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 16, 2024.
2. Claims 1-15 have been examined.
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC §112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-9 recite claim limitations “a first entity” (specification, paragraphs 0012, 0017, 0026, 0027, 0030), “a second entity” (specification, paragraphs 0013, 0017, 0026, 0027, 0030), one third entity (specification, paragraphs 0014, 0017, 0028-0030) 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 limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claims 1-9 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. For example:
. . .
a first entity stored in one or more memories. . .
a second entity stored in one or more memories. . .
at least one third entity stored in one or more memories . . .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC 101
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 and 14 are within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Prong 1, Step 2A: under its broadest reasonable interpretation,” configured to send and receive data,” “configured to receive at least one of the data,” “configured to transmit at least one of the data” cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processing device. Thus, these claim limitations fall within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Prong 2, Step 2A: the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements (“system,” “assembly,” “interface”) are recited at high level of generality. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.05(g).
Prong 2, Step 2B: the additional elements, considering them both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. As discussed above, elements that are mere use of generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, and the processes are insignificant extra-solution activity which are recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, according to MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 3: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 4: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 5: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 6: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 7: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 8: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 9: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 10 and 15 are within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Prong 1, Step 2A: under its broadest reasonable interpretation,” receiving data,” “transmitting the data,” “analyzing the system” cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processing device. Thus, these claim limitations fall within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Prong 2, Step 2A: the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements (“system,” “interface”) are recited at high level of generality. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.05(g).
Prong 2, Step 2B: the additional elements, considering them both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. As discussed above, elements that are mere use of generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, and the processes are insignificant extra-solution activity which are recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, according to MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 11: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 12: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim 13: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §102
7. 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 10, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2023/0027823 to Jones (hereafter “Jones”).
Claim 1.
Jones discloses an assembly for analyzing a system, the assembly comprising:
a first entity, configured to send and receive data (FIG.1, 106, 108, 110, 114, or 116, configured to send and receive data),
a second entity, configured to send and receive data (FIG.1, 106, 108, 110, 114, or 116, configured to send and receive data),
at least one third entity, configured to receive at least one of the data from the first entity or the data from the second entity (FIG.1, third entity 114 receives data from 106, 108, or 110), and
an interface, configured to transmit at least one of the data of the first entity to the second entity and to the third entity or the data of the second entity to the first entity and to the third entity (FIG.1, 0015, 0016, 0023, an interface used by system 100),
wherein the interface is defined by a Web assembly Interface Type (WIT) or a Web assembly Interface Type definition file (0015, 0016, 0023), and
wherein data from an egress of the third entity is used for analyzing the system (FIG.1, 0019, 0021, 0027, data 118 from third entity 114 is used for analyzing/ modifying/ optimizing system 100).
Claim 3.
Jones discloses the assembly according to at least one of claims claim 1, wherein the interface is configured to transform at least one of the data of the first entity or the data of the second entity (FIG.1, 102 transforms input code 104, 114 transforms output code 112, 116 transforms feedback 118).
Claim 6.
Jones discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the interface is configured to be operable independently of an operation system of the assembly (FIG.1, WebAssembly Compiler/Translator 102 operates independently on a plurality of Platforms 114a-n).
Claim 7.
Jones discloses the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the first entity and the second entity are configured to communicate solely via the interface (FIG.1, 106, 108, 110 communicate solely via WebAssembly interface).
Claim 8.
Jones discloses the assembly according to claim 1, further comprising: a further interface, wherein the further interface is defined by a Web assembly Interface Type (WIT) or a Web assembly Interface Type definition file, wherein the further interface is configured to receive data from the interface and transmit the data from the interface to the third entity (FIG.1, 102 receives data from 106/108/110 and transmit the data to 114).
Claim 10.
Jones discloses a method for analyzing a system, comprising:
receiving data of a first entity by means of an interface (FIG.1, 106, 108, 110, 114, or 116, configured to send and receive data),
receiving data of a second entity by means of the interface (FIG.1, 106, 108, 110, 114, or 116, configured to send and receive data),
transmitting the data of the first entity and the data of the second entity to a third entity by means of the interface (FIG.1, 0015, 0016, 0023, an interface used by system 100), and
analyzing the system based on data from an egress of the third entity (FIG.1, 0019, 0021, 0027, data 118 from third entity 114 is used for analyzing/ modifying/ optimizing system 100),
wherein the interface is defined by a Web assembly Interface Type (WIT) or a Web assembly Interface Type definition file (0015, 0016, 0023).
Claim 12.
Jones discloses the method according to at least one of claims claim 10, further comprising at least one of: transforming the data of the first entity by means of the interface, or transforming the data of the second entity by means of the interface before transmitting the data of the first entity and the data of the second entity to the third entity (FIG.1, 102 transforms input code 104, 114 transforms output code 112, 116 transforms feedback 118).
Claim 13.
Jones discloses the method according to claim 10, further comprising: receiving data from the interface by means of a further interface, and transmitting the data from the interface to the third entity by means of the further interface (FIG.1, 102 receives data from 106/108/110 and transmits the data to 114).
Claim 15.
This claim is a medium version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 10, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
9. 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 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 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 of this title, 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.
10. Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of US 2025/0317350 to Iyer et al. (hereafter "Iyer").
Claim 2.
Jones does not disclose the assembly according to claim 1, wherein the interface is configured to filter at least one of the data of the first entity or the data of the second entity.
However, Iyer discloses the interface is configured to filter at least one of the data of the first entity or the data of the second entity (0060).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Iyer’s teaching into Jones’ teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to comply with regulatory requirements as suggested by Iyer (0060).
Claim 11.
Jones does not disclose the method according to claim 10, further comprising at least one of: filtering the data of the first entity by means of the interface, or filtering the data of the second entity by means of the interface before transmitting the data of the first entity and the data of the second entity to the third entity.
However, Iyer discloses filtering the data of the first entity by means of the interface, or filtering the data of the second entity by means of the interface before transmitting the data of the first entity and the data of the second entity to the third entity (0060).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Iyer’s teaching into Jones’ teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to comply with regulatory requirements as suggested by Iyer (0060).
11. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of US 2021/0306397 to Nicastri (hereafter "Nicastri").
Claim 4.
Jones does not disclose the assembly according to at least one of claims claim 1, wherein the interface comprises a first channel and a second channel, the first channel and the second channel being defined by a Web assembly Interface Type (WIT) or a Web assembly Interface Type definition file.
However, Nicastri discloses the interface comprises a first channel and a second channel, the first channel and the second channel being defined by a Web assembly Interface Type (WIT) or a Web assembly Interface Type definition file (0026, 0029, 0030, 0032, 0034).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Nicastri’s teaching into Jones’ teaching. One would have been motivated to do so when the WebAssembly module has multiple decoders as suggested by Nicastri (0029, 0030, 0032).
12. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of US 2024/0354075 to Danzeisen et al. (hereafter "Danzeisen").
Claim 14.
Jones discloses the assembly of claim 1.
Jones does not disclose a vehicle.
However, Danzeisen discloses a vehicle (0012, 0015, 0054, 0062).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Danzeisen’s teaching into Jones’ teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to execute vehicle software applications on a wide variety of data processing devices and electrical/electronic architectures as suggested by Danzeisen (0012).
Allowable Subject Matter
13. After search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that dependent claim 5 is not taught by any prior reference found through search.
Incorporating intervening claim 4 and claim 5 into claims 1 and 10 and resolving the 35 USC §101 rejection would put the case in condition for allowance.
14. After search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that dependent claim 9 is not taught by any prior reference found through search.
Incorporating intervening claim 8 and claim 9 into claims 1 and 10 and resolving the 35 USC §101 rejection would put the case in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
15. 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 the general nature 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