DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter in the form of a “computer-readable storage medium.” The claims fall outside the scope of patent-eligible subject matter at least because the claimed computer-readable storage medium is broad enough to encompass transitory embodiments. (E.g., one of ordinary skill in the art could reasonably be expected to interpret the claimed computer readable medium as a carrier wave onto which instructions could be coded.) See also the Official Gazette Notice 1351 OG 212 February 23, 2010 “Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media” which states in relevant part “[i]n an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation ‘non-transitory’ to the claim.”
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) 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lindahl (US 8,271,955).
With respect to claim 7 (similarly claims 1 and 13), Lindahl teaches a system (e.g. the system of Fig 1 col 3 ln 54-56), comprising: a processor (e.g. a processor 110 Fig 1 col 3 ln 56-59);
a memory for holding programmable code (e.g. memory 111 Fig 1 for holding code 101 col 3 ln 56-59); and
wherein the programmable code includes instructions for operating an automation (e.g. in order to perform a particular function, the computer 102 will run the program 101 which is a collection of machine instructions and data col 4 ln 13-15) that was implemented based upon natural language processing (e.g. the function is implemented based on inputs received as voice commands through a microphone col 5 ln 22-24), wherein a history of executed steps is maintained along with corresponding facts for each step of the automation (e.g. wherein trace data is maintained along with corresponding facts for each step of the function/automation, col 8 ln 36-54);
identifying an error for the automation (e.g. determining an error/bug for the function col 2 ln 13-32, ln 38-53, col 6 ln 56-67-col 7 ln 1-18, debugger 112 controls execution of the program 101 to find an error in the program 101 col 8 ln 34-35);
editing a fact in-place for a step to address the error (e.g. modifying the state of the program to address the error/bug col 5 ln 48-67-col 6 ln 1-25); and
re-running the automation from the step for which the fact is edited in place (e.g. running the execution of the task/function forwards or backwards from that point col 20 ln 60-67-col 21 ln 1-3 suggest re-running the automation from the step for which the fact is edited in place, see also col 6 ln 56-67-col 7 ln 1-18, col 12 ln 5-18, col 15 ln 1-6, ln 48-67-col 16 ln 1-3).
With respect to claim 8 (similarly claims 2 and 14), Lindahl teaches the system of claim 7, wherein a database is maintained to track the history of the executed steps and any corresponding facts (e.g. database 310 is maintained to track the history of the executed steps and any corresponding facts as suggested in col 9 ln 37-51, col 10 ln 8-44, col 11 ln 28-43, col 14 ln 10-20).
With respect to claim 9 (similarly claims 3 and 15), Lindahl teaches the system of claim 7, wherein the automation is re-run from the step for which the fact is edited in place without re-running from the beginning of the automation (e.g. running the execution of the task/function forwards or backwards from that point col 20 ln 60-67-col 21 ln 1-3 suggest the automation is re-run from the step for which the fact is edited in place without re-running from the beginning of the automation, see also col 6 ln 56-67-col 7 ln 1-18, col 12 ln 5-18, col 15 ln 1-6, ln 42-67-col 16 ln 1-3).
With respect to claim 10 (similarly claims 4 and 16), Lindahl teaches the system of claim 7, wherein a sub-automation is forked to calculate a new value for the fact (e.g. a conditional breakpoint is forked to calculate a new value for the fact i.e. when the program reaches the conditional breakpoint, the debugger evaluates the mathematical formula or the source cod (similarly e to see if a certain value is produced col 7 ln 46-60).
With respect to claim 11 (similarly claims 5 and 17), Lindahl teaches the system of claim 7, wherein a versioned memory is used to re-run the automation (e.g. memory 111 Fig 1 is used to re-run the function/task/automation, col 7 ln 60-67).
With respect to claim 12 (similarly claims 6 and 18), Lindahl teaches the system of claim 7, wherein re-running the automation will cause an automatic reversal of external effects to an external system (e.g. the software simulator 114 can undo the effects of the execution of the last instruction of the program. 101 executed by undoing the changes that the actual execution of that machine instruction recorded in the trace data col 12 ln 14-18 suggest re-running the automation will cause an automatic reversal of external effects to an external system).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM SIDDO whose telephone number is (571)272-4508. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30PM.
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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 5712703438. 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.
/IBRAHIM SIDDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights