CTNF 18/868,600 CTNF 84418 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-05 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. The “receiving section” and “control section” limitations of claims 1 and 6 are interpreted as means plus function type limitations are therefore interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed towards nonstatutory subject matter. The receiving function of claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of mental processes, namely, data gathering. The performing function of claim 1 the abstract idea of human activity, namely, making a conclusion on the bases of reasoning, which is a type of process manually performed by a person in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) include(s) additional elements such as “a terminal”. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements simply merely perform generic functions executing the functions on a machine where the machine is used as a mere tool. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. Accordingly, the 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 additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered alone and in combination do not add significantly more (i.e. do not at an inventive concept) to the exception. The remaining independent claims are addressed by similar rationale. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by US 11424962 to Kumar . Regarding claim 1 , Kumar teaches a terminal comprising: a receiving section that receives information for identification of an artificial intelligence (AI) model based on a model transfer category (col. 14:45-67, col. 15:1-10, receiving information for ai model; model transfers and ids); and a control section that performs inference based on the Al model identified based on the information (col. 13:60-67, col. 14:1-45, col. 16:1-67, inferences based on identified model) . Regarding claim 2, Kumar teaches: wherein the information includes a source Uniform Resource Locator (URL) of the Al model or index information of a file for the Al model (col. 14:1-45; col. 14:45-67, col. 15:1-10, information includes URI/URL). Regarding claim 3, Kumar teaches: wherein the information includes information of a network structure for the Al model (col. 14:45-67, col. 15:1-10, col. 13:60-67, col. 14:1-45, col. 16:1-67). Regarding claim 4, Kumar teaches: wherein the control section controls processing related to the Al model based on a protocol stack using a model management unit for handling model transfer (col. 1:30-47, protocol stacks; col. 6:25-60; figs 1, 4, 13, col. 14:1-45; col. 14:45-67, col. 15:1-10, managing unit). Claims 5-6 are addressed by similar rationale as claim 1. CONCLUSION Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN J JAKOVAC whose telephone number is (571)270-5003. The examiner can normally be reached on 8-4 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Oscar A. Louie can be reached on 572-270-1684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /RYAN J JAKOVAC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/868,600 Page 2 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/868,600 Page 3 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/868,600 Page 4 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/868,600 Page 5 Art Unit: 2445 Application/Control Number: 18/868,600 Page 6 Art Unit: 2445
Prosecution Insights