements that are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 discloses the additional elements “a storage unit, and a processing unit…and a template as a pattern of a source code of the schedule optimization system” which are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere generic computer/computing components to apply the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims further disclose the additional element “wherein the template comprises placeholders for receiving inserted information... wherein the storage unit stores optimization problem information indicating the optimization problem, scheduled data indicating a value of a constant being a fixed element in the optimization problem” which is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, that is directed to the insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering/outputting (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits upon practicing the abstract idea.
The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 1 discloses the additional element “a storage unit, and a processing unit…and a template as a pattern of a source code of the schedule optimization system” which are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere generic computer/computing components to apply the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims further disclose the additional element “wherein the template comprises placeholders for receiving inserted information... wherein the storage unit stores optimization problem information indicating the optimization problem, scheduled data indicating a value of a constant being a fixed element in the optimization problem” which has been determined to be a well-known, routine, and/or conventional activity of data outputting (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Accordingly, the additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 discloses the additional limitation “generates the source code by further inserting information corresponding to the auxiliary information into the template” which is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, that covers steps which can be practically performed by the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, the limitations fall under the “Mental Processes” group of abstract ideas.
Claim 2 discloses the additional element “wherein the storage unit further stores auxiliary information indicating constraint conditions specific to schedule drafting requirements” which is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, that is directed to the insignificant extra solution activity of mere data outputting (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits upon practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim discloses “wherein the storage unit further stores auxiliary information indicating constraint conditions specific to schedule drafting requirements” which has been determined to be a well-known, routine, and/or conventional activity of data outputting (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Accordingly, the additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 discloses the additional limitation “generates summary information summarizing the optimization problem and the scheduled data and generates the source code based on the summary information.” which is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, that covers steps which can be practically performed by the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion with the aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, the limitation falls under the “Mental Processes” group of abstract ideas. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 discloses the additional element “wherein the storage unit stores, as the templates, a plurality of functional unit templates respectively corresponding to a plurality of the source codes for implementing a plurality of functional units included in the schedule optimization system” which is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, that is directed to the insignificant extra solution activity of mere data outputting (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits upon practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim discloses “wherein the storage unit stores, as the templates, a plurality of functional unit templates respectively corresponding to a plurality of the source codes for implementing a plurality of functional units included in the schedule optimization system” which has been determined to be a well-known, routine, and/or conventional activity of data outputting (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Accordingly, the additional elements cannot provide an inventive concept nor amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 discloses the additional element “... compiles the source code to generate an
object code” which is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere generic computer/computing component to apply the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits upon practicing the abstract idea.
The additional element does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim discloses “...compiles the source code to generate an object code” which is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than a mere generic computer/computing component to apply the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional element cannot provide an inventive concept nor amount to significantly more. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140040855 A1 hereinafter “Wang” in view of US 20170212732 A1 hereinafter “Kaduwela”.
With regards to claim 1,
A schedule optimization system construction support device supporting construction of a schedule optimization system solving an optimization problem for drafting a schedule (Wang [0187], “The application development environment may be configured to receive a data flow program, receive user input specifying the user's desired optimization objective(s) for the implementation of the data flow program, and receive input specifying characteristic information which specifies various execution characteristics of the actors in the data flow program. The application development environment may perform a method that analyzes the characteristic information and generates an optimized implementation of the data flow program (e.g., having an optimized schedule and/or optimized resource usage) according to the user's desired optimization objective(s).”), the schedule optimization system construction support device, comprising:
a storage unit; and
a processing unit, (Wang [0212], “The computer may include at least one central processing unit or CPU (processor) 160 which is coupled to a processor or host bus 162. The CPU 160 may be any of various types, including an x86 processor, e.g., a Pentium class, a PowerPC processor, a CPU from the SPARC family of RISC processors, or any others, as desired. A memory medium, typically comprising RAM and referred to as main memory, 166 is coupled to the host bus 162 by means of memory controller 164. The main memory 166 may store program instructions implementing embodiments of the present invention. The main memory may also store operating system software, as well as other software for operation of the computer system.”)
wherein the storage unit stores optimization problem information indicating the optimization problem (Wang [0581], “FIG. 35 illustrates that different types of optimization constraints may be formulated in various embodiments. The optimization module receives input, such as the data flow program, the access pattern information and other execution characteristic information for the data flow program, and the user's desired optimization objectives [stores optimization problem information]. The optimization module may determine one or more classes of constraints that need to be generated based on the desired optimization objectives [...indicating the optimization problem]. For each of these classes of constraints, the optimization module may determine the type of constraint class and then generate an appropriate set of constraints for that class. The optimization module may generate different types of constraints, such as quadratic constraints, linear constraints, difference constraints, or logic constraints. In other embodiments, any of various other kinds of optimization constraints may be formulated. What is eventually obtained is a set of constraints that need to be respected when solving the objective function.”), scheduled data indicating a value of a constant being a fixed element in the optimization problem (Wang [0231-232], “For example, if the domain of discourse is an untimed model of computation (static data flow for example), then any timing declaration may be considered a constraint [scheduled data]. But if the domain of discourse is timed data flow, then timing may be part of the specification. There can be different domains of discourse supported by a single designer tool. In some embodiments, the constraint language may be defined over a set of subjects, such as, for example, entities (including functional blocks, terminals and wires), properties (structural, behavioral or timing) associated with the entities, and constants [indicating a value of a constant being a fixed element in the optimization problem]. In some exemplary embodiments, the specifications or required execution properties may be with respect to one or more of: throughput of terminals on the functional blocks, throughput of the graphical program, clock rate of the (possibly graphical) program, buffer sizes between functional blocks, or latency (or delays) between functional block inputs and corresponding functional block outputs, among others.”) , and a template as a pattern of a source code of the schedule optimization system, (Wang [0567], “The techniques disclosed herein may be applied not only to graphical programs and data flow diagrams, but to data flow specifications, as well. Thus, following the above, the method may include receiving access pattern information for a data flow specification [a pattern of a source code of the schedule optimization system], where the data flow specification specifies a plurality of functional actors (or simply actors) that perform functionality according to a data flow model of computation [and a template], and where, similar to the above, the access pattern information includes one or more of: a) input pattern information specifying the time at which tokens are consumed by at least one of the functional actors, or b) output pattern information specifying the time at which tokens are produced by at least one of the functional actors. A(n implementation) program may be generated that implements the functionality based on the data flow specification and the access pattern information”)
Wang does not teach: wherein the template comprises placeholders for receiving inserted information, and
wherein the processing unit generates the source code by replacing the placeholders with the information based on the optimization problem information and the scheduled data.
However, in an analogous art Kaduwela teaches wherein the template comprises placeholders for receiving inserted information, (Kaduwela [0070], “For each template, the fulfiller 228a extracts information from the node properties provided in the request and generates appropriate source code (i.e., by filling in any placeholders for dynamic values). Once the source code for each node is generated, the fulfiller 228a merges the source code together so as to perform the nodes in the correct order and returns the generated code to the handler 226.”) and
wherein the processing unit generates the source code by replacing the placeholders with the information based on the optimization problem information and the scheduled data. (Kaduwela [0069], At step 350, the fulfiller 228a invokes the necessary code generation template(s) for the target platform. Each template contains executable code that will run on the target platform as well as placeholders for dynamic values. At step 352, the fulfiller 228a identifies any placeholders for dynamic values that need to be updated, and at step 354 the placeholders are replaced with values based on the request to create fully executable code that will run on the target platform. The generated source code is then sent back to the handler 226 at step 356, along with a log file which provides a record of the steps performed by the fulfiller 228a as well as any errors the fulfiller 228a encountered.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Kaduwela into the teachings of Wang. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a system to store optimization problems with a template for resolving said optimization problems, as in Wang, and further generating source code by replacing predefined placeholders in the templates accordingly, as in Kaduwela. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of fulfilling code generation request based on required execution properties by replacing placeholders in the to be generated executable code (Kaduwela [0025-26]).
With regards to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Wang further teaches compiles the source code to generate an object code (Wang [0280], “As also shown, the analysis metrics may be used to generate a schedule and annotations for the program, the results of which may be provided to the G synthesis and optimization process or component(s). Moreover, the synthesis and optimization may generate an application VI (graphical program), as shown, which may be included in a project, such as a LabVIEW project as shown. The project may then be compiled by a compiler to generate a hardware configuration program or file. For example, in one embodiment a LabVIEW FPGA compiler may compile generated G code to produce VHDL and/or a bitfile, which may then be used to configure a programmable hardware element, such as an FPGA. Note, however, that the architecture and process shown in FIG. 9 is exemplary only, and is not intended to limit the designer tool (or development environment) to any particular form, function, or appearance”)
Claim 6 is directed to a method corresponding to the system limitations of claim 1. Thus, claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 1.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kaduwela, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 9268537 B1 hereinafter “Zhang”
With regards to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Wang does not teach: wherein the processing unit generates the source code by further inserting information corresponding to the auxiliary information into the template.
However, in an analogous art Kaduwela teaches wherein the processing unit generates the source code by further inserting information corresponding to the auxiliary information into the template. (Kaduwela [0069], At step 350, the fulfiller 228a invokes the necessary code generation template(s) for the target platform. Each template contains executable code that will run on the target platform as well as placeholders for dynamic values. At step 352, the fulfiller 228a identifies any placeholders for dynamic values that need to be updated, and at step 354 the placeholders are replaced with values based on the request to create fully executable code that will run on the target platform. The generated source code is then sent back to the handler 226 at step 356, along with a log file which provides a record of the steps performed by the fulfiller 228a as well as any errors the fulfiller 228a encountered.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Kaduwela into the teachings of Wang. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a system to store optimization problems with a template for resolving said optimization problems, as in Wang, and further generating source code by replacing predefined placeholders in the templates accordingly, as in Kaduwela. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of fulfilling code generation request based on required execution properties by replacing placeholders in the to be generated executable code (Kaduwela [0025-26]).
The combination of Wang and Kaduwela does not teach: wherein the storage unit further stores auxiliary information indicating constraint conditions specific to schedule drafting requirements
However, in an analogous art Zhang teaches wherein the storage unit further stores auxiliary information indicating constraint conditions specific to schedule drafting requirements, (Zhang Column 17 Lines 21-43, “In some implementations, code generator 225 may adaptively create or identify effective orderings and parameterizations of the optimizations for a specific region of operations, a modeling pattern, a domain, a use context, or the like [indicating constraint conditions specific to schedule drafting requirements]. To achieve this, code generator 225 may summarize the region of operations with a characterization that captures characteristics relevant to optimizations. Additionally, code generator 225 may formulate a search of effective optimization orderings and parameterizations as an optimization problem, and may adaptively solve the optimization problem. For example, code generator 225 may encode an optimization ordering search space so that the optimization ordering space may be explored with methods, such as a genetic algorithm. As such, code generator 225 may explore the optimization ordering space to determine an effective ordering for a particular characterization. Furthermore, given an effective optimization ordering for a class of regions sharing the same characterization, code generator 225 may explore the search space, starting from an effective ordering, to find an effective ordering for a slightly different characterization. In another example, code generator 225 may use a knowledge base of effective optimization orderings and parameterizations and their associated characterization [stores auxiliary information].”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Zhang into the teachings of Wang in view of Kaduwela. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a system to store optimization problems with a template for resolving said optimization problems, as in Wang, further generating source code by replacing predefined placeholders in the templates accordingly, as in Kaduwela, wherein the storage also contains further information regarding the parameters of the optimization problem for incorporation into the source code generation, as in Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of determining performance characteristics and capabilities of the device for more optimal and ordered code generation (Zhang Column 8 Lines 16-29).
With regards to claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
The combination Wang and Kaduwela does not teach: wherein the processing unit generates summary information summarizing the optimization problem [and the scheduled data] and generates the source code based on the summary information.
However, in an analogous art Zhang teaches wherein the processing unit generates summary information summarizing the optimization problem [and the scheduled data] and generates the source code based on the summary information. (Zhang Column 17 Lines 24-43, “To achieve this, code generator 225 may summarize the region of operations with a characterization that captures characteristics relevant to optimizations [generates summary information summarizing the optimization problem]. Additionally, code generator 225 may formulate a search of effective optimization orderings and parameterizations as an optimization problem, and may adaptively solve the optimization problem. For example, code generator 225 may encode an optimization ordering search space so that the optimization ordering space may be explored with methods, such as a genetic algorithm. As such, code generator 225 may explore the optimization ordering space to determine an effective ordering for a particular characterization... Code generator 225 may determine host device performance characteristics 555 for generating code based on model 510 and/or modeling pattern 515, and target compiler capabilities 560 for the generated code [and generates the source code based on the summary information.]. For example, assume that code generator 225 determines a usage of the host device's memory required to generate the code as one of host device performance characteristics 555, and a time required to compile the generated code as one of target compiler capabilities 560. Code generator 225 may determine a target hardware profile 565 for the generated code to include a processing power of a target processor used to execute the generated code. As further shown in FIG. 5C, application domain 545, dependency 550 of code generation optimizations 540, host device performance characteristics 555, target compiler capabilities 560, and target hardware profile 565 may be provided to and stored by phase ordering library 535.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Zhang into the teachings of Wang in view of Kaduwela. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a system to store optimization problems with a template for resolving said optimization problems, as in Wang, further generating source code by replacing predefined placeholders in the templates accordingly, as in Kaduwela, wherein the storage also contains further information regarding the parameters of the optimization problem for incorporation into the source code generation, as in Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of determining performance characteristics and capabilities of the device for more optimal and ordered code generation (Zhang Column 8 Lines 16-29).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kaduwela, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 20120084748 A1 hereinafter “Lian”
With regards to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Wang teaches a scheduled optimization system.
However, the combination of Wang and Kaduwela does not teach: wherein the storage unit stores, as the templates, a plurality of functional unit templates respectively corresponding to a plurality of the source codes for implementing a plurality of functional units included in the [schedule optimization] system.
However, in an analogous art Lian teaches wherein the storage unit stores, as the templates, a plurality of functional unit templates respectively corresponding to a plurality of the source codes for implementing a plurality of functional units included in [the schedule optimization] system. (Lian [0093], “In step 602, a domain model 111 is selected among the domain models stored in the asset repository 11. The domain model 111 may be selected interactively through a user interface exposing the list of domain models pre-defined in the asset repository 11 [stores, as the templates, a plurality of functional unit templates respectively]. Alternatively, the domain model may be selected automatically, for instance when the solution generation system is dedicated to a single domain model.”) and (Lian [0017], “The computer readable program code may also include computer readable program code configured to select a domain model in response to the request for the solution model. The computer readable program code may also include computer readable program code configured to configure the solution model based on the selected domain model. The computer readable program code may additionally include computer readable program code configured to select a set of candidate technical assets for each task of the solution model. Each task has one or more requirements. The computer readable program code may additionally include computer readable program code configured to determine for each candidate technical asset of the set of candidate technical assets for each task if the one or more requirements of the task of the solution model are satisfiable by the candidate technical asset. The computer readable program code may also include computer readable program code configured to select a technical asset from the set of candidate technical assets for each task to be included in a solution implementation in response to the candidate technical asset satisfying the one or more requirements of the task of the solution model [for implementing a plurality of functional units]. The computer readable program code may further include computer readable program code configured to implement the solution in response to selecting the technical assets for each task of the solution model [corresponding to a plurality of the source codes].”) [Examiner Note: An asset repository will store multiple domain models which are selected according to a solution. The domain model will define tasks which are functional units to implement the solution through source code.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Lian into the teachings of Wang in view of Kaduwela. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a system to store optimization problems with a template for resolving said optimization problems, as in Wang, further generating source code by replacing predefined placeholders in the templates accordingly, as in Kaduwela, while storing multiple templates that are used for code generation according to system requirements and solutions, as in Lian. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of using a repository of domain models that specify technical assets which are selected according to its capability to implement tasks as specified in the requirements of a solution model (Lian [0015-16]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-13 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.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant Argues: The claims as amended recite specific technical operations involving automated analysis of structured data tables, template processing with placeholder replacement, form conversion of programming language elements, and compilation of executable code that cannot practically be performed by the human mind. These technical operations integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application for constructing schedule optimization systems and provide significantly more than any abstract idea. Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1-6 are directed to patent- eligible subject matter and respectfully requests withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner respectfully submits that the features upon which the Applicant relies (i.e., “technical operations involving automated analysis of structured data tables, template processing with placeholder replacement, form conversion of programming language elements, and compilation of executable code”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Applicant is reminded that in order for such limitations to be considered, the claim language requires to specifically recite such limitations in the claims, otherwise broadest reasonable interpretations of the broadly claimed limitations are deemed to be proper.
In, the Remarks, Applicant Argues: Regarding claim 2 as amended, the auxiliary information table contains data dependent on the optimization problem description table and scheduled data table, which are information dependent on the drafting target schedule designated by the customer. As-Filed Specification, paragraphs [0015], [0032]. Neither Wang nor Zhang teach constraint conditions specific to schedule drafting requirements as recited by amended claim 2. The cited portions of Zhang relate to general optimization orderings and parameterizations but do not disclose the specific constraint conditions tied to schedule drafting requirements as recited in the amended claim.
Examiner’s Response: The Examiner respectfully submits that the claims recite only “auxiliary information indicating constraint conditions specific to schedule drafting requirements” with no further clarification on the claim scope of the term “auxiliary information table contains data dependent on the optimization problem description table and scheduled data table, which are information dependent on the drafting target schedule designated by the customer” as intended by the Applicant to cover. The claims are not limited to the scope of “auxiliary information table contains data dependent on the optimization problem description table and scheduled data table, which are information dependent on the drafting target schedule designated by the customer” Thus, as the claims are interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow (see MPEP § 2111.01(I)), the interpretation of a broad limitation of “auxiliary information indicating constraint conditions specific to schedule drafting requirements” as properties associated with a platform model for synthesis into program code and the like by one of ordinary skill in the art is considered to be reasonable by its plain meaning.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS VIET TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM.
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, Wei Mui can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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.
/T.V.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2191 /WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191