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
1. This action is responsive to the application filed on July 9, 2024.
2. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §101
3. Claims 15-18 are rejected because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, which may comprise only software components.
Data structures not claimed as embodied in computer-readable media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. See, e.g., Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held nonstatutory). Such claimed data structures do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a data structure defines structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and the computer software and hardware components which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory.
Similarly, computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical "things." They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not "acts" being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035. Accordingly, it is important to distinguish claims that define descriptive material per se from claims that define statutory inventions. See MPEP 2106.
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies as noted above, thus, also amount to Functional Descriptive Material: "Data Structures" representing descriptive material per se or “Computer Programs” representing computer listings per se.
Possible amendments to obviate these 35 USC § 101 issues would be:
a hardware server;
a database stored in a memory;
a hardware network;
at least one software project store in a memory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-18 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.
The specification only mentions object-oriented classes/ applications/ structures but does not support features recited in claims 1, 11, and 15.
Description
FIG. 2A shows an object-oriented base class model and their relationship;
. . .
In some embodiments, the computer-based system, as shown in FIG. 1, may be a software platform as a service 100, providing multiple concurrent users or clients 1200, over the internet or on a local network, within a browser, a web-based user interface 1210, 1211, and 1219 to create, manipulate, and store, all in real-time, custom dynamic object-oriented applications, both client side and server side. These applications are all primarily rendered for usage, all within a web browser at Clients' terminals 1210, 1211, and 1219.
. . .
These said applications may be stored in a unique relational SQL Database structure 500, that stores all the object structures, and their class definitions, within certain set of tables 700, 740, 780, 840 and 900 to preserve everything that the Server System 100 needs to operate its configured custom applications using the object-oriented structure of the overall system with all its data connections and client communication features.
. . .
. . . The Classes and Objects that were instantiated, through steps 200 and 220 respectively, may be a foundational element of the object-oriented hierarchical structure that all of the system platform 100 uses to create, manipulate, store, and serve to Web Clients 1210, 1211 and 1219, through said webserver 1000, in order to be used as custom rich applications, inside workspaces and organizations for web clients. . .
. . . Referring to FIG. 2A, which displays, in some embodiments, how each application may be made up of a different number of object-oriented, parent-child, hierarchical Object 3000 instances each configured in a unique way to meet a unique purpose and need. . .
. . . This is also by design because the Server 100 system, must be able to navigate the entire object-oriented tree structure, and get to any node by name (see significance of this in Paths further down) in traversing the tree. . .
. . . In some embodiments, this platform may empower an efficient programmatic mechanism that allows predictable, dynamic, binding approach because its model (Absolute or Relative Paths) may be based off the same object-oriented hierarchical base data model that all Object (3000) instances are configured (on-the-fly too) and run on.
There is no on-the-fly configuration of applications and usage of those said custom applications by end-users if there is no WebServer 1000, from FIG. 1, that serves an entire Client system 1200 of end users to enable such access and capabilities. So, it is important in these next sections to discuss the details of Appward Server's 100 WebServer 1000 mechanism with all of its comprised components that enables the connection of said end-users, via Web Clients 1200, to be fully integrated and given access to the object-oriented structures, Object 3000 and Class 2000 instances, that the Server 100 platform contains as an axiom for dynamic on-the-fly manipulations, configurations and usage.
Claims 2-10, 12-14, and 16-18 depend on claims 1, 11, and 15, respectively, and are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §112
6. Rejection, 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd Paragraph, Failure To Particularly Point out and Distinctly Claim (Indefinite)
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.
7. Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 1, 11, and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-10, 12-14, and 16-18 depend on claims 1, 11, and 15, respectively, and are also rejected.
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC §112
8. 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.
9. Claim 19 recites claim limitations “a customizable class component,” "an object-identification and data binding component," "a containment component," "a linking component," "a scripting engine," "a multi-threaded processing component," "a routing component," "a communication component," and "a rendering component" have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use generic placeholders coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Allowable Subject Matter
10. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
US 10,218,939 to Taylor et al. discloses a unique combination of interactive panes on a mobile or tablet device that can be changed dynamically through a WebSocket layer that is utilized to handle real time communication actions between a second pane and the support representative user sending the changes to the second pane. Further, each second pane may change based on the action or function of a representative user interacting with a backend support center.
US 9,544,181 to Aithal et al. discloses WebSocket technology could be used to provide for real-time changes in data to be uploaded to a web browser from the communication nodes, real-time data such as RSL (Receive Signal Level) values that change quite often could be received on a web browser and plotted in graphical form to the user using the same push connection or socket.
US 8,990,325 to Eaton et al. discloses establishing a websocket connection with each of the plurality of client terminals to render the content resource in an interactive mode; detecting real-time content submissions from one or more of the plurality of client terminals; and in response to detecting the real-time content submissions, sending a communication to each of the plurality of client terminals using the websocket connection to update the content resource to include one or more changes reflecting the real-time content submissions.
However, Taylor, Aithal, and Eaton do not disclose the specific limitations as recited in independent claims 19 and 20.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to examiner Thuy (Twee) Dao, whose telephone/fax numbers are (571) 272 8570 and (571) 273 8570, respectively. Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday, 5:30am - 2:00pm ET.
If attempts to reach Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Hyung (Sam) Sough, can be reached at (571) 272 6799.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature of relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272 2100.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Thuy Dao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights