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 .
OFFICE ACTION
This is a response to the application filed on 10/6/2023.
Claims 7-19 are pending.
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 7-19 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.
Device claim 7 is rejected because:
“processing content” as presented is unclear and incomplete with respected to its intended meaning, i.e., processing what, content of what.
“equivalent circuit” as presented is unclear and incomplete regarding “equivalent circuit” is, i.e., an actual physical electrical/electronic device, circuit from a layout design, data calculated by resource control device, “equivalent circuit” inside resource control device or where/what the “equivalent circuit” from.
“function chain” in function chain creation circuit as presented is unclear and incomplete regarding what function, what chain is the intended meaning.
Dependent claims 8-14 are rejected because they depend directly or indirectly from claim 7.
Corresponding method claims 15-19 are rejected for the same reason.
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 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.
(a)(2) The claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
INSOFAR THE LIMITATIONS ARE UNDERSTOOD AND GIVEN BROADEST REASONABLE INTERPRETATIONS
Claims 7-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) being anticipated by the prior art of record Ramamurthy (US 2020/0233707)
Regarding method claims 15-16 (and corresponding device claims 7-8), the prior art discloses:
A calculation resource control (title) method, the method comprising:
inputting a processing content specified by a user (i.e., user transactions/ actions with applications, user performing the process steps while executing applications, user to redesign processes, user enter/provide input through GUI, user actions performed in a GUI to execute the activity in the application (par 22, 27-30, 37-38, 46));
collecting candidates for a processing circuit having a function of executing a part of the processing content to output an equivalent circuit candidate group (par 30-33, 78-83);
determining a processing execution circuit from the equivalent circuit candidate group wherein the processing execution circuit is determined by the processing content specified by the user (processing execution circuit determined by processing content specified by user, i.e., user transactions/ actions with applications, user performing the process steps while executing applications, user to redesign processes, user enter/provide input through GUI, user actions performed in a GUI to execute the activity in the application (par 22, 27-30, 37, 46)) and
outputting a function chain for executing the processing content.
(i.e., see one or more of:
Functions designer/ generator/ executing/equivalent engine (par 30-33, 78)
process steps may correspond to multiple sequences GUI interactions carried out while performing the activity (par 30); users involved in every transaction…process steps that are to be performed in sequence, the process steps that can be performed in any sequence, and availability of computing resources (par 22, 35), process steps may correspond to multiple sequences of graphical user interface interactions (par 30); users may be observed when they are performing processes in real-time (par 37), user redesign processes (par 40);
tasks can be run in parallel (e.g., simultaneously) or in-sequence (par 42), execution sequence can be used in the distributed processes (par 58))
(Claims 9, 12, 17) optimizing the function chain based on a calculation resource restriction or a performance optimization condition that is input by the user (see one or more of back ground, par 22, 27-30, 37-41, 56)
(Claims 10, 13, 18) determining regeneration of the function chain based on system monitor information input by the user (see one or more of par 27-32, 36-42)
(Claims 11, 14, 19) wherein determining the regeneration of the function chain is determined based on a value indicating a usage state of a calculation resource of an entire system or a value indicating a progress of processing in response to a processing request from the user (fig 1-4 and related text)
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL DINH whose telephone number is 571-272-1890. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s Supervisor, Jack Chiang can be reached on 571-272-7483. The fax 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.
/PAUL DINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights