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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-6 are amended.
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 11/22/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter (See MPEP § 2106.03, subsections I and II). Claims 1-4 are directed to a computer-implemented device (i.e., machine, and manufacture). Claim 5 is directed to a computer-implemented method (i.e., process). Claim 6 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e., manufacture). Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1)). The independent claims under a broadest reasonable interpretation recite an abstract idea because the claims describe management of data conversion and formatting, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe fundamental economic principles or practices, including mitigating risk, and describe commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. The abstract idea of management of data conversion and formatting is also grouped within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). The claim limitations reciting the abstract idea are grouped within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas because the limitations describe concepts that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea.
Claim 1:
A computing device comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions; and
a processor configured to execute the instructions to:
determine, for each part of a source program, which is a program to be executed, whether the part is to be converted to an intermediate representation or is to be executed without conversion to the intermediate representation;
generate the intermediate representation of the part of the source program that has been determined to be converted to the intermediate representation, wherein generating comprises determining whether data obtained as a result of executing the intermediate representation include data requiring conversion to a data representation format of the source program, and if it is determined that the data include the data requiring conversion, generating the intermediate representation including an instruction to convert a data representation format of the data requiring conversion;
instruct execution of the intermediate representation, by executing the part of the source program that has been determined not to be converted to the intermediate representation; and
execute the intermediate representation of which execution has been instructed.
Claim 5:
A computing method executed by a computer, comprising:
determining, for each part of a source program, which is a program to be executed, whether the part is to be converted to an intermediate representation or is to be executed without conversion to the intermediate representation;
generating the intermediate representation of the part of the source program that has been determined to be converted to the intermediate representation, wherein generating comprises determining whether data obtained as a result of executing the intermediate representation include data requiring conversion to a data representation format of the source program, and if it is determined that the data include the data requiring conversion, generating the intermediate representation including an instruction to convert the data representation format of the data requiring conversion;
instructing execution of the intermediate representation, by executing the part of the source program that has been determined not to be converted to the intermediate representation; and
executing the intermediate representation of which execution has been instructed.
Claim 6:
A non-transitory recording medium that records a program for causing a computer to execute:
determining, for each part of a source program, which is a program to be executed, whether the part is to be converted to an intermediate representation or is to be executed without conversion to the intermediate representation;
generating the intermediate representation of the part of the source program that has been determined to be converted to the intermediate representation, wherein generating comprises determining whether data obtained as a result of executing the intermediate representation include data requiring conversion to a data representation format of the source program, and if it is determined that the data include the data requiring conversion, generating the intermediate representation including an instruction to convert the data representation format of the data requiring conversion;
instructing execution of the intermediate representation, by executing the part of the source program that has been determined not to be converted to the intermediate representation; and
executing the intermediate representation of which execution has been instructed.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2)). Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by: (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application, using one or more of the considerations discussed in more detail in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), 2106.05(a) through (c) and 2106.05(e) through (h). Here, the non-underlined claim limitations above recite additional elements. The additional elements do not improve the functioning of computers, another technology, or a technical field (MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a)). The Specification does not assert that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. The claim does not purport to improve computer capabilities, but rather invokes computers merely as a tool by adding general purpose computers post-hoc to an abstract idea. A commonplace business method being applied on a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. The Specification and the claim language provide evidence that the focus of the claim is on a scheme. An improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology. Even if the Specification describes technical improvements, they are not claimed. The additional elements do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). The additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)). A general-purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine. The additional elements do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)). The claim does not recite any transformation of an article where the article changes to a different state or thing. Nor do the additional elements apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way or impose a meaningful limit on it beyond linking its use to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). The additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. A wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of additional feature that provides any practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea itself. The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements are being used in their ordinary capacity. The additional elements do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above.
Step 2B
Step 2B determines whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP § 2106.05). In Step 2B examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two; carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e), (f) and (h); re-evaluate any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity per MPEP § 2106.05(g), because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and evaluate whether any additional element or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP § 2106.05(d). The additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The additional elements generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). Individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Here, the additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. A factual determination is required to support a conclusion that an additional element (or combination of additional elements) is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Here, the specification of the application indicates that additional elements are well-known or conventional (See Spec. 0011-0020, 0089-0096). There is nothing in the specification to indicate that the operations recited in the claims require any specialized hardware or inventive computer components or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to perform generic computer functions. The ordered combination recites no more than the individual elements do. Thus, the additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to the abstract idea identified above without significantly more. The claims are not eligible, warranting a rejection for lack of subject matter eligibility and concluding the eligibility analysis.
Dependent Claims
Claim 2 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes management of data conversion and formatting, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0011-0020, 0089-0096). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine that a part of the source program that has been determined to include data of a data type not supported by a library used to execute the intermediate representation is to be executed without conversion to the intermediate representation.
Claim 3 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes management of data conversion and formatting, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0011-0020, 0089-0096). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether data referenced by the part of the source program determined to be converted to the intermediate representation include data requiring conversion to a data representation format of the intermediate representation, and if it is determined that the part of the source program include the data requiring conversion, generate the intermediate representation including an instruction to convert a data representation format of the data requiring conversion.
Claim 4 recites an abstract idea because the claim describes management of data conversion and formatting, grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. The following underlined claim limitations recite the abstract idea. The non-underlined claim limitations recite additional elements. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements individually and in combination, merely serve as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See Spec. 0011-0020, 0089-0096). Therefore, the claim is not eligible.
wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine that a part of the source program that has been determined to include an operation not supported by a library used to execute the intermediate representation is to be executed without conversion to the intermediate representation.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0357534 A1 (“Krish”).
Claims 1 and 5-6:
Krish discloses:
a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to: [A non-transitory recording medium that records a program for causing a computer to execute] (0030-0037)
determine, for each part of a source program, which is a program to be executed, whether the part is to be converted to an intermediate representation or is to be executed without conversion to the intermediate representation; (0052, 0063, 0066, 0071, 0073, 0081)
generate the intermediate representation of the part of the source program that has been determined to be converted to the intermediate representation (0041, 0065-0066, 0071), wherein generating comprises determining whether data obtained as a result of executing the intermediate representation include data requiring conversion to a data representation format of the source program, and if it is determined that the data include the data requiring conversion (0048, 0059-0061, 0071), generating the intermediate representation including an instruction to convert a data representation format of the data requiring conversion; (0042-0043, 0069, 0070)
instruct execution of the intermediate representation, by executing the part of the source program that has been determined not to be converted to the intermediate representation; and (0026, 0040, 0067, 0075-0076, 0080-0081)
execute the intermediate representation of which execution has been instructed. (0026, 0067, 0075-0076, 0080-0081)
Claim 2:
Krish discloses all limitations of claim 1. Krish further discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to (0030-0037) determine that a part of the source program that has been determined to include data of a data type not supported by a library used to execute the intermediate representation is to be executed without conversion to the intermediate representation. (0016, 0047-0048, 0059-0060, 0074)
Claim 3:
Krish discloses all limitations of claim 1. Krish further discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to (0030-0037) determine whether data referenced by the part of the source program determined to be converted to the intermediate representation include data requiring conversion to a data representation format of the intermediate representation (0040, 0053-0055, 0060-0061, 0071), and if it is determined that the part of the source program include the data requiring conversion, generate the intermediate representation including an instruction to convert a data representation format of the data requiring conversion. (0042-0044, 0069, 0071)
Claim 4:
Krish discloses all limitations of claim 1. Krish further discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to (0030-0037) determine that a part of the source program that has been determined to include an operation not supported by a library used to execute the intermediate representation is to be executed without conversion to the intermediate representation. (0016, 0019, 0047-0048, 0060, 0074)
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0042217 A1 (“Glossop”) discloses: Methods, apparatus, systems and articles of manufacture to compiler compile code to generate dataflow code are described. An example compiler apparatus includes an intermediate representation transformer to transform input software code to intermediate representation code; an instruction selector to insert machine instructions of a target execution platform in the intermediate representation code to generate machine intermediate representation code; and a target machine transformer to: convert a portion of the machine intermediate representation code to dataflow code to generate dataflow intermediate representation code; and allocate registers within the dataflow intermediate representation code.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ari Shahabi whose telephone number is (571)272-2565. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, John W Hayes can be reached at 571-272-6708. 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.
/ARI SHAHABI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
Prosecution Insights