DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to preliminary amendment filed on March 28, 2024 in this application Young et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 18/696,651 (Filed March 28, 2024) claiming priority to PCT/CN2022/125382 (10/14/2022) claiming priority to CN202111142660.X (9/28/2021) (“Young”). Claims 1 – 3, 5, 7 – 9, 13 – 15, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 30 – 32 are pending
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 6/19/2024 & 2/11/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. The references listed therein have been considered, and placed in the application file.
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 – 3, 5, 7 – 9, 13 – 15, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 30 – 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed inventions do not fall within a statutory category of invention because the claimed invention is directed to a “Mental Processes” abstract idea without significantly more.
1. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a “Mental Processes” abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites selecting at least one composite paradigm from a plurality of composite paradigms; acquiring an arrangement operation for at least two function blocks of the plurality of function blocks to obtain a computation sequence; based on the computation sequence, performing a concatenation operation to determine a joining relationship between the at least two function blocks; and based on an interface of each function block of the at least two function blocks and the joining relationship between the at least two function blocks, encapsulating the at least two function blocks into a composite function block and generating an interface corresponding to the composite function block, wherein each function block of the plurality of function blocks comprises at least one input data item and at least one output data item that correspond to an interface corresponding to the function block, and the at least one input data item and the at least one output data item exist in a form of storage in the function block; and the concatenation operation comprises joining at least part of input data items and/or at least part of output data items of the at least two function blocks, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed in the mind or by pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution data storage, nothing in the claim elements precludes the acquiring, obtaining, concatenating, determining, encapsulating, interface generating, and joining from being performed in the mind of a developer potentially using a computer as a tool for editing program code. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)(3). As drafted, the claimed process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components and insignificant extra-solution data storage, which falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recite generic computing components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do 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 courts have identified mere data gathering, displaying/outputting, transmitting, and storing, are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7 – 9, 13 – 15, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, and 30 – 32 contain the same abstract idea as claim 1 and do not contain any additional limitations that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
2. Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed inventions do not fall within a statutory category of invention because they are neither a process, machine, manufacture, nor composition of matter.
Claim 30 covers a computer program per se, and fail to recite any device or structure comprising the invention because under the broadest reasonable interpretation they include purely software embodiments. See Interim Guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility, U.S. Patent and Trademark Off. (December 16, 2014) available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29414.pdf; see also MPEP 2106(I); see also Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, U.S. Patent and Trademark Off. (Aug. 24, 2009), available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/2009-08-25_interim_101_instructions.pdf.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. §103
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 – 3 and 30 – 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nandakumar, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0138004 (Published May 5, 2022, filed July 27, 2021) (“Nandakumar”) in view of Rosendahl et al., United States Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0211784 (Published June 27, 2024, filed October 19, 2020) (“Rosendahl”).
Claims 1, 31, and 32
With respect to claims 1, 31, and 32, Nandakumar teaches the invention as claimed including a method for constructing a composite function block by nested use of composite paradigms, applied to a function block library comprising a plurality of function blocks, wherein the method comprises:
acquiring an arrangement operation for at least two function blocks of the plurality of function blocks to obtain a computation sequence; based on the computation sequence, performing a concatenation operation to determine a joining relationship between the at least two function blocks; and based on an interface of each function block of the at least two function blocks and the joining relationship between the at least two function blocks, …wherein each function block of the plurality of function blocks comprises at least one input data item and at least one output data item that correspond to an interface corresponding to the function block, and the at least one input data item and the at least one output data item exist in a form of storage in the function block; and the concatenation operation comprises joining at least part of input data items and/or at least part of output data items of the at least two function blocks. {A graphical user interface canvas is used to identify functional logic blocks, join compatible inputs and output of the blocks to form a pipeline [composite function block], and publish the pipeline to a library as a block which could then subsequently be selected from the library for incorporation into a second pipeline. Nandakumar at ¶¶ 0020 & 0120; id. at ¶ 0084 (blocks can import other blocks from the block library using decorator 308); id. at ¶ 0097 (blocks combined to form a pipeline “may be incorporated within a block” and imported using a decorator 308 by a future block).}
However, Nandakumar doesn’t explicitly teach the limitation:
selecting at least one composite paradigm from a plurality of composite paradigms; … encapsulating the at least two function blocks into a composite function block and generating an interface corresponding to the composite function block, {Rosendahl does teach this limitation. Rosendahl teaches that the method for combining function blocks to form a reusable program block, as taught in Nandakumar, may include where the function block nodes [blocks] may be combined into sub-graphs [composite function block] which may be stored in the node database library and the sub-graphs reused as nodes in building a future program. Rosendahl at ¶¶ 0028, 0030, 0042, 0046, 0050 - 0054.
Nandakumar and Rosendahl are analogous art because they are from the “same field of endeavor” and are both from the same “problem-solving area.” Specifically, they are both from the field of software development, and both are trying to solve the problem of how to reuse previously developed software.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine combining function blocks to form a reusable program block, as taught in Nandakumar, with storing the combined function blocks in a database library for future incorporation into programs, as taught in Rosendahl. Rosendahl teaches that function libraries need to support complex composite processes. Rosendahl at ¶ 0003. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine combining function blocks to form a reusable program block, as taught in Nandakumar, with storing the combined function blocks in a database library for future incorporation into programs, as taught in Rosendahl, for the purpose of using a known graphical programming tool to assemble a program using functional blocks with a function block library that provides composite function blocks.}
Claim 2
With respect to claim 2 and 12, Nandakumar and Rosendahl teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the plurality of function blocks comprise a plurality of basic function blocks and …the plurality of basic function blocks represent a minimum unit composing any composite function block; each basic function block of the plurality of basic function blocks has a corresponding computing functionality thereof; …a variable name does not need to be designated for the at least one input data item and the at least one output data item; and the method further comprises: {A graphical user interface canvas is used to identify functional logic blocks, join compatible inputs and output of the blocks to form a pipeline [composite function block], and publish the pipeline to a library as a block which could then subsequently be selected from the library for incorporation into a second pipeline. Nandakumar at ¶¶ 0020 & 0120; id. at ¶ 0084 (blocks can import other blocks from the block library using decorator 308); id. at ¶ 0097 (blocks combined to form a pipeline “may be incorporated within a block” and imported using a decorator 308 by a future block).}
a plurality of composite function blocks, and each of the plurality of composite function blocks is composed of at least one basic function block and/or at least one composite function block;… a computing functionality of each of the plurality of composite function blocks is determined based on a computing functionality and a joining relationship of the at least one basic function block and/or the at least one composite function block;… storing the composite function block is stored in the function block library as a function block to expand the function block library. {The function block nodes [blocks] may be combined into sub-graphs [composite function block] which may be stored in the node database library and the sub-graphs reused as nodes in building a future program. Rosendahl at ¶¶ 0028, 0030, 0042, 0046, 0050 - 0054.}
Claim 3
With respect to claim 3, Nandakumar and Rosendahl teach the invention as claimed including:
wherein the concatenation operation is performed in a following order of steps: compositing the at least two function blocks according to at least one composite paradigm of the plurality of composite paradigms; and …and according to at least one composite paradigm of the plurality of composite paradigms, compositing the at least two function blocks after joining data items. {The function block nodes [blocks] may be combined into sub-graphs [composite function block] which may be stored in the node database library and the sub-graphs reused as nodes in building a future program. Rosendahl at ¶¶ 0028, 0030, 0042, 0046, 0050 - 0054.}
joining at least part of input data items and/or at least part of output data items of the at least two function blocks after compositing; or joining at least part of input data items and/or at least part of output data items of the at least two function blocks; {A graphical user interface canvas is used to identify functional logic blocks, join compatible inputs and output of the blocks to form a pipeline [composite function block], and publish the pipeline to a library as a block which could then subsequently be selected from the library for incorporation into a second pipeline. Nandakumar at ¶¶ 0020 & 0120; id. at ¶ 0084 (blocks can import other blocks from the block library using decorator 308); id. at ¶ 0097 (blocks combined to form a pipeline “may be incorporated within a block” and imported using a decorator 308 by a future block).}
Claim 30
With respect to claim 30, Nandakumar and Rosendahl teach the invention as claimed including:
A composite function block obtained by the method according to claim 1, comprising one or more function blocks, wherein the one or more function blocks are joined by a data transfer joining line and/or an auxiliary merging joining line. {A graphical user interface canvas allows user to drag and drop function nodes to a composer canvas and connect the nodes to specify a pipeline. Nandakumar at ¶ 0120 & fig. 2 (connection lines specifying connections between function nodes 204).}
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE E HEBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-1409. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m..
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.
//T.H./ June 13, 2026
Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights