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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 are presented for examination.
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 1 includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a receiver configured to…” (i.e. component configured to perform receiving) and “an updater configured to” (i.e. component configured to perform updating) which are interpreted as hardware and software computing component(s) capable of performing the recited functions [CPU executed software of an information processing device having the analysis processing control unit and setting analyzer, Figs. 2 and 4-6 and corresponding text].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The following lacks antecedent basis:
As to claim 2, the following lacks antecedent basis: “the request data”.
As to claims 3-4, these claims are rejected based on dependency.
The following are unclear:
As to claim 3-14, it is unclear to the examiner whether “the first processing units” refers to “the one or more first processing units” recited in claim 1 or the subsequent assumption that there are more than one (i.e. plurality of) “first processing units” such that subsequent reference refers to all of the plurality of “first processing units”. For examination purposes, the limitation is treated as "the one or more first processing units" for the remainder of this office action.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Personal Health Train Architecture with Dynamic Cloud Staging” to Santos et al. (hereafter Santos).
Santos was cited in applicant’s IDS filed on 7/16/25.
As to claim 15, Santos teaches the invention as claimed including an information processing method executed by a computer, the information processing method comprising:
receiving, via a network, a request pertaining to executing a series of processes defined in such a manner that one or more first processing units are arranged to be sequentially executed [Abstract; “data requester to access … data” under PHT, p. 2, left column; Implementation of the current architecture in a network environment, Fig. 9 and corresponding text; “Trains represent algorithm that manipulate data…”, p. 4, section “Train Types and Structure”; “data manipulation” includes analysis, copy, creation, etc., p. 5-6, section “Data Visiting Process”; Figs. 4, 6 and 8 and corresponding text];
updating the series of processes by adding a second processing unit based on contents of the received request to a timing in the series of processes, the timing being based on the contents of the request [“data access and reuse conditions…PHT supports dynamic consent…explicitly consent for a data requester to access his/her data under some specific context…”, p2, left column; Train description provided in train metadata in part determines whether data required by the Train have access restriction in which Data Interaction Service enforces required access control through authentication and authorization, p. 6, right column; added step(s)/process of authorization or applying access restriction, Fig. 5 and corresponding text]; and
executing the series of processes updated in the updating [executing the added step(s)/process of authorization or applying access restriction, Fig. 5 and corresponding text].
As to claim 16, Santos teaches the method of executing a workflow for data analysis as recited in claim 15, therefore Santos teaches non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program for causing a computer to execute the method.
As to claim 1, Santos teaches the method of executing a workflow for data analysis as recited in claim 15, therefore Santos teaches the information processing device for implementing the method. Furthermore, Santos teaches a computer implemented architecture having processor and memory [p. 10, left column].
As to claim 2, Santos teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the updater specifies the timing in the series of processes and the second processing unit added to the series of processes, in accordance with to which of a requestee and a requester of the request data as a target of the series of processes belongs [“data access and reuse conditions…PHT supports dynamic consent…explicitly consent for a data requester to access his/her data under some specific context…”, p2, left column; Train description provided in train metadata in part determines whether data required by the Train have access restriction in which Data Interaction Service enforces required access control through authentication and authorization, p. 6, right column; added step(s)/process of authorization or applying access restriction, Fig. 5 and corresponding text].
As to claim 3, Santos teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the updater adds, when the data as a target of the series of processes is data belonging to the requestee, the second processing unit that performs processing on at least part of the data to a timing in the series of processes, the timing being a timing before a timing of executing the first processing units targeting the data [“data access and reuse conditions…PHT supports dynamic consent…explicitly consent for a data requester to access his/her data under some specific context…”, p2, left column; Train description provided in train metadata in part determines whether data required by the Train have access restriction in which Data Interaction Service enforces required access control through authentication and authorization, p. 6, right column; added step(s)/process of authorization such as applying access restriction before execution of the train and/or staging a capable station, Fig. 5 and corresponding text].
As to claim 4, Santos teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the updater adds, when the data as a target of the series of processes is data belonging to the requester, the second processing unit pertaining to examination targeting a result of executing the first processing units to a timing in the series of processes, the timing being a timing after a timing of executing the first processing units targeting the data [“data access and reuse conditions…PHT supports dynamic consent…explicitly consent for a data requester to access his/her data under some specific context…”, p2, left column; Train description provided in train metadata in part determines whether data required by the Train have access restriction in which Data Interaction Service enforces required access control through authentication and authorization, p. 6, right column; added step(s)/process of staging a capable station after access authorization (i.e. no access restriction or determined authorization to access) and/or determination of non-capable station that is stage capable, Fig. 5 and corresponding text].
As to claim 5, Santos teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the updater adds, in accordance with a type of at least part of information included in data as a target of the series of processes, the second processing unit that performs processing on the at least part of information included in the data to a timing before a timing of executing the first processing units targeting the data [Train description provided in train metadata in part determines whether data required by the Train have access restriction in which Data Interaction Service enforces required access control through authentication and authorization; privacy, security of sensitive data, p. 6, right column; “data access and reuse conditions…PHT supports dynamic consent…explicitly consent for a data requester to access his/her data under some specific context…”, p2, left column; added step(s)/process of authorization such as applying access restriction before execution of the train and/or staging a capable station, Fig. 5 and corresponding text].
As to claim 6, Santos teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the updater adds, when at least part of information included in the data as a target of the series of processes is of a type of information that is set as a concealment target, the second processing unit that performs processing pertaining to concealing the information included in the data, on the information, to a timing before a timing of executing the first processing units targeting the data [Train description provided in train metadata in part determines whether data required by the Train have access restriction in which Data Interaction Service enforces required access control through authentication and authorization; privacy, security of sensitive data, p. 6, right column; “data access and reuse conditions…PHT supports dynamic consent…explicitly consent for a data requester to access his/her data under some specific context…”, p2, left column; added step(s)/process of authorization such as applying access restriction before execution of the train and/or staging a capable station, Fig. 5 and corresponding text].
As to claim 11, Santos teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the updater adds, in accordance with a type of at least part of information included in data as a target of the series of processes, the second processing unit pertaining to examination targeting a result of executing the first processing units to a timing after a timing of executing the first processing units targeting the data [“data access and reuse conditions…PHT supports dynamic consent…explicitly consent for a data requester to access his/her data under some specific context…”, p2, left column; Train description provided in train metadata in part determines whether data required by the Train have access restriction in which Data Interaction Service enforces required access control through authentication and authorization, p. 6, right column; added step(s)/process of staging a capable station after access authorization (i.e. no access restriction or determined authorization to access) and/or determination of non-capable station that is stage capable, Fig. 5 and corresponding text].
As to claim 12, Santos teaches the invention as claimed including herein the updater adds, in accordance with a privilege of access that is set in data as a target of the series of processes, the second processing unit that changes the privilege of access to a timing before a timing of executing the first processing units targeting the data [Train description provided in train metadata in part determines whether data required by the Train have access restriction in which Data Interaction Service enforces required access control through authentication and authorization; privacy, security of sensitive data, p. 6, right column; “data access and reuse conditions…PHT supports dynamic consent…explicitly consent for a data requester to access his/her data under some specific context…”, p2, left column; added step(s)/process of authorization such as applying access restriction and subsequently authorizing access before execution of the train and/or staging a capable station, Fig. 5 and corresponding text].
As to claim 13, Santos teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the updater adds, in accordance with a privilege of access that is set in data as a target of the series of processes, the second processing unit that changes the privilege of access in accordance with a result of executing the first processing units to a timing after a timing of executing the first processing units targeting the data [Train description provided in train metadata in part determines whether data required by the Train have access restriction in which Data Interaction Service enforces required access control through authentication and authorization; privacy, security of sensitive data, p. 6, right column; “data access and reuse conditions…PHT supports dynamic consent…explicitly consent for a data requester to access his/her data under some specific context…”, p2, left column; added step(s)/process of authorization such as applying access restriction and subsequently authorizing access after execution of identifying data requirement, Fig. 5 and corresponding text].
As to claim 15, Santos teaches the invention as claimed including wherein the updater adds, when a result of executing at least one or some of the first processing units in the series of processes is used in processing by another information processing device, the second processing unit that causes the result of executing the first processing units to be retained in a region allowed to be referred to by the other information processing device, to a timing after a timing of executing the first processing units [identify data requirement in initial processing that subsequently leads to processing by the added step(s)/process of determination of non-capable station that is stage capable, retrieve and copy data required by the train (i.e. retained) and copy to staging station for execution, p. 6, right column, paragraphs 2-5; Train description provided in train metadata in part determines whether data required by the Train have access restriction in which Data Interaction Service enforces required access control through authentication and authorization; privacy, security of sensitive data, p. 6, right column; “data access and reuse conditions…PHT supports dynamic consent…explicitly consent for a data requester to access his/her data under some specific context…”, p2, left column; Fig. 5 and corresponding text].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Customizing/modifying a workflow process by changing order or arrangement of steps in the process was disclosed in US PG Pub. 2005/0027733. Training of machine learning models on data silos in a privacy-preserving manner was disclosed in “Towards Personalized Federated Learning”; Adaptively training local models contributing to a global model was disclosed in “Adaptive Personalized Federated Learning”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 are allowable by overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior arts of record when taken individually or in combination do not expressly teach or render obvious, in the context of the claims taken as a whole wherein the updater adds “in accordance with a format of data as a target of the series of processes, the second processing unit that converts the format of the data”, “in accordance with a type of a code for specifying an object, the code being used in at least part of information included in data as a target of the series of processes, the second processing unit that converts the code”, and “in accordance with a state of data as a target of the series of processes, the second processing unit that performs cleansing processing on the data” to a timing before a timing of executing the first processing units targeting the data as recited in claims 7 and 9-10.
Neither a reference uncovered that would have provided a basis of evidence for asserting a motivation, nor one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, knowing the teaching of the prior arts of record would have combined them to arrive at the present invention as recited in the context of claims 7 and 9-10 as a whole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QING YUAN WU whose telephone number is (571)272-3776. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-6PM EST.
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.
/QING YUAN WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights