DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Application # 18/507,578 was filed on 11/13/2023.-
Claims 1-20 are subject to examination.
An IDS filed on 11/13/2023 has been fully considered and entered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1, 8, 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 1, 8, 15, it states in the 2nd limitation “transmit the group join proposal to group members of the group for presentation to cluster transaction manager…”. The specification of the current application does not state/recite “for presentation” or any other variation of presenting. Therefore, appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) 1, 8, 15 recite(s) receive a group proposal at a join proposal coordinator for a client to join a group which is a pre-solution activity but can also be done mentally wherein a user can receive a proposal to join a group on a piece of paper; transmit the group join proposal to group members which can be done wherein the group join proposal can a list on a piece of paper which can be passed around to other users to add their names; determine whether to allow the client to join the group based upon the responses which is a mental step wherein based on the answer written on a piece of paper by the user(s), adding/creating the group. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the machine , processor and memory in the steps is recited at a high level of generality such that is amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements of memory, processor and machine does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of memory, processor and machine amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20, they recite similar limitations such as verifying that there are no pending transactions, allowing the cluster transaction manager to join facilitating an operation on shared resource, adding the group identifier; implementing group leave proposal which all can be done mentally wherein on the piece of papers verification can take place as well as allowing to add/join, adding the group identifier next to the name and leave proposal wherein user request to leave by writing next to their names. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the machine , processor and memory in the steps is recited at a high level of generality such that is amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements of memory, processor and machine does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of memory, processor and machine amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1-20 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Badovinatz et al. U.S. Patent # 5,748,958 (hereinafter Bado) in view of Lee et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2010/0251122 (hereinafter Lee)
With respect to claim 1, Bado teaches a non-transitory machine readable medium comprising instructions, which when executed by a machine, causes the machine to:
-receive a group join proposal at a join proposal coordinator for a cluster transaction manager client to join a group associated with a group identifier within the group join proposal (i.e. initiate a request to join a group wherein the first process to join a process group identifies a set of attribute for the group which includes a group name which is a unique identifier) (column 7 lines 10-14)(column 13 lines 29-36);
transmit the group join proposal to group members of the group to cluster transaction manager clients associated with the group members (i.e. determine group leader by member wishing to join the group, determines the group leader and selecting inquiry and form group)(column 7 lines 14-31, 32-45); and
in response to receiving responses from the group members (column 7 lines 14-31, 32-45) determine whether to allow the cluster transaction manager client to join the group based upon the responses (i.e. should the name server response that the requesting processor is the group leave, since this is the first request to the group, the requesting processor forms the processor group and creates a membership list for that particular processor group) (column 7 lines 22-28)
Bado does not explicitly teach presentation of group join proposal.
Lee teaches transmit the group join proposal to group members for presentation to cluster transaction manager (i.e. group manager manages joining and leaving of the mobile terminals to and from a group to which a presentation is provided)(Paragraph 31, 46, 64) associated with the group members (Paragraph 31, 46), in response to receiving responses from the group members (Paragraph 31, 64), determining whether to allow the cluster transaction manager to join the group based upon the responses (Paragraph 64-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Lee’s teaching in Bado’s teaching to come up with having presentation of group join proposal. The motivation for doing so would be to provide opening and closing of a presentation file which can be controlled by the mobile terminals.
With respect to claim 2, Bado and Lee teaches the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 1, but Bado further teaches wherein the instructions cause the machine to: verify that there are no pending transactions that will modify the group, a membership list of the group, or a shared workspace of the group before implementing the group join proposal (i.e. initiate request to join which is the 1st request to join hence no pending transactions)(column 13 lines 4-28)
With respect to claim 3, Bado and Lee teaches the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 1, but Bado further teaches wherein the instructions cause the machine to: allow the cluster transaction manager client to join the group based upon the responses indicating unanimous approval (column 13 lines 3-18).
With respect to claim 4, Bado and Lee teaches the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 1, but Lee further teaches wherein the instructions cause the machine to: in response to allowing the cluster transaction manager client to join the group, facilitate an operation on a shared resource by the cluster transaction manager client (Paragraph 46, 49, 51)
With respect to claim 5, Bado and Lee teaches the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 1, but Lee further teaches wherein the instructions cause the machine to: in response to determining that the group does not exist based upon the group identifier not occurring within a list of currently active groups, add the group identifier to the list of currently active groups to create the group (Paragraph 64)
With respect to claim 6, Bado and Lee teaches the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 1, but Bado further teaches wherein the instructions cause the machine to: implement a group leave proposal by the cluster transaction manager client to leave the group (column 14 lines 26-52)
With respect to claim 7, Bado and Lee teaches the non-transitory machine readable medium of claim 1, but Bado further teaches wherein the instructions cause the machine to: verify that there are no pending transactions that will modify a membership list of the group before implementing the group join proposal (i.e. initiate request to join which is the 1st request to join hence no pending transactions)(column 13 lines 4-28)
With respect to claim 8, Bado teaches a method comprising:
- receiving a group join proposal at a join proposal coordinator for a cluster transaction manager client to join a group associated with a group identifier within the group join proposal (i.e. initiate a request to join a group wherein the first process to join a process group identifies a set of attribute for the group which includes a group name which is a unique identifier) (column 7 lines 10-14)(column 13 lines 29-36);
transmitting the group join proposal to group members of the group to cluster transaction manager clients associated with the group members (i.e. determine group leader by member wishing to join the group, determines the group leader and selecting inquiry and form group)(column 7 lines 14-31, 32-45); and
in response to receiving responses from the group members (column 7 lines 14-31, 32-45) determining whether to allow the cluster transaction manager client to join the group based upon the responses (i.e. should the name server response that the requesting processor is the group leave, since this is the first request to the group, the requesting processor forms the processor group and creates a membership list for that particular processor group) (column 7 lines 22-28)
Bado does not explicitly teach presentation of group join proposal.
Lee teaches transmit the group join proposal to group members for presentation to cluster transaction manager (i.e. group manager manages joining and leaving of the mobile terminals to and from a group to which a presentation is provided)(Paragraph 31, 46, 64) associated with the group members (Paragraph 31, 46), in response to receiving responses from the group members (Paragraph 31, 64), determining whether to allow the cluster transaction manager to join the group based upon the responses (Paragraph 64-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Lee’s teaching in Bado’s teaching to come up with having presentation of group join proposal. The motivation for doing so would be to provide opening and closing of a presentation file which can be controlled by the mobile terminals.
With respect to claims 9-14 respectively, teaches same limitations as claims 2-7 respectively, therefore rejected under same basis.
With respect to claim 15, Bado teaches a computing device comprising: a memory comprising machine executable code for performing a method; and a processor coupled to the memory, the processor configured to execute the machine executable code to cause the computing device to:
- receive a group join proposal at a join proposal coordinator for a cluster transaction manager client to join a group associated with a group identifier within the group join proposal (i.e. initiate a request to join a group wherein the first process to join a process group identifies a set of attribute for the group which includes a group name which is a unique identifier) (column 7 lines 10-14)(column 13 lines 29-36);
transmit the group join proposal to group members of the group to cluster transaction manager clients associated with the group members (i.e. determine group leader by member wishing to join the group, determines the group leader and selecting inquiry and form group)(column 7 lines 14-31, 32-45); and
in response to receiving responses from the group members (column 7 lines 14-31, 32-45) determine whether to allow the cluster transaction manager client to join the group based upon the responses (i.e. should the name server response that the requesting processor is the group leave, since this is the first request to the group, the requesting processor forms the processor group and creates a membership list for that particular processor group) (column 7 lines 22-28)
Bado does not explicitly teach presentation of group join proposal.
Lee teaches transmit the group join proposal to group members for presentation to cluster transaction manager (i.e. group manager manages joining and leaving of the mobile terminals to and from a group to which a presentation is provided)(Paragraph 31, 46, 64) associated with the group members (Paragraph 31, 46), in response to receiving responses from the group members (Paragraph 31, 64), determining whether to allow the cluster transaction manager to join the group based upon the responses (Paragraph 64-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Lee’s teaching in Bado’s teaching to come up with having presentation of group join proposal. The motivation for doing so would be to provide opening and closing of a presentation file which can be controlled by the mobile terminals.
With respect to claims 16-20 respectively, teaches same limitations as claims 2-6 respectively, therefore rejected under same basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
A). Maki et al. U.S. Patent # 7,543,121
B). Coan et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2010/0180116
C). Shaffer et al. U.S. Patent Publication # 2009/0131085
D). Haynes et al. U.S. Patent # 7,516,285
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DHAIRYA A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5809. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached at 571-272-5863. 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.
DHAIRYA A. PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2453
/DHAIRYA A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453