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 . Claims 16-30 have been examined and are pending. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because limitation (a) does not include an ‘and’ or ‘or’ between the two elements that are contained in the library of semantic annotations. Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations are:
Claim 16: source text analysis component for, communication interface generator for
Claim 22, 27: input interface for
Claim 25: source text analysis component configured for, communication interface generator configured for, a communication interface provision component configured for
Claim 26: an input interface configured for
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 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 16-30 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 16 includes “the at least one logic sequence” in step (d) but there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Dependent claims 17-30 are likewise rejected.
Claim 18-20 includes a step “cc” and “ee” and include language that re-arranges and/or change the scope of steps already established in claim 16; it is not clear what the scope of claim 18-20 is.
These claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claim 16: source text analysis component for, communication interface generator for
Claim 22, 27: input interface for
Claim 25: source text analysis component configured for, communication interface generator configured for, a communication interface provision component configured for
Claim 26: an input interface configured for
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 claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. All respective dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The non-transitory computer program of claim 24 is explicitly recited as a computer program and is therefore directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter; dependent claims 25-28 are likewise rejected. The computer program product of claim 29 is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because par. 20 of the published specification includes “Computer program products can also be referred to simply as computer programs.” The data storage medium of claim 30 is not described in the specification as requiring hardware elements or being non-transitory in nature; accordingly, the claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 16-23 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter. With respect to claims 24-30, these claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter as indicated above but can be amended to fall within a statutory category and so analysis will proceed to Step 2A for all claims. See MPEP 2106.03 II.
With respect to independent claim 16, the analyzing, read, generate, embed cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The providing limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claim 19, 20, 22, 25, 26 the read, generate, expand, delete, change, analyze. embed cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). The provide, transfer, receive are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea; these limitations are directed to insignificant extra solution activities. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 17, 21, 23, 27, the marking, generate, regulate, control, diagnose, monitor, simulate, expand, delete, change cover performance of the limitations manually and/or in the mind (mental processes abstract idea). No additional elements are recited and so the claims do not provide a practical application and are not considered to be significantly more. The claims are not eligible.
With respect to dependent claims 18, 24, 28, 29, 30 provide, transfer are recited at a high level of generality and do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the exception in a computer environment using generic computer functions or components. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140068552 A1, hereinafter Szocs, in view of US 20220138004 A1, hereinafter Nandakumar.
As per claim 16, Szocs discloses A computer-implemented method for producing a computer program product starting from a source text […] with at least one source text construct marked with at least one semantic annotation (pars. 30-32, 35-36), the method comprising the following method steps: a. providing a library of semantic annotations, containing: semantic annotations for marking source text constructs (pars. 25-32 disclose annotations such as @entity) […];
logic sequences uniquely linked to the semantic annotations for generating […] and for embedding marked source text constructs (pars. 32, 36-40 disclose generator instructions that match source code elements marked with @entity and provide metadata of those matched elements to the associated template module);
Szocs does not expressly disclose:
of artificial intelligence algorithms
of the source text of artificial intelligence algorithms
communication interfaces
However, Nandakumar discloses these limitations in pars. 14-18, 22, 63, 70, 71, 84.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the cited references because Nandakumar would have allowed Szocs to generate, from the annotation it already detects, the service block and REST endpoint artifacts by which an annotated AI/ML function is exposed to external applications (the same repetitive, error prone interface boilerplate Szocs is directed to generating automatically). See Szocs, pars. 2-4 and Nandakumar, pars. 11, 17, 18.
b. providing a source text analysis component for analyzing the source text for the presence of the semantic annotations in the source text (Szocs, pars. 31-32, 35-36);
c. providing a communication interface generator for generating at least one communication interface (Szocs, pars. 26, 27, 31, 32, 40-42. See Nandakumar as cited above for communication interface);
d. using the source text analysis component to analyze the source text for a presence of at least one semantic annotation (Szocs, pars. 35-36) in the source text and transferring the at least one logic sequence, which is uniquely linked to the at least one semantic annotation that is present in the source text, from the library to the communication interface generator (Szocs, pars. 32, 37-40. See Nandakumar as cited above for communication interface);
e. using the communication interface generator to read the at least one transferred logic sequence which is uniquely linked to the at least one semantic annotation present in the source text (Szocs, pars. 32, 37-40. See Nandakumar as cited above for communication interface); and
f. using the communication interface generator to generate at least one communication interface on a basis of the at least one logic sequence read by the communication interface generator (Szocs, pars. 26, 27, 32, 40-42, See Nandakumar as cited above for communication interface); and
g. embedding the at least one communication interface into the computer program product (Szocs, pars. 32, 33, 40-42, See Nandakumar as cited above for communication interface).
As per claim 17, Szocs as modified discloses The method according to claim 16, which comprises preceding method step a. by: marking at least one source text construct in the source text of the artificial intelligence algorithms with at least one semantic annotation from the library of semantic annotations (Szocs, pars. 25, 26, 29-31, 35, 36 disclose repeating patterns are identified from developer input and annotations inserted into the modified source files before annotation engine scans them, see Nandakumar as cited above for AI algorithms).
As per claim 18, Szocs as modified discloses The method according to claim 16, further comprising the following method steps, which precede method step e.: cc. providing a communication interface provision component; wherein in method step f. the at least one communication interface generated by the communication interface generator is transferred to the communication interface provision component; wherein method step g. is executed by the communication interface provision component; and wherein method step g. is followed by: h. using the communication interface provision component to provide the generated computer program product (Szocs, pars. 31-33 disclose Java compiler/JVM receive generated code, convert to an executable file, and a repo stores/provides it including over a network; see Nandakumar as cited above for communication interface).
As per claim 19, Szocs as modified discloses The method according to claim 16, wherein the library of semantic annotations provided in method step a. comprises at least one configuration template which is uniquely linked to at least one logic sequence and which comprises definitions of configuration parameters for modifying the logic sequence, and wherein method steps d. and e. additionally comprise: d. transferring at least one configuration template, which is uniquely linked to the at least one transferred logic sequence, from the library to the communication interface generator; e. using the communication interface generator to read the at least one transferred configuration template, to which at least one transferred logic sequence is uniquely linked (Szocs, pars. 27, 32, 37-42 disclose that the generator module identifies its template module, which exposes variables as defined by the generator and whose text and output may comprise config data); wherein method step e. is followed by and method step f. is preceded by: ee. using the communication interface generator to generate at least one configuration interface on a basis of the at least one read logic sequence and on the basis of the at least one read configuration template, and providing the at least one generated configuration interface for modifying the at least one read logic sequence (Nandakumar, pars. 13, 18, 27-31 disclose a template for a pre-configured ML framework that comprises interface elements for configuring the framework, and a GUI configuring transport, adapters, protocol, memory, queues, and duration).
As per claim 20, Szocs as modified discloses The method according to claim 19, wherein: method step ee. additionally comprises: ee. using the communication interface generator to receive at least one modification of the at least one read logic sequence via the configuration interface and modifying the at least one read logic sequence; and method step f. comprises: f. using the communication interface generator to generate at least one communication interface on a basis of the at least one modified logic sequence (Nandakumar, pars. 21-24, 68-71 and 98).
As per claim 21, Szocs as modified discloses The method according to claim 16, which comprises, in accordance with method step f. using the communication interface generator to generate the at least one communication interface as an application programming interface (Nandakumar, pars. 17, 21, 71).
As per claim 22, Szocs as modified discloses The method according to claim 16, which comprises preceding method step d. by: providing an input interface for receiving an input for expanding, deleting, or changing contents of the library of semantic annotations; and expanding, deleting, or changing contents of the library of semantic annotations based on the input (Szocs, pars. 25-29, 31-32 wherein a developer uses an editor to insert annotations and author the generator and template modules, see also, Nandakumar, pars. 20, 96, 120).
As per claim 23, Szocs as modified discloses method according to claim 16, wherein the at least one source text construct of the source text of the artificial intelligence algorithms marked with a semantic annotation from the library comprises at least one algorithm for regulating, controlling, diagnosing, monitoring, or simulating technical devices or systems (Nandakumar, pars. 16-18, 84).
As per claim 24, Szocs as modified discloses A non-transitory computer program for producing a computer program product comprising commands, which, when the program is executed on a computer, cause the computer to execute the method according to claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16).
As per claim 25, Szocs as modified discloses the computer program according to claim 24, comprising: a library of semantic annotations containing semantic annotations for marking source text constructs of a source text of artificial intelligence algorithms; logic sequences uniquely linked to the semantic annotations for generating communication interfaces and for embedding the marked source text constructs; a source text analysis component configured for: analyzing the source text for a presence of semantic annotations from the library in the source text; and transferring at least one logic sequence that is uniquely linked to at least one semantic annotation present in the source text from the library to a communication interface generator; a communication interface generator configured for: reading at least one transferred logic sequence linked to at least one semantic annotation present in the source text; generating at least one communication interface based on at least one read logic sequence (Szocs, pars. 25-27, 30, 32-37, 39-42; see Nandakumar as cited in the rejection of claim 16); and transferring at least one generated communication interface to a communication interface provision component; and a communication interface provision component configured for: embedding the at least one generated communication interface into the computer program product (Nandakumar, pars. 17, 18, 26-30, 63, 71, 121, 127, 128).
As per claim 26, Szocs as modified discloses the computer program according to claim 25, which comprises an input interface configured for: reading-in a source text of artificial intelligence algorithms comprising at least one semantic annotation for marking at least one source text construct of the source text of artificial intelligence algorithms in the source text; and transferring the read-in source text to a source text analysis component (Szocs, pars. 29-32; see Nandakumar as cited in the rejection of claim 16).
As per claim 27, Szocs as modified discloses The computer program according to claim 24, comprising an input interface for receiving an input for expanding, deleting, or changing the contents of the provided library of semantic annotations and/or for marking at least one source text construct of the source text with at least one semantic annotation from the library (Szocs, pars. 25, 26, 29-32, see Nandakumar 20, 77, 94, 96, 120).
As per claim 28, Szocs as modified discloses A non-transitory data carrier having stored thereon the computer program according to claim 24 (see rejection of claim 16).
As per claim 29, Szocs as modified discloses A computer program product produced with the method according to claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16).
As per claim 30, Szocs as modified discloses A data storage medium having stored thereon a computer program product produced with the method according to claim 16 (see rejection of claim 16).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED HASAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5008. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5 pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at (571)270-5626. 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.
/SYED H HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights