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 .
Claims 1-10 have been examined.
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 1-10 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 1 recites the limitation "the following steps" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, this limitation is interpreted as “following steps”.
Claims 2-7 are rejected for dependency upon rejected base claim 1 above.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the data processing block” on line 12 of the claim, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the data processing block refers to the data processing blocks on line 4 or to another. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-7 are rejected for dependency upon rejected base claim 1 above.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the data processing block” on line 16 of the claim, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the data processing block refers to the data processing blocks on line 4 or to another. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-7 are rejected for dependency upon rejected base claim 1 above.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the data processing block” on lines 11-12 of the claim, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the data processing block refers to the data processing blocks on line 4 or to another. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the data processing block” on line 16 of the claim, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the data processing block refers to the data processing blocks on line 4 or to another. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “an adjustment value” on line 7 of the claim, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the adjustment value refers to the adjustment value on line 2 of the claim or to another. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the following steps" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, this limitation is interpreted as “following steps”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the data processing block” on line 14 of the claim, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the data processing block refers to the data processing blocks on line 6 or to another. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the data processing block” on line 18 of the claim, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the data processing block refers to the data processing blocks on line 6 or to another. 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 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 8 reciting “a data processing arrangement” does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter since claim 8 is clearly not a process or apparatus or article of manufacture or a composition of matter, it appears to fail to fall within a statutory category and thus non-statutory.
Claim 9 appears to be an apparatus of software alone, lacking the necessary physical components (hardware) to constitute a machine or a manufacture under 101. Since claim 9 is clearly not a process or a composition of matter, it appears to fail to fall within a statutory category and thus non-statutory.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 8 and 10 recite processing the payload data together with metadata by a sequence of data processing blocks so that the payload data are processed from an initial version of the payload data to a final version of the payload data, and the metadata are processed from an initial version of the metadata to a final version of the metadata, wherein an adjustment value is ascertained for each of the data processing blocks as a function of a supplied payload data version so that, when a supplied metadata version is correctly processed by the data processing block to form a respective processing result, the processing result, after having been adjusted according to the ascertained adjustment value according to a specified adjustment rule, is equal to a value assigned to the data processing block; wherein each of the data processing blocks processes the supplied metadata version, and a next metadata version is derived from the supplied metadata version as a function of the processing result thereof adjusted according to the adjustment value according to the specified adjustment rule; and checking whether the payload data have been processed correctly by checking whether the final version of the metadata matches a reference final version of the metadata.
The limitation of processing the payload data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor’ (in claim 10) nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor” language (in claim 10), “processing the payload data” in the context of these claims encompasses a user mentally comparing metadata versions. Furthermore, the calculating an adjustment value encompasses mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components such as “a processor” (in claim 10). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or as mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” and “Mathematical Calculations” groupings of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional step of checking whether the payload data have been processed correctly by checking whether the final version of the metadata matches a reference final version of the metadata.
The checking step is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of checking metadata versions) and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The combination of this additional step is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e. the processor). Accordingly, even in combination, this additional step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the processor is a generic computer processor which performs the checking step. The only additional element of checking step which is insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(d) and WURC as data gathering, which is covered by court cases in MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites “wherein, for each of the data processing blocks, the next metadata version is derived from the supplied metadata version by applying a function to the supplied metadata version and the processing result after it has been adjusted with the adjustment value according to the specified adjustment rule” (mathematical calculations). The features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the function is a cyclic redundancy check function” (mathematical calculations). The features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Claim 4 recites “wherein each of the data processing blocks processes the supplied metadata version, as a function of checkpoints that are run through during the processing of the payload data, and the adjustment value is ascertained by ascertaining which and/or what number of checkpoints is run through during the processing of the payload data” (mathematical calculations). The features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the metadata version supplied to each data processing block is iteratively processed by the data processing block in that it is processed for each checkpoint that is run through, according to a metadata processing value assigned to the checkpoint” (mathematical calculations). The features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the metadata version supplied to each data processing block is iteratively processed by the data processing block in that it is processed for each checkpoint that is run through, by applying a CRC function which receives, as input, the metadata processing value assigned to the data processing block” (mathematical calculations). The features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the adjustment rule includes that the processing result is adjusted as a function of a difference of the initial version of the metadata to a reference initial version of the metadata” (mathematical calculations). The features of this claim do not add any additional elements integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Claim 9 recites ascertaining an adjustment value as a function of a payload data version supplied to it, so that, when a metadata version supplied to it is processed correctly by the data processing apparatus to form a respective processing result, the processing result, after having been adjusted according to an adjustment value according to a specified adjustment rule, is equal to a value assigned to the data processing apparatus; and process a metadata version supplied to it, and to derive a next metadata version from the metadata version supplied to it, as a function of the processing result adjusted according to the adjustment value according to the specified adjustment rule.
The calculating an adjustment value encompasses mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations as mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Calculations” grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional step of process a metadata version supplied to it, and to derive a next metadata version from the metadata version supplied to it, as a function of the processing result adjusted according to the adjustment value according to the specified adjustment rule.
The processing step is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The combination of this additional step is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The only additional element of processing step which is insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(d) and WURC as data gathering, which is covered by court cases in MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claims are not patent eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 USC 112 and 35 USC 101, but would be allowable if the 35 USC 112 and 35 USC 101 rejections are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The cited prior art taken alone or in combination fail to teach, in combination with the other claimed limitations, wherein an adjustment value is ascertained for each of the data processing blocks as a function of a supplied payload data version so that, when a supplied metadata version is correctly processed by the data processing block to form a respective processing result, the processing result, after having been adjusted according to the ascertained adjustment value according to a specified adjustment rule, is equal to a value assigned to the data processing block; wherein each of the data processing blocks processes the supplied metadata version, and a next metadata version is derived from the supplied metadata version as a function of the processing result thereof adjusted according to the adjustment value according to the specified adjustment rule; and checking whether the payload data have been processed correctly by checking whether the final version of the metadata matches a reference final version of the metadata as recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 10; and further fail to teach ascertain an adjustment value as a function of a payload data version supplied to it, so that, when a metadata version supplied to it is processed correctly by the data processing apparatus to form a respective processing result, the processing result, after having been adjusted according to an adjustment value according to a specified adjustment rule, is equal to a value assigned to the data processing apparatus as recited in independent claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ostrover (US 2005/0080743) teaches a method for testing metadata versions.
Grube (US 2011/0078377) teaches a method for processing metadata versions according to rules.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QAMRUN NAHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4pm.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on (571)272-3759. 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.
/QAMRUN NAHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199