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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 10, and 16 recite the limitation "the template file" in line 9, line 5 and line 7 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 — The independent claim 10 recites “receiving, using a template engine, a data structure associated with an application, wherein the data structure comprises at least one custom parameter for the application; generating, using the template engine, an answer file using the template file; and using the answer file, custom configuring the application on a target computing device using the template engine” . The limitation of “receiving…”, “generating…”, and “using” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a human organizing of activities. More specifically, These activities reflect perceiving information associated to an application, generating a file and applying in to the application. The steps of Receiving an application configuration values, Opening a template file and populating it with the values to create a new file, and Applying the file to configure the application are tasks that humans routinely perform mentally with conventional tools or generic computer devices.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to the judicial exception of a mental process.
Step 2 — Claims Do Not Recite an Inventive Concept That Transforms the Mental Process into Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
The claims 1, 10, and 16 add generic, well-understood computer components (memory and processor). The computer is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as performing a generic computer function and being used as an applying) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, there additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, claims 1, 10 and 16 fail to recite an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter.
With respect to dependent claims 2-9, 11-15 and 17-20, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception (mental processes) and failing to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-7 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Moore et al., (US Pub. 2014/0372518).
Regarding claim 1, Moor discloses an Information Handling System (IHS) comprising:
a processor; and a template engine stored in a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution, cause the template engine to (Fig. 1, [0025]-[0029] template engine 150):
receive a data structure associated with an application, wherein the data structure comprises at least one custom parameter for the application (Fig. 1, [0027][0028] “The template engine 150 can receive the instructions and can translate the instructions to enable the table to be rendered within the context of the particular operating system…manages data caching/data retrieval by providing the ability to forward model and/or parameter information collected for/on a given page”);
generate an answer file using the template file (Fig. 1, [0028] “the template engine 150 can perform operations (e.g., create, modify, merge) model data… facilitates the final creation of a page”; [0035][0036] “the developer can generate an application that displays patient data in one or more charts or tables”); and
using the answer file, custom configure the application on a target computing device (Fig. 1, [0024]-[0026] accessing design templates provided with the application using user interactions with the graphical component, e.g., clicks, and “each design template corresponds to a view that is presented during execution of the application (e.g., View 1—patient list; View 2—data traces)”; Mobile device 102 and 104 have user interface engines 102a and 102b which can include the same component; Fig. 2, [0032]-[0036] “The GUI 200 of FIG. 2 can be displayed on a client computing device and can receive input from the developer using the client computing device”).
Regarding claim 2, Moor discloses the IHS of claim 1, and Moore further discloses: wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the template engine to, for each parameter value in the template file:
determine whether a parameter value associated with the parameter exists; when the parameter value exists, store the parameter value in the answer file; and when the parameter does not exist, store a default value in the answer file ([0029][0058]-[0061] a template engine may customize applications based on user’s input; “if a particular partner wants to customize what happens when the user clicks on an a data point displayed within a waveform, the customization can be achieved” and if a user does not input to customize, caching enables an application to recall the last display screen a user was viewing).
Regarding claim 3, Moor discloses the IHS of claim 1, and Moore further discloses:
wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the template engine to generate the answer file to prompt for user input when the answer file is used by the application (Fig. 2, [0032][0036] Fig. 2 is an example of screenshot to show a file which can receive user’s input. For example, a user selects the ‘New Chart’ option, a developer can define a new chart).
Regarding claim 4, Moor discloses the IHS of claim 1, and Moore further discloses:
wherein the template file specifies a format and type of configuration data that is expected from one of an installer associated with the application or a configuration tool associated with the application (Fig. 3 and [0052] “The computing devices 302 a, , . . . , 302 n have respective user interface engines installed thereon to interpret instructions provided by the application. For example, the computing device 302 a can have a user interface engine installed thereon that is specific to the platform (operating system) 304 a”).
Regarding claim 5, Moor discloses the IHS of claim 1, and Moore further discloses:
wherein the data structure comprises a template file (Fig. 3, [0041] a data manage system may be provided as a server system and include a database and files).
Regarding claim 6, Moor discloses the IHS of claim 1, and Moore further discloses:
wherein the acts of determining whether a parameter value associated with the parameter exists, and storing the value in the answer file are performed at a vendor site of the HIS ([0048][0062] providing multi-application support associated with particular vendors which may be enable access using vendor authentication; [0052] executing as a client-side application that communicates with a corresponding server-side application).
Regarding claim 7, Moor discloses the IHS of claim 1, and Moore further discloses:
wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the template engine to process a plurality of the data structures for the computing device to custom configure a corresponding plurality of applications on the HIS ([0026] customizing and extracting the data that a user wants to process by clicking on specific parts of the UI; “each design template corresponds to a view that is presented during execution of the application (e.g., View 1—patient list; View 2—data traces).”).
Regarding claims 10-15, Claims 10-15 are the corresponding method claims to system claims 1-3 and 5-7. Therefore, claims 10-15 are rejected using the same rationale as applied to claims 1-3 and 5-7 above.
Regarding claims 16-20, Claims 16-20 are the corresponding system claims to system claims 1-2 and 6-7. Therefore, claims 16-20 are rejected using the same rationale as applied to claims 1-2 and 6-7 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Moore et al., (US Pub. 2014/0372518) in view of Ward et al., (US Pub. 2016/0062555).
Regarding claim 8, Moor discloses the IHS of claim 1.
Moor does not explicitly teach however Ward does explicitly teach:
wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the template engine to configure the application after installation of the application, wherein the application is a Linux-based application (Figs. 3 and 4, [0032][0095] a template engine 350 or 450 may reside in a computing device which is controlled and coordinated by operating system software, such as Unix or Linux; Fig. 4, [0046]-[0054] processing the queries and replace any templates with corresponding values and creating a custom function to verify parameters in a query).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method for transmitting and customizing data using a template engine as taught by Moor with the method of integrating and adapting closely with a plurality of operating systems as taught by Ward for more use cases to be covered by combining the tools appropriately (Ward, [0091]).
Regarding claim 9, Moor discloses the IHS of claim 1.
Moor does not explicitly teach however Ward does explicitly teach:
wherein the program instructions, upon execution, further cause the template engine to configure the application during installation of the application, wherein the application is a Windows-based application (Figs. 3 and 4, [0032][0095] a template engine 350 or 450 may reside in a computing device which is controlled and coordinated by operating system software, such as Windows).
The previous motivation statement as in claim 8 is still applied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEONG-AH A. SHIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5933. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM-3PM.
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, Pierre-Louis Desir can be reached at 571-272-7799. 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.
Seong-ah A. Shin
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2659
/SEONG-AH A SHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2659