DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to continuation application filed on August 5th, 2024.
Claims 1~20 are examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/07/25 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
Claims 1~20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1~20 of U.S. Patent 10,091,276, claims 1~20 of US Patent 10,949,778, and claims 1~18 of U.S. Patent 12,056,635. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the U.S Patents mentioned above anticipates claims 1~20 of the instant application. See table for comparison of claims 1 between the instant application and one of the U.S Patents.
Application: 18/776,513
U.S Patent 12,056,635
1. A computer-implemented method for predictive decision-making, comprising: receiving a set of rules into an ad-hoc network having distributed nodes, where each node is capable of processing the set of rules; identifying a data set for each received rule; selecting a first node from the distributed nodes to process a received first rule as a function of the identified data set; selecting a second node from the distributed nodes to process a received second rule as a function of the identified data set; selecting a third node from the distributed nodes to receive the processed results from the first and second node as a function of the received set of rules; receiving the processed results from the first and second nodes at the third node; and providing an indication of the received processed results at the third node.
1. A computer-implemented method for predictive decision-making, comprising:
for each rule of a set of rules:
identifying a respective potential candidate data set including spatial, temporal, and contextual data elements that are each a respective potential candidate for the respective rule;
using an optimizing algorithm to select two or more distributed nodes of a plurality of distributed nodes in an ad hoc network as a function of the respective identified potential candidate data set for the respective rule, wherein at least one of the selected two or more distributed nodes is configured to identify respective candidate spatial, temporal, and/or contextual data elements received by the respective distributed node for at least a portion of the respective rule; and
distributing the at least the portion of the respective rule to the corresponding selected distributed node of the at least one selected two or more distributed nodes for the respective rule; and
providing an indication that at least one rule in the set of rules is satisfied;
wherein each of the plurality of distributed nodes is capable of processing spatial, temporal, and/or contextual data elements, or of performing the providing step, for at least one rule in the set of rules, and wherein the plurality of distributed nodes is configured to collectively spatially, temporally, and/or contextually index the respective identified candidate spatial, temporal, and/or contextual data elements as a function of the respective rule.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
Step 2A Prong One: Claims 1, 11, and 19 recite:
“receiving a set of rules into an ad-hoc network having distributed nodes, where each node is capable of processing the set of rules; identifying a data set for each received rule; selecting a first node from the distributed nodes to process a received first rule as a function of the identified data set; selecting a second node from the distributed nodes to process a received second rule as a function of the identified data set; selecting a third node from the distributed nodes to receive the processed results from the first and second node as a function of the received set of rules; receiving the processed results from the first and second nodes at the third node; and providing an indication of the received processed results at the third node.”
The limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “nodes”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “identifying…”, “selecting…”, “selecting…”, “selecting…” in the context of these claims encompasses computerizing a manual process of analyzing information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
1. The claims recite additional elements “modules” which are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this 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.
2. The claims recite additional element of “receiving a set of rules…” and “receiving the processed results…” which taken individually amounts to adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because claims 1, 11, and 19 as a whole is silent regarding specific limitations directed to improving a computer system, processor, memory, network, database, or the Internet, nor do Applicants direct any attention to such specific limitations.
Accordingly, claims 1, 11, and 19 are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claims 1, 11, and 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “nodes”, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Further, the insignificant extra solution activity of “receiving…” simply appends well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. The courts recognize receiving or transmitting data over a network (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The claims when read as an ordered combination is not significantly more than a judicial exception. For these reasons, claims 1, 11, and 19 are not patent eligible.
Regarding dependent claims 2~10, 12~17, and 20
Claims 2~10, 12~17, and 20 recite elements/limitations that also fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, as identified above and also recite elements/limitations that are insignificant extra solution activity that simply appends well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The claims when read as an ordered combination is not significantly more than a judicial exception. For these reasons, claims 2~10, 12~17, and 20 are not patent eligible.
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 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. Such claim limitation(s) are: a rules manager configured to.
Because these claim limitation(s) 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.
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 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 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.
Claims 11~18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 11, 13, 14, 16, and 18 contains limitations, a rules manager configured to which are means (or step) plus function limitations that invoke 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 the claimed function.
Claims 12, 15, and 17 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency to claim 11.
Claims 11~18 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 11, 13, 14, 16, and 18 contains limitations, a rules manager configured to which invoke 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. 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.
Claims 12, 15, and 17 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency to claim 11.
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 § 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 1~20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jackson (U.S 2006/0173857).
Regarding Claim 1,
Cavallaro taught a method of generating a synthetic network, the method comprising:
receiving a set of rules into an ad-hoc network having distributed nodes, where each node is capable of processing the set of rules [¶34, distributed computing system 10 Pgs. 7~8, “Dataset collection”, boss denoted as x to preserve anonymity; participants of the meetings identified by unique ID code; each person who participated in at least one meeting corresponds to a node in the network; two subjects in the meetings network are connected by an edge if both attended at least one meeting; Pg. 9, Nodes may belong to different categories. Some nodes represent the leaders (i.e., “bosses”) or the soldiers of the criminal organization;
identifying a data set for each received rule [¶122, sensor subsystem 240 sends inputs to analysis subsystem 244 to communicate the aggregated data on a periodic or event-driven basis; ¶124, analysis subsystem 244 is composed of rule engines 246A-N that match patterns in a combination of configuration data and monitoring data in presented in the form of events. Events contain the aggregated data values that are sent to rule engines 246];
selecting a first node from the distributed nodes to process a received first rule as a function of the identified data set [¶56, each node slot represents a data set that describes specific information for a corresponding node; ¶126, analysis subsystem 244 allows rule sets to be loaded in source form and compiled at load time into discrimination networks; ¶84];
selecting a second node from the distributed nodes to process a received second rule as a function of the identified data set [¶56, each node slot represents a data set that describes specific information for a corresponding node; ¶126, analysis subsystem 244 allows rule sets to be loaded in source form and compiled at load time into discrimination networks; ¶84];
selecting a third node from the distributed nodes to receive the processed results from the first and second node as a function of the received set of rules [¶108, monitoring subsystem 202 provides real-time monitoring of the distributed computing system 10. Monitoring subsystem 202 dynamically collects status data 203 from the hardware and software operating within distributed computing system 10, and feeds the status data in the form of monitor inputs 208 to SLAI 204; ¶113; ¶117];
receiving the processed results from the first and second nodes at the third node [¶113, collectors 224 are responsible for protocol-specific collection of monitoring information; ¶114, monitoring engine 222 receives collection requests from SLAI 204, sorts and prioritizes the requests, and invokes the appropriate one of collectors 224 based on the protocol specified in the collection requests. The invoked collector is responsible for collecting the required status data and returning the status data to monitoring engine 22]; and
providing an indication of the received processed results at the third node [¶150, report generator 302 gathers, localizes, formats and displays data into report form for presentation to the user].
Regarding Claim 2,
Cavallaro taught wherein the first node is different from the second node and the third node is the same as the first or second node [¶60, control node 12 assigns computing nodes to the tier whose node attributes most closely match the node requirements of the tier; ¶40, other control nodes 12 are optional and may be associated with a different subset of the computing nodes within distributed computing system 10].
Regarding Claim 3,
Cavallaro taught wherein the step of selecting the first node includes identifying a source of data in the received data set [¶157, when certain preconditions are true, the sensor becomes active. Thereafter, the sensor performs some action whenever the sensor detects a certain pattern of data in the stream of information describing the actual state of the system 208].
Regarding Claim 4,
Cavallaro taught wherein the step of identifying a source of data includes identifying one or more of a dynamic data source, a location of the data, or an origin of the data [¶123, sensor subsystem 240 performs arbitrary data aggregations via instances of plug-in classes that define the aggregations).
Regarding Claim 5,
Cavallaro taught wherein the step of selecting the first node includes using an optimizing algorithm [¶67, control node 12 may automatically assign unallocated nodes from free node pool 13 to at least a portion of tier node slots 38 of tiers 36 as needed using the “best fit” algorithm].
Regarding Claim 6,
Cavallaro taught wherein the optimizing algorithm minimizes a transfer amount of data from the received data set [¶154, only the rules and rule instantiations affected by changes are updated, thereby avoiding the bulk of the matching process].
Regarding Claim 7,
Cavallaro taught wherein the optimizing algorithm minimizes the processing required to process the received set of rules [¶154, RETE algorithm that creates a decision tree that combines the patterns in all the rules and is intended to improve the speed of forward-chained rule system by limiting the effort required to re-compute a conflict set after a rule is fired].
Regarding Claim 8,
Cavallaro taught wherein the optimizing algorithm selects the first node as a function of the availability of the first node [¶84, control node 12 then determines whether there are any computing nodes in the free pool of nodes that meet the minimum node requirements of the tier].
Regarding Claim 9,
Cavallaro taught wherein each rule of the set of rules includes a plurality of subrules [¶153, execution engine 346 first matches a current set of rules 342 against a current state of working memory 348 and local objects 350. Execution engine 346 then collects all rules that match as well as the matched objects and selects a particular rule instantiation to fire; ¶126].
Regarding Claim 10,
Cavallaro taught further comprising the step of providing an indication comprises one or more of the following steps: displaying the received processed results at the third node [¶150, report generator 302 gathers, localizes, formats and displays data into report form for presentation to the user; ¶109].
Regarding Claims 11~20, the claims are similar in scope to claims 1~10 and therefore, rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HEE SOO KIM whose telephone number is (571) 270-3229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on (571) 272-3889. 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.
/HEE SOO KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443