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 § 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, and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
Yes, the claim is to a machine.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
• Yes, the limitation(s) “select/generate” and “verify/determine” is/are the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
• No, the limitation “receive” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
• No, the limitation “receive” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
As to the dependent claims, they contain limitations that describe other elements such as “the requirement”, but do nothing to alter the nature of the generation as abstract. Other limitations recite more generation, verifying, selecting, determining “concretizing” that, as noted below, is not defined and encompasses generating/mental processes, verifying that can be characterized as a mental process, etc. The remainder of the claim limitations describe these abstract ideas without altering the nature of the abstract ideas as abstract. The limitation “transmit” in claim 12 is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. The limitation “control the display device” in claim 14 is an additional element that amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer in its ordinary capacity as a tool to perform an existing process.
As to claims 10 and 11, they are rejected for reasons similar to those described above regarding claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are 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.
In the independent claims, there does not appear to be support for “select, form among multiple concretization patterns each defining definition information for concretizing by replacing a configuration element with another configuration element . . .”
Or “. . . in which definitions of configuration elements of the system are replaced with definitions of concretized multiple configuration elements . . .”
In claim 4, there does not appear to be support for “concretize the relationship by replacing the definition in the configuration element . . .”
In claim 6, there does not appear to be support for the claimed verification in the claimed stages.
In claim 13, there does not appear to be support for the claimed determination.
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.
Claim 1-6, and 8-14 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “concretize” in claim is used in many different contexts in the claims and the specification. This term is not ordinarily used in this art. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term and is used in many different contexts in the claims and so seems to be used to refer to different actions. This term appears throughout the claims and renders them all indefinite.
As to the independent claims, it is unclear what is meant by “selecting, from among designated concretization patterns defining a definition information for concretization by replacing a configuration element with another configuration element while making a part of the multiple configuration elements in the system redundant.” There appears to be a lack of antecedent basis in the claims for “the configuration element in which a failure tolerance requirement is set.” References to “the configuration element” is also unclear because there are previous references to multiple configuration elements.
As to claim 3, references to “the configuration element” is also unclear because there are previous references to multiple configuration elements.
As to claim 4, it is unclear what is meant by “concretizes the relationship to a configuration . . . respectively connecting configuration components at both ends thereof to each other by the n relationships.” There is also a lack of antecedent basis in the claims for “the other configuration component.” References to “the configuration element(s)” is also unclear because there are previous references to multiple configuration elements. It is unclear what is meant by concretizing . . . by replacing the definition . . .indicating a configuration in which a configuration element on one side and the n brokering . . . It is not clear what is meant by one side, the other side, and both ends.
As to claim 5, references to “the configuration element(s)” is also unclear because there are previous references to multiple configuration elements.
As to claim 8, there is lack of antecedent basis in the claims for “the configuration elements on which the configuration element directly and indirectly depend” and “the configuration element having the multiple attribute.” References to “the configuration element(s)” is also unclear because there are previous references to multiple configuration elements.
As to claim 9, references to “the configuration element(s)” is also unclear because there are previous references to multiple configuration elements. There is lack of antecedent basis in the claims for “the system where the configuration proposal has not been completed.”
As to claim 12, references to “the configuration element(s)” is unclear because there are previous references to multiple configuration elements. References to “the concretization pattern” is also unclear because there are previous references to multiple concretization patterns. There is lack of antecedent basis in the claims for “the multiple concretization patterns that are stored.”
As to claim 13, references to “the configuration element(s)” is unclear because there are previous references to multiple configuration elements. There is lack of antecedent basis in the claims for “the periphery.”
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. The examiner has attempted to apply prior art to the claims as far as they are understood.
Conclusion
No prior art was found with which it would be appropriate to reject the claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20160335161 A1.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JASON B BRYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7091. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8-5 First Friday off.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 5712720631. 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.
/JASON B BRYAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114