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 1-5, 11-12, 15-19-22 are pending.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following minor informalities:
The language of the abstract should not repeat the information given in the title.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-- recored -- should be -- recorded-- in [0072].
Appropriate correction is required.
The use of the term Android, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Drawing
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
Fig. 3 and fig. 4 are duplicate.
Fig. 5-6 are not legible.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-5, 11-12, 15-19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following claim language is not clearly understood:
Claim 1 recites “adding the identifier to the lifecycle table” and later in claim 4 recites “deleting the lifecycle table”. It is unclear when the table is generated and if there is an event that triggers the generation of lifecycle table.
Claim 4 recites “after the two-way communication process is stopped, deleting the two-way communication process”. It is unclear if the process is deleted or the process id is deleted from the table or both the process is deleted and process identifier is deleted from the lifecycle table.
Claims 11 and 12 recite elements of claim 1 and have similar deficiency as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational. Remaining dependent claims 2-5, 15-18 and 19-22 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claims.
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 1-5, 11-12, 15-19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more or integrating into practical application.
claims 1-5, 11-12, 15-19-22 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Examples of abstract ideas include at least Mathematical concepts, Mental process and Certain Methods of organizing human activity. Independent claim 1 is directed to “adding respective identifiers to a table the different processes determined to be communicating and deleting the identifiers if either process stops communication” at a high level of generality.
Step 1
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 1 recites a method, which falls within the “process” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 11 recites a device comprising memory and processor, which falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 12 recites a method non-transitory computer-readable medium, which falls within the “machine /manufacture” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, the analysis determines whether the claims recite a judicial exception and fail to integrate the exception into practical application. If both elements are satisfied, the claims are directed to a judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test, See id.
Step 2A Prong One
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
claim elements
i.
1. (Original) A two-way communication method, comprising:
generic computing method
ii.
adding an identifier corresponding to the first process and another identifier corresponding to the second process to a lifecycle table, in response to determining that a first process is to communicate with a second process;
mental process abstract idea
iii.
causing the first process to communicate with the second process based on a two-way communication process; and
common computing method
iv.
deleting the identifier corresponding to either of the processes from the lifecycle table when it is determined that the process stops communicating.
mental process abstract idea
The overall process described by steps [ii] and [iv] describes “concepts performed in the human mind” or “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg, 52. Thus steps [ii]-[iv] recite the abstract concept of [m]ental processes.” Id. For example, step [ii] recites “adding an identifier corresponding to the first process and another identifier corresponding to the second process to a lifecycle table, in response to determining that a first process is to communicate with a second process;”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper. Claim 1 step [iv] recites “deleting the identifier corresponding to either of the processes from the lifecycle table when it is determined that the process stops communicating”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper according to the broadest interpretation of the claim. Therefore, steps [ii]-[iv] resembles the idea of performing observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion according to the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claim elements and can be performed by human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception. For these same reasons, claims 11-12 also recite judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Because independent claims 1, 11 and 12 recite a judicial exception, Analysis determines if the claims recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application. In addition to the limitations of independent claim 1 discussed above that recite the abstract concepts, claim 1 also recites additional steps [i] and [iii]. Claim 1 in step [i] recites method for communication, which is directed to common computing method with intended use, and therefore doesn’t integrate the abstract idea into practical application. Claim 1 in step [ii] recites “causing the first process to communicate with the second process based on a two-way communication process”, which is directed to process for communication and is commonly performed in the field of computing, and neither inventive nor provide improvements to the technology and/or technical field. Therefore, these additional claim elements, either alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations recited in claim 1 steps [i], [iii] from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, the claim elements recited in steps [i], [iii] , under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception without integrating into practical application. For these same reasons and based on similar analysis as above, claims 11 and 12 also recites judicial exception without integrating into practical application.
Step 2B
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)).
Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Because claims 1, 11 and 12 are directed to judicial exception, analysis must determine, according to Alice, whether these claims recite an element, or combination of elements that is enough to ensure that the claim is directed to significantly more than a judicial exception.
The Memorandum, Section III (B) (footnote 36) states:
In accordance with existing guidance, an Examiner’s conclusion that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity must be supported with a factual determination. For more information concerning evaluation of well-understood, routine, convention activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum.
The Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III(A)(1) states:
A Specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, on in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 §U.S.C. 112(a). A finding that an element is well-understood, routine, or conventional cannot be based only on the fact that the specification is silent with respect to describing such element.
Claim 1 in step [i] recites method for communication, which is directed to common computing method (See Background [0004]) with intended use, and therefore doesn’t amount to significantly more. Claim 1 in step [ii] recites “causing the first process to communicate with the second process based on a two-way communication process”, which is directed to process for communication and is commonly performed in the field of computing, as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art (See Background [0004]). As such these additional claim elements are not directed to anything beyond conventional nature of these elements or otherwise more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field of computing. These limitations either alone or in combination simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Therefore, these additional claim elements, either alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more. The Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations recited in claim 1 steps [i], [iii] from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, the claim elements recited in steps [i], [iii] under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not amount to significantly more.
Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception without integrating into practical application and don’t amount to significantly more. For these same reasons and based on similar analysis as above, claims 11 and 12 also recites judicial exception without integrating into practical application and don’t amount to significantly more.
Dependent claim 2 recites similar limitations as claim 1 for a third process, and therefore, they are rejected for the same analysis/rationales.
Dependent claim 3 recites “stopping the two-way communication process when there is no identifier corresponding to a process in the lifecycle table”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
Dependent claim 4 recites “wherein after the two-way communication process is stopped, the method further comprises: deleting the two-way communication process and the lifecycle table”, which is directed to stopping the process and deleting the process and the table. Stopping process and deleting a table are common computing method and is neither inventive nor amount to significantly more.
Dependent claim 5 recites “wherein the two-way communication process is generated within a shared region”, which describe the region for communication process, and is neither inventive nor amount to significantly more.
Based on similar analysis as above, dependent claims 15-18 and 19-22 recite claim elements that are either abstract idea or additional claim elements, that individually or in combination, are either generic computing methods/components or insignificant pre-post solution activity and neither integrate into practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim(s) 1-5, 11-12, 15-19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to judicial exception without integrating into practical application or significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 11-12, 15-16, 18-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinberg (US 10,846,117 ) in view of Yato et al. (US 2009/0089866 A1, hereafter Yato).
As per claim 1, Steinberg teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a two-way communication method (col 3 lines 4-10 bi-directional transfer of information between the agent process and the hyper-process), comprising:
an identifier corresponding to the first process (col 3 lines 48-55 agent, request, message, identifier generated by the agent e.g. ID x) and another identifier corresponding to the second process (col 3 lines 60-65 ID generated by the hyper-process), in response to determining that a first process is to communicate with a second process ( col 3 lines 57-61 request and response id, col 4 lines 4-6 matching request and response IDs);
causing the first process to communicate with the second process based on a two-way communication process (col 3 lines 4-10 bi-directional transfer of information between the agent process and the hyper-process; col 3 lines 45-50 request / response protocol, enable bi-directional transfer of information, between the agent and virtualization layer);
when it is determined the process stops communicating (col 4 lines 15-22 communication between the agent and the virtualization layer, notification for process being created and destroyed, exploit detection events or other alert i.e. can detect the process stop ; col 8 lines 15-30 hyper-processes, bi-directional communication, agent).
Steinberg doesn’t specifically teach adding identifier to the lifecycle table; and deleting the identifier corresponding to either of the processes from the lifecycle table when it is determined that the process stops communicating.
Yato, however, teaches adding identifier to the lifecycle table ([0115] communication management table, stores, user id, service id, communication id ); and
deleting the identifier corresponding to either of the processes from the lifecycle table when it is determined that the process stops communicating ([0112] termination of communication, deletes both the communication id corresponding to the call id as well as service id associated with the communication id from the communication management table [0119] deletes the entire record corresponding to the user id, communication management table ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Steinberg with the teachings of Yato of storing user id, service id, communication id into a communication management table, and deleting the entire record corresponding to the user id upon termination of the communication to improve efficiency and allow adding identifier to the lifecycle table; and deleting the identifier corresponding to either of the processes from the lifecycle table when it is determined that the process stops communicating to the method of Steinberg as in the instant invention.
The combination would have been obvious because applying the method of maintaining the identities of the user/ service / communication in a communication management table as taught by Yato to the method of Steinberg to yield expected result of adding / deleting identifier of the communication into a management table to improve efficiency and manageability of the communication.
As per claim 2, Steinberg teaches adding an identifier corresponding to a third process to the lifecycle table when it is determined that the third process is to communicate with a target process corresponding to any one of identifiers in the lifecycle table (col 3 lines 57-65 ID generated by the hyper-process, request and response id, col 4 lines 4-6 matching request and response IDs); and
causing the third process to communicate with the target process based on the two-way communication process (col 3 lines 4-10 bi-directional transfer of information between the agent process and the hyper-process; col 3 lines 45-50 request / response protocol, enable bi-directional transfer of information, between the agent and virtualization layer col 8 lines 15-25 hyper calls from one or more hyper-processes).
Yato teaches remaining claim elements of adding identifier corresponding to the third process to the lifecycle table and target process corresponding to any one of identifiers in the lifecycle table ([0115] communication management table, stores, user id, service id, communication id ; fig. 7 communication id, subject_id, target_id; fig. 5 communication management table 6040 user id, service id, communication id)
As per claim 3, Steinberg teaches stopping the two-way communication (col 4 lines 15-22 communication between the agent and the virtualization layer, notification for process being created and destroyed, exploit detection events or other alert; col 8 lines 15-30 hyper-processes, bi-directional communication, agent).
Yato teaches remaining claim elements of stopping the process when there is no identifier corresponding to a process in the lifecycle table ([0244] determine whether or not, service, user, permitted, prohibited service, process id, terminates the process [0123] user id, service id, determine whether the combination of the user id/service id exists in the communication management table, doesn’t exist, service id is not permitted).
As per claim 5, Steinberg teaches wherein the two-way communication process is generated within a shared region (col 2 lines 60-67 communication, between, hyper-process, agent process, virtual communication device, implemented as shared memory).
Claim 11 recites two-way communication device, comprising: a memory; a processor; and a computer program, wherein the computer program is stored in the memory, and is configured to be executed by the processor to cause a method
Claim 12 recites non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon, wherein the computer program, when executed by a processor, causes a method, wherein the method comprises elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 15 recites device comprising elements similar to claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 16 recites device comprising elements similar to claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 18 recites device comprising elements similar to claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 19 recites non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising elements similar to claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 20 recites non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising elements similar to claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 22 recites non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising elements similar to claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claims 4, 17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinberg in view of Yato, as applied to above claims, and further in view of Schechter et al. (US 2022/0100719 A1, hereafter Schechter).
As per claim 4, Steinberg teaches wherein after the two-way communication process is stopped (col 4 lines 15-22 communication between the agent and the virtualization layer, notification for process being created and destroyed, exploit detection events or other alert; col 8 lines 15-30 hyper-processes, bi-directional communication, agent).
Yato teaches remaining claim elements of deleting the two-way communication process ([0112] termination of communication, delete both the communication id, call id, service id [0119] deletes the entire record ).
Steinberg and Yato, in combination, do not specifically teach deleting the lifecycle table.
Schechter, however, teaches deleting the lifecycle table ([0036] deleting a table from the data store; delete table lifecycle operation ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Steinberg and Yato with the teachings of Schechter of deleting a table from the data store to improve efficiency and allow deleting the lifecycle table to the method of Steinberg and Yato as in the instant invention.
The combination would have been obvious because applying the method of deleting table from the datastore as taught by Schechter to the method of Steinberg and Yato to yield expected result of deleting the lifecycle table to improve resource efficiency and manageability of the communication.
Claim 17 recites device comprising elements similar to claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 21 recites non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising elements similar to claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Examiners Note
Applicant is further reminded of that the cited paragraphs and in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant(s) and although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider all of the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Takahara et al. (US 6,078,583) teaches communication method and communication system
Kemmochi et al. (US 2017/0293826 A1) teaches electronic information board apparatus
Furutani et al. (US 2020/0301645 A1) teaches display apparatus with at least two data input devices
Hao (US 2020/0337097 A1) teaches communication control method
Ambrose (US 2006/0136564 A1) teaches bidirectional communication between a web client and web server
Stefansson et al. (US 2009/0119677 A1) teaches bi-directional communication in a parallel processing environment
Thum et al. (US 2021/0194971 A1) teaches function-as-a-service for two way communication system
Authorization for Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit an authorization to communicate with the Examiner via the internet by making the following statement (MPEP 502.03)
“Recognizing that internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only by submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner’s Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABU GHAFFARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3799. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 14:00 - 15:00 Hrs.
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, Aimee Lee can be reached on 571-272-4169. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABU ZAR GHAFFARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights