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 .
Remarks
Claims 9-16 are pending.
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: “a display control unit”, “a creation unit”, and “a construction unit” in claim 16.
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 § 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 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Fuqaha et al. (‘Al-Fuqaha’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20180011694) in view of Sanjar et al. (‘Sanjar’ hereinafter) (Publication Number 20060230314).
As per claim 9, Al-Fuqaha teaches
An information processing method executed by an information processing device, comprising: (see abstract and background)
processing of displaying a design screen of a system; (design surface, paragraph [0095])
processing of disposing a component image corresponding to a type of system component prepared in advance and a flow image indicating a data flow between the system components on the design screen, in accordance with a user manipulation; (GUI to drag and drop elements such as images on the design surface with data-flow editor where user defines relationships among data-flow block, paragraphs [0094]-[0095] & figure 4; note that Al-Fuqaha also teaches system components such as a database at paragraph [0061] & abstract)
Al-Fuqaha does not explicitly indicate “processing of creating a design file of the system, on the basis of the component image and the flow image disposed on the design screen; and processing of constructing an infrastructure of the system, on the basis of the design file”.
However, Sanjar discloses “processing of creating a design file of the system, on the basis of the component image and the flow image disposed on the design screen; and processing of constructing an infrastructure of the system, on the basis of the design file” (generate files for automation and installation and integration of computing system solutions, abstract & paragraphs [0148],[0151]-[0153]; use for installation, paragraph [0146], see also paragraph [0060]-[0061] that shows the design area with components such as a database that reads on infrastructure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Al-Fuqaha and Sanjar because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allowing a designer to simulate operation and interactions of all of the components using actual data collected from existing customer solutions and/or simulated data to reduce the financial risk and burden prior to a sale being completed (see Sanjar, background and paragraph [0021]). This gives the user the advantage of increasing profitability and ability to compete on price.
As per claim 10, Al-Fuqaha teaches
the type of system component includes at least one of a UI, an endpoint, an entity, a trigger, a data source, a storage, a pipeline, a function, and an Al model. (GUI components, paragraph [0095] & figure 4; note that Al-Fuqaha also teaches system components such as a database at paragraph [0061] & abstract, where database reads on the claimed storage component)
As per claim 11, Al-Fuqaha teaches
contents of the system component are added after the component image is disposed. (data-flow editor for user to define flow relationships among the data blocks on design surface, paragraphs [0094]-[0095], where such editing could be done after blocks are disposed on the design surface)
As per claim 12, Al-Fuqaha teaches
the flow image is an arrow connecting the component images. (data-flow editor for user to define flow relationships among the data blocks on design surface, paragraphs [0094]-[0095]; see also figure 4, #52)
As per claim 13, Al-Fuqaha teaches
the design file is an XML file, a YAML file, or a JSON file. (paragraph [0054])
As per claim 14,
Al-Fuqaha does not explicitly indicate “the construction of the infrastructure includes at least one of start-up of an API gateway, start-up of a DB, start-up of a virtual machine, preparation of a storage, and setting of a network”.
However, Sanjar discloses “the construction of the infrastructure includes at least one of start-up of an API gateway, start-up of a DB, start-up of a virtual machine, preparation of a storage, and setting of a network” (deployment descriptor file includes database and deploying the solution components, abstract & paragraph [0117], where one of skill in the art would know that deploying a solution with a database would necessitate start-up of said DB).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Al-Fuqaha and Sanjar because using the steps claimed would have given those skilled in the art the tools to improve the invention by allowing a designer to simulate operation and interactions of all of the components using actual data collected from existing customer solutions and/or simulated data to reduce the financial risk and burden prior to a sale being completed (see Sanjar, background and paragraph [0021]). This gives the user the advantage of increasing profitability and ability to compete on price.
As per claim 15,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
As per claim 16,
This claim is rejected on grounds corresponding to the reasons given above for rejected claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY A MORRISON whose telephone number is (571)272-7112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:00 pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Trujillo K James, can be reached at telephone number (571)272-3677. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JAY A MORRISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights