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
This office action is responsive to application filed on 8/12/2024. Claim 1 is pending examination.
Claim Objections
The claim initially introduces “one or more dependent objects” but later refers to “the dependent object”, which is ambiguous, it is not clear which specific object is being executed. Clarification is required.
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 1 recites the limitation " the second application" . 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The steps of the claim are about managing software containers, linking their functions, and handling dependencies, which is an abstract idea, similar to organizing information or processes in a generic computer system.
Step 2 A: The steps of the claim amount to organizing and managing data dependencies between software components, which is a form of abstract data management and inter application communication and similar to Electric Power Group LLC V Alstrom S.A. The claim does not explain a specific technical improvement in the functioning of the computer itself. The steps of creating containers, receiving input, linking functions, and executing objects are routine computer activities. They do not make the computer efficient or improve its operation.
Step 2B: the claim only uses processor to perform these standard activities. There is no inventive concept beyond implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer. The claim does not recite new or unconventional way of handling container dependencies or software execution. For these reasons, the claim is directed to an abstract idea which is implemented using routine computer components and does not include anything significantly more to make it patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brielmann et al. U.S, Patent Pub. No. 2004/0145601 (referred hereinafter Brielmann).
As to claim1, Brielmann teaches a method implemented by one or more processors of a computing device, the method comprising:
causing, in response to a user accessing a first application via the computing device, an instance of a container to be instantiated in memory of the computing device, wherein the container includes one or more dependent objects (see at least paragraphs 0032 and 0038, based on user interaction with the first application, creating a container in the memory of the computing device);
receiving, while the user is accessing the first application, an input from a user, the input being received at an interface of the first application (see at least paragraphs 0038 and 0043, notification of user’s input using the first application);
causing, in response to receiving the input from the user at the interface of the first application, an additional container to be instantiated in the memory of the computing device, wherein the additional container includes the function of the second application, and wherein the additional container fulfills a dependency between the function of the second application and a dependent object, out of the one or more dependent objects, of the container (see at least paragraphs 0041-0043, forming a container for a dependent objects); and
initializing, in response to the additional container being instantiated in the memory, the performance of the function of the second application by causing execution of the dependent object of the container (see at least paragraphs 0041-0043, performing the function based on user input and the dependent object).
Double Patenting
Claim1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,374,887 and over claims1-20 of U.S. Patent No.11,750,544, and over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No.12,063,191. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims contain every element of the instant application and as such is encompassed by the claims of this instant application. Claim 1 of the instant application therefore is/are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim(s) and as such is/are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim. “A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. (In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896,225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus); ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001) (Cf., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944, 214 USPQ 761, 767 (CCPA 1982); In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,338,966, Instantiating containers with A unified Data volume.
Woolen U.S. Patent No.7,707,572, System and Method for Application Container Architecture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443