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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) filed on 08/21/2024 and 09/19/2024 has/have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the device in claim 30.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/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 Objections
Claim 35 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim does not appear to depend from multiple claims in the alternative and the dependency is unclear. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 35 has not been further treated on the merits.
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 31 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.
In claim 31, the acronym OMP is not described.
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 19-23, 25, and 27-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 19:
Step 1 Analysis: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? See MPEP § 2106.03.
• Yes, the claim is to a process.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1).
• Yes, the limitation “controlling operation” is so broad as to encompass at least the abstract idea of a mental process that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP § 2106.04(d).
• No, the limitation “receiving” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(g).
• No, the “processing” is at best an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
Step 2B Analysis: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP § 2106.05.
• No, the limitation “receiving” is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
• No, the “processing” is at best an additional element that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
As co claims 20 and 21, they at best recite additional elements that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
As to claim 22, the recited determining and assuming is merely a continuation of the abstract idea of a mental process from claim 19.
As to claim 23, the receiving is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). The recited controlling is merely an abstract idea of a mental process.
As to claim 25, the subscribing/registering encompasses sending data and is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). The recited controlling is merely an abstract idea of a mental process.
As to claims 27 and 28, their determining steps can be considered mental processes and sending data an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)..
As to claim 29, the receiving is an additional element that amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, the additional element is directed to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which the courts have recognized as well‐understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a generic manner. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Claims 30 and 34 are rejected based on reasoning similar to that of claim 19.
As to claims 30-33, they at best recite additional elements that generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d), 2106.05(h).
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.
Claim(s) 19, 22, 23, 26-28, 30, 32, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu (US 20180026832 A1).
As to claim 19, Yu teaches a computer-implemented method for processing data associated with an application that at least intermittently uses a communication system for data exchange with at least one other unit (see throughout and paragraph 0395, disclosing distributed network of units), the method comprising:
receiving first information which characterizes a self-healing process associated with at least one component of the communication system (see paragraph 0095 and throughout, disclosing sending a self-healing policy information); and
controlling operation of the application based on the first information (see Fig. 1, associated text, and throughout, disclosing performing self-healing using the self-healing policy information).
As to claim 22, Yu teaches claim 19 as detailed above. Yu further teaches the controlling includes at least one of the following elements: a) determining whether a fail-safe state should be assumed, and optionally assuming the fail-safe state (see paragraph 0189, disclosing determining based on the policy to perform the self healing), b) backing up at least one portion of data which are associated with the application, wherein the at least one portion includes configuration data and/or state data.
As to claim 23, Yu teaches claim 22 as detailed above. Yu further teaches 23 receiving second information which characterizes a completion of the self- healing process associated with the at least one component of the communication system; and controlling the operation of the application based on the second information (see paragraph 0202 and throughout, disclosing sending completion information and configuring based on completion).
As to claim 26, Yu teaches a computer-implemented method for processing data of a communication system that can be and/or is used at least intermittently by an application for data exchange with at least one other unit (see throughout and paragraph 0395, disclosing distributed network of units), the method comprising:
sending first information which characterizes a self-healing process associated with at least one component of the communication system to the application (see paragraph 0095 and throughout, disclosing sending a self-healing policy information).
As to claim 27, Yu teaches claim 26 as detailed above. Yu further teaches determining whether the self-healing process associated with the at least one component of the communication system is imminent or is already being carried out (see paragraph 0020 and throughout, disclosing using start information to prevent repeatedly performing healing).
As to claim 28, Yu teaches claim 26 as detailed above. Yu further teaches determining whether the self-healing process associated with the at least one component of the communication system is completed; and optionally sending second information to the application based on the determining (see paragraph 0202 and throughout, disclosing sending completion information).
As to claims 30 and 34, they are rejected on grounds corresponding to above rejected claim 19 because they are substantially equivalent.
As to claim 32, the references teach claim 30 as detailed above. They further teach the device is for the communication system (see paragraphs 0074-0088, disclosing this is a network related system).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 20, 21, 31, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Slinger (US 20230267032 A1).
As to claim 20, the references teach claim 19 as detailed above. They do not explicitly teach, wherein the at least one other unit includes a manufacturing device.
However, Slinger teaches networked environments for monitoring manufacturing equipment (see paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Yu with Slinger because it enables monitoring and efficient repair of equipment (see paragraphs 0025 and 0041).
As to claim 21, the references teach claim 19 as detailed above. They do not explicitly teach, wherein he application is associated with a manufacturing execution system and at least intermittently executes at least one function for the manufacturing execution system.
However, Slinger teaches networked environments for monitoring manufacturing equipment (see paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Yu with Slinger because it enables monitoring and efficient repair of equipment (see paragraphs 0025 and 0041).
As to claim 31, the references teach claim 30 as detailed above. They do not explicitly teach the device is included in a device OMP) for a manufacturing control system and/or a manufacturing device.
However, Slinger teaches networked environments for monitoring manufacturing equipment (see paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Yu with Slinger because it enables monitoring and efficient repair of equipment (see paragraphs 0025 and 0041).
As to claim 33, the references teach claim 30 as detailed above. They do not explicitly teach the device is included in an integrated communication and production system, which also includes a manufacturing control system and/or a manufacturing device.
However, Slinger teaches networked environments for monitoring manufacturing equipment (see paragraph 0041).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Yu with Slinger because it enables monitoring and efficient repair of equipment (see paragraphs 0025 and 0041).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Tsirkin (US 8719631 B2).
As to claim 24, the references teach claim 23 as detailed above. They do not explicitly teach, wherein the controlling of the operation of the application based on the second information includes at least one of the following elements: a) loading the at least one portion of data which are associated with the application from a previous backup, b) exiting the fail-safe state by switching from the fail-safe state to a regular operating state (see paragraph 0202 and throughout, disclosing configuring a VM based on completion).
However, Tsirkin teaches resuming normal operation after recovery of a VM (see col. 7, lines 7-15).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Yu with the resumption of Tsirkin because it enables VM recovery (see Summary) and continuing whatever task was going on before failure.
Claim(s) 25 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Power (US 20140136906 A1).
As to claim 25, the references teach claim 23 as detailed above. They do not explicitly teach at least one of the following elements: a) subscribing to the first information and/or the second information by registering to receive the first information and/or the second information with a service of the communication system, b) deregistering from receiving the first information and/or the second information with the service of the communication system.
However, Power teaches using a subscription service to receive notifications of fault information (see paragraph 0058) and that nodes can unsubscribe as well (see paragraph 0067).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Yu with the methods of Power because it enables notification of information while reducing network bandwidth requirements (see paragraph 0029).
As to claim 29, the references teach claim 28 as detailed above. They do not explicitly teach at least one of the following elements: a) receiving a registration for receiving the first information and/or the second information, from the application, b) receiving a deregistration from receiving the first information and/or the second information, from the application.
However, Power teaches using a subscription service to receive notifications of fault information (see paragraph 0058) and that nodes can unsubscribe as well (see paragraph 0067).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Yu with the methods of Power because it enables notification of information while reducing network bandwidth requirements (see paragraph 0029).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON B BRYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7091. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8-5 First Friday off.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 5712720631. 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.
/JASON B BRYAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114