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 .
This Office Action is in response to the communications for the present US application number 18/790,472 last filed on July 31st, 2024.
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been examined, directed to CONFIGURING A MACHINE DEVICE EFFICIENTLY OVER A NETWORK.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
In claim 13, there are multiple “components” within a “system” of components, arranged to perform some function/step.
For example:
…a data storage device arranged to store…
…a communication interface arranged to read…
…a computation device arranged to calculate…
…a further computation device arranged to store…
…a machine device arranged to receive…
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the filed Specifications shows similar language reflected in ¶¶ [0044] and [0047], which also involves virtualized implementations.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 13 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations like
“…a data storage device arranged to store…
…a communication interface arranged to read…
…a computation device arranged to calculate…
…a further computation device arranged to store…
…a machine device arranged to receive…
invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 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.
The present filed Specifications has language and support reflected in ¶¶ [0044] and [0047], which also involves virtualized implementations.
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.
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 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because for example, in claim 14, the “computer program product” is interpreted as software or programming code, carrying out various steps, which can be all implemented with virtualization. The current claim language and the filed Specifications supports virtual implementations. Claim 14 would need to be amended such that the computer program product is stored on non-transitory computer readable medium, and when executed by a hardware processor, would then carry out various steps/functions. Dependent claim 15 inherits the same issue from 14.
Appropriate amendments are expected.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2024/0104350 A1 to Bachrach et al. (referred to hereafter as “Bachrach”) in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2017/0324714 A1 to Wainner et al. (referred to hereafter as “Wainner”).
As to claim 1, Bachrach further discloses a method for configuring a machine device efficiently over a network, comprising:
storing (100) a set of named object entities and assigning respectively one vector of technical values to each of the object entities (Bachrach discloses of an overall system that can receive and store content in the form of content data elements (CDEs) based upon various user interactions. The system can furthermore take the CDEs and generate corresponding vectors that represents the data, e.g., Bachrach: ¶¶ 27, 32-33, 114, 149, and 151);
reading out (101) a heterogeneous data source over a distributed communication network and identifying (102) the named object entities therein (Bachrach’s system can identify different categories of content, from the accumulation of the gathered CDEs, as those are gathered from various sources over the network, e.g., Bachrach: ¶¶ 27, 66-79, 144, and 151);
calculating (103) a count of the occurrences of each of the named object entities in the heterogeneous data source and weighting (104) the vector of technical values in accordance with the calculated count per object entity (The system accumulates the data or CDEs related to all sorts of categories based upon the interacting users actions, and all of that data is tracked, which leads to changes in how the representative vectors are calculated or determined, e.g., e.g., Bachrach: ¶¶ 116-117, 127, 149, 151, 175, and 198);
storing (105) the weighted (104) vector in a header of an IPv6 datagram (While Bachrach discloses of about how the representative vectors can be weighted, Bachrach however does not explicitly disclose of any system utilizing the weighted vectors within the header of an IPv6 packet.
Wainner more expressly discloses of the concept of how certain information can be inserted within the IPv6 extension header section (e.g., Wainner: ¶ 33).
Based upon Wainner’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, to combine and incorporate Wainner’s teachings within Bachrach’s teachings, such that in the resulting combined system, any system that supports IPv6, such as with any client user end devices making requests, can make their requests along with the vectors stored within the header section of the IPv6 datagram packets. This would also be applicable of towards any networked system node, like Bachrach’s system can act as the system making requests with IPv6 storing the weighted vectors in the header section, on behalf of the clients.
One of ordinary skill in the art, would have been motivated to utilize this feature as adding the additional weighted vectors can improve on performance and results, and in turn improve overall user experience); and
transmitting (106) the IPv6 datagram to a machine device for its configuration based on header information (Following the above steps and interpretations, a system that supports the handling of IPv6 can thus transmit the request containing the IPv6 header information, directed to the subject/content from the representative vector that relates to the sought after content).
As to claim 2, Bachrach further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the weighted vector is stored in an extension header or at least one address block of the datagram (Following claim 1, while Bachrach does not expressly of this feature with respect to describing of extension headers or within the packet datagrams, where the weighted vectors can be stored.
Wainner once again more expressly discloses of how certain information can be inserted within the IPv6 extension header section (e.g., Wainner: ¶ 33), which means when combined and incorporated with Bachrach’s teachings, the weighted vectors information can be stored within those extension header sections.
Once again, one of ordinary skill in the art, would have been motivated to utilize this feature as adding the additional weighted vectors can improve on performance and results, and in turn improve overall user experience).
As to claim 3, Bachrach further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the weighted vector provides configuration parameters for the machine device (the weighted vectors can act as additional configuration information or parameters for the system in training the overall datasets, e.g., Bachrach: ¶¶ 35, 145, and 151).
As to claim 4, Bachrach further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a database is provided indicating further processing information about the weighted vector (the weighted vectors can be incorporated within various datasets, e.g., Bachrach: ¶¶ 61, 100, 106-107, 174-175, and 187-188).
As to claim 5, Bachrach further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a sequence number is provided in the IPv6 diagram (Following claim 1, Bachrach discloses within certain embodiments of the ordering with respect to data elements (e.g., Bachrach: ¶¶ 171 and 220), but Bachrach does not explicitly disclose about IPv6 packets and datagrams.
By relying on Wainner’s teachings again, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, that the ordering in which the IPv6 packets/datagrams are arranged can matter with respect to certain types of data. And thus, by incorporating this within Bachrach’s overall system, it would lend itself towards improved performance).
As to claim 6, Bachrach further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the heterogeneous data source is divided into sets of information items and the method is performed on at least a selection of the sets of information items (The overall data collected within datasets and/or models can be identified and divided across different categories, e.g., Bachrach: ¶¶ 80-81, 89, 106-107, 185, and 190).
As to claim 7, Bachrach further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein identifying (102) the named object entities comprises at least one technique of natural language processing, stemming, computational learning, artificial intelligence, operating a neuronal network, pattern matching, voice recognition, image processing and/or data analysis (Bachrach utilizes neural networks, e.g., Bachrach: ¶¶ 8-10, 61, 135, 138, and 144).
As to claim 8, Bachrach further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein arranging (105) the weighted (104) vector comprises using a database, an interface, a legacy set of instructions, a graphical output, a coordinate system, a representation device and/or clustering of weighted (104) vectors generated in several iterations of the method and arranging only one representative vector (The vector would be representative of the gathered CDEs, trained over a period of time, e.g., Bachrach: ¶¶ 70, 106-107, and 127).
As to claim 9, Bachrach further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method is accomplished at least twice and the resulting weighted vectors are compared (The data or CDEs that’s gathered and used to train the datasets are evaluated over time and iterations, which is applied or reflected in the representative weighted vectors, e.g., Bachrach: ¶¶ 70, 106-107, 127, and 160).
As to claim 10, Bachrach further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method is accomplished time-delayed at least twice and at least one further vector is extrapolated (Similar to claim 9, since the system can iterative gather and update the CDEs over a period of time, and in turn update the representative weighted vector, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the present application, that by referencing two or more different datapoints at different times, that can be used as a measure to form a basis for any further extrapolation, e.g., Bachrach: ¶¶ 70, 106-107, 127, and 160).
As to claim 11, Bachrach further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein selecting one set of named object entities out of several sets of named object entities is performed (The system would access the various datasets formed from the gathered CDEs, e.g., Bachrach: ¶¶ 80-83).
As to claim 12, Bachrach further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein normalizing the weighted vector of technical values over the size if the heterogeneous data source is performed (normalizing the data, e.g., Bachrach: ¶¶ 130).
As to claim 13, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 1 as the method steps can be carried out by one or more various systems/components.
As to claim 14, see the similar corresponding rejection of claim 1 as the program product can be implemented and carried out within the system of claim 1 (e.g., Bachrach: ¶ 59).
As to claim 15, Bachrach further discloses a computer-readable medium having stored thereon the computer program of claim 14 (e.g., Bachrach: ¶ 59).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Xiang Yu whose telephone number is (571)270-5695. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-3:00 (PST/PDT).
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at (571)272-3865. 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.
/Xiang Yu/Examiner, Art Unit 2455