DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the above identified application filed on March 18, 2026. The application contains claims 1-20.
Claims 1, 5-7, 10, 11, 15-17, and 20 are amended
Claims 8 and 18 were previously cancelled
Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, and 20 are pending
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 18, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed on March 18, 2026 have been fully considered and the objections and rejections are updated accordingly.
Claim Objections
In view of the amendments to the claims, the claim objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the amendments to the claims, the 35 USC § 112(a) claim rejections are withdrawn. However, the amendments raise new issues. The 35 USC § 112(b) claim rejections have been updated to reflect the issues that still remain. Please see below for details.
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 1-7, 9-17, 19, and 20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the knowledge assembly module assembles the plurality of component data into a component dataset based on a combination command by interconnecting the plurality of component data according to the procedural execution order defined for the plurality of encapsulated data to form an executable process flow” in lines 15-18. In order to properly understand how “the plurality of component data” is assembled based on “the procedural execution order” defined for something else, “the plurality of encapsulated date”, the relationship between “the plurality of component data” and “the plurality of encapsulated date” is required. Even though the claim recites “… generate a plurality of component data … based on the plurality of encapsulated data …”, it does not make known how “the plurality of component data” relates to “the plurality of encapsulated date” in terms of “the procedural execution order”. There is an apparent disconnect between “the plurality of component data” and “the plurality of encapsulated date” that prevents a proper understanding of how “the plurality of component data” is assembled as recited in the limitation. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 11 recites the limitation “receiving a dataset through a model building module to obtain a plurality of corresponding encapsulated data …” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what the underlined “corresponding” refers to. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 11 recites the limitation “assembling the plurality of component data into a component dataset based on a combination command through the knowledge assembly module by interconnecting the plurality of component data according to the procedural execution order defined for the plurality of encapsulated data to form an executable process flow” in lines 10-13. In order to properly understand how “the plurality of component data” is assembled based on “the procedural execution order” defined for something else, “the plurality of encapsulated date”, the relationship between “the plurality of component data” and “the plurality of encapsulated date” is required. Even though the claim recites “… generate a plurality of component data … based on the plurality of encapsulated data …”, it does not make known how “the plurality of component data” relates to “the plurality of encapsulated date” in terms of “the procedural execution order”. There is an apparent disconnect between “the plurality of component data” and “the plurality of encapsulated date” that prevents a proper understanding of how “the plurality of component data” is assembled as recited in the limitation. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 11 recites the limitation “executing a data compilation process through the corresponding compiler of a compilation module …” in line 14. It is unclear what the underlined “corresponding” refers to. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-10 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from their corresponding independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 12-17 and 19-20 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from their corresponding independent claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOQIN HU whose telephone number is (571)272-1792. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571) 272-4085. 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.
/XIAOQIN HU/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights