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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/5/2025 have been fully considered but not persuasive.
Applicant 1st argument
112 rejection
Examiner response to applicant 1st argument:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that claim 20 recites device and is supported by the specification and figures, however the specification provides statements that are not confirmed such as “may be performed by software, hardware, integrated circuits, firm-ware, micro-code and the like, operating alone or in combination. Likewise, processing strategies may include multiprocessing, multitasking, parallel processing and the like.”, “FIG. 4 , the computer system 400 may include a processor 402, e.g., a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), or both.”, “the computer system 400 may operate in the capacity of a server or as a client user computer in a client-server user network environment, or as a peer computer system in a peer-to-peer (or distributed) network environment. The computer system 400 can also be implemented”. Examiner recommends applicant to add limitations to the claim to provide a confirmed structure to the device.
Furthermore, applicant argues that the term “possible” in not a relative term. The specification does not narrow the definition of possible, therefore examiner under BRI in light of specification and under Marriam Webster definition have found that the term “possible” carries this meaning “being something that may or may not occur”. Therefore, examiner maintains the 112(b) rejection for the meaning of term “possible” recited in the claims.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). An examiner must construe claim terms in the broadest reasonable manner during prosecution as is reasonably allowed in an effort to establish a clear record of what applicant intends to claim. Thus, the Office does not interpret claims in the same manner as the courts. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Claim Interpretation
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding Claim 20: it recites “A device for reducing a data size of a set of data objects to effect data compression without incurring detrimental information loss to effect a reduction of an associated storage load, an associated processing load, and/or an associated network communications load of an exchange computing system, the device including: means for obtaining the set of data objects; means for factoring the set of data objects into a plurality of constituent data streams; means for analyzing the plurality of constituent data streams to assign ones of the plurality of constituent data streams to respective netting groups; means for combining, segment-by-segment, ones of the plurality of constituent data streams; means for determining valid netting group combinations to define possible new data objects; means for incorporating at least one possible new data object into the set of data objects; and means for deleting, from a memory of the exchange computing system, a plurality of existing data objects within the set of data object in response to incorporating the at least one possible new data object to effect the data compression.”.
A claim limitation invokes 112(f) if it meets the three-prong analysis: (1) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term as a substitute for “means” as a generic placeholder; (2) the term
“means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language; and (3) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for
performing the claimed function. MPEP 2181(I). Under the first prong, “means are used as a generic placeholder. There are functions of “reducing, obtaining, factoring, analyzing, combining, determining, incorporating, deleting” coupled to the means. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the originally filed specification, paragraphs 0066-0099 recite the system causes the processor to reducing, obtaining, factoring, analyzing, combining, determining, incorporating, deleting. Although the specification recites a processor to cause the steps of the invention, the claim does not recite sufficient structure in the claim. Therefore, the claim limitation invokes 112(f).
Claims 20 recites “means for reducing a data size; There is no corresponding algorithm disclosed for a device comprising means to obtaining plurality of constituent data.
means for means for obtaining the set of data objects; There is no corresponding algorithm disclosed for a device for this function.
means for factoring the set of data objects into a plurality of constituent data streams; There is no corresponding algorithm disclosed for a device for this function.
means for analyzing the plurality of constituent data streams to assign ones of the plurality of constituent data streams to respective netting groups; There is no corresponding algorithm disclosed for a device for this function.
means for combining, segment-by-segment, ones of the plurality of constituent data streams; There is no corresponding algorithm disclosed for a device for this function.
means for determining valid netting group combinations to define possible new data objects; There is no corresponding algorithm disclosed for a device for this function.
means for incorporating at least one possible new data object into the set of data objects”, There is no corresponding algorithm disclosed for a device for this function.
means for deleting, from a memory of the exchange computing system, a plurality of existing data objects within the set of data object in response to incorporating the at least one possible new data object to effect the data compression. Therefore the claim invokes 112(f).
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 1-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) (b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’] Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999)).
In cases involving a special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, the Federal Circuit has consistently required that the structure be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor and that the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed function. See, e.g., Noah Systems Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F.3d 1302, 1312, 102 USPQ2d 1410, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239.
For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) the Federal Circuit has stated that "a microprocessor can serve as structure for a computer-implemented function only where the claimed function is ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor itself." EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 622, citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011). "It is only in the rare circumstances where any general-purpose computer without any special programming can perform the function that an algorithm need not be disclosed.’" EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 621, quoting Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). "‘[S]pecial programming’ includes any functionality that is not ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor or general purpose computer." EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 623 (citations omitted). "Examples of such coextensive functions are ‘receiving’ data, ‘storing’ data, and ‘processing’ data—the only three functions on which the Katz court vacated the district court’s decision and remanded for the district court to determine whether disclosure of a microprocessor was sufficient." Id. at 622. Thus, "[a] microprocessor or general purpose computer lends sufficient structure only to basic functions of a microprocessor. All other computer-implemented functions require disclosure of an algorithm."
Regarding claim 20: Claim 20 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
There is no corresponding algorithm disclosed for a system comprising means for reducing a data size of a set of data objects to effect data compression without incurring detrimental information loss to effect a reduction of an associated storage load, an associated processing load, and/or an associated network communications load of an exchange computing system, the device including:
means for obtaining the set of data objects; means for factoring the set of data objects into a plurality of constituent data streams; means for analyzing the plurality of constituent data streams to assign ones of the plurality of constituent data streams to respective netting groups; means for combining, segment-by-segment, ones of the plurality of constituent data streams; means for determining valid netting group combinations to define possible new data objects; means for incorporating at least one possible new data object into the set of data objects; and means for deleting, from a memory of the exchange computing system, a plurality of existing data objects within the set of data object in response to incorporating the at least one possible new data object to effect the data compression.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regrading claims 1, 11, 20: the instant claims recite “to define possible new data objects”, “at least one possible new data object”, and “in response to incorporating the at least one possible new object”. It is unclear whether the term “possible” refer to new object or not. The term “possible” in instant claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “possible” is not defined by the instant claims, 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.
Regarding claims 2-10, 12-19: The dependent claims 2-10, 12-19 are rejected as they depend on the independent claims 1 and 11.
Regrading claims 2, 12: the instant claims recite “a magnitude of the at least one possible new data object”. It is unclear whether the term “possible” refer to new object or not. The term “possible” in instant claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “possible” is not defined by the instant claims, 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.
Regrading claims 3, 13: the instant claims recite “configuring the at least one possible new data object”. It is unclear whether the term “possible” refer to new object or not. The term “possible” in instant claims is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “possible” is not defined by the instant claims, 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), 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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 20: the instant claim recites “a device for reducing, means for obtaining, means for factoring, means for analyzing, means for combining, means for determining, means for incorporating, means for deleting”. Since the claim invokes 112(f), the specification must be consulted to determine the description of these functions. However, the specification does not state how these functions are being performed and does not state the algorithms to perform these functions. MPEP 2181 (V).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome 112(b), 112(a) rejections set forth in this office action.
The following is the reason for allowable subject matter in claims 1, 11, and 20.
With regards to claims (1, 11, and 20) the instant claims require a method for reducing a data size of a set of data objects to effect data compression without incurring detrimental information loss to effect a reduction of an associated storage load, an associated processing load, and/or an associated network communications load of an exchange computing system, the method including: obtaining, by a processor of the exchange computing system, the set of data objects; factoring, by the processor, the set of data objects into a plurality of constituent data streams; analyzing, by the processor, the plurality of constituent data streams to assign ones of the plurality of constituent data streams to respective netting groups; combining, by the processor and segment-by-segment, ones of the plurality of constituent data streams; determining, by the processor, valid netting group combinations to define possible new data objects; incorporating, by the processor, at least one possible new data object into the set of data objects; and deleting, by the processor and from a memory of the exchange computing system, a plurality of existing data objects within the set of data object in response to incorporating the at least one possible new data object to effect the data compression.
Meanwhile, the prior arts (“Bawadhankar”, US 20150262305 A1 ), (“Brouwer”, US 20030083978 A1), (“Cheung”, US 8533101 B2), (“Warsaw”, US 20050256799 A1 ) fail to fairly teach or suggest to decreasing information volume of group of information objects to impact data compression without causing detrimental data loss in a database storage, processing database, network communication load of an exchange system, collecting a group of information objects, distributing the group of information objects among multiple information streams, allocating one of the information streams to certain netting sets, merging the information streams into segments, identifying valid netting group combination to extract new information objects, integrating one new information object into group of information objects, removing a group of existing information objects based on integrating the new object to complete the reduction and compression of the data.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FADI HAJ SAID whose telephone number is (571)272-2833. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST. 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, John Follansbee can be reached on 571-272-3964. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/FADI HAJ SAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444