DETAILED ACTION
Claims 6-10 are currently pending in the application 18/871,896, which was filed on 12/05/2024, and is a National Stage of PCT/EP2023/064814 with an international filing date of 06/02/2023 and claiming foreign priority to 22465539.9, filed 06/09/2022.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/05/2024 and 12/06/2024 are considered by the examiner in accordance with 37 CFR 1.97, 37 CFR 1.98, MPEP 609, and MPEP 1406, to the fullest extent of the items presented including any concise explanation. Documents not meeting particular criteria are lined-through and not considered.
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: “command device for …” in claim 9; and “system is configured to …” in claim 9.
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 § 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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 10 is directed to simply a “non-transitory computer readable medium” with non-functional information encoded thereon, i.e. software per se or simply information (see MPEP 2106.03). For example, the claim recites, “… with machine-readable instructions which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor …” (see preamble). This claim language indicates the claim is to the media with non-executed instructions (e.g., “when executed”). As such, the claim is to nothing more than information without functionality (see MPEP 2111.05). Appropriate correction would be to replace “when executed by a processor” with “executed by a processor”.
With regard to potential abstract ideas subject matter, in the Streamlined Analysis, when viewed as a whole, is the eligibility of the claim self-evident? See MPEP 2106.06. Yes, the independent claims (6, 9, and 10) are directed toward improving computer functionality, while integrating mathematical concepts into a practical application of an inventive concept (i.e., the mathematical concepts are used in a particular manner to determine values that are utilized in the claimed operations describing generating a command pipeline; e.g., providing command pipelines from databases, identifying similarities between the pipelines using the values as compared to a threshold, selecting a pipeline, and providing to a device in order to be used). As a whole, this is significantly more than the mathematical calculation itself. Therefore, with regard to an analysis of abstract ideas, the claims are eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 6-10 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. Independent claims 6, 9, and 10 recite steps a), b), c), e), and f). Not listing a step d) makes the claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited prior art of record does not show the combined limitations of the independent claims. For example, the cited prior art does not show (see claim 6, and similar language in claims 9 and 10): a computer-implemented method for generating a command pipeline as a continuous integration pipeline for controlling a technical device (D) by a generation device, the method comprising:
a) providing a first command pipeline with first commands for the generation device from a first database;
b) providing at least one second command pipeline with second commands for the generation device from at least one second database;
c) determining similarities between the first and the at least one second command pipeline by the generation device;
e) identifying at least one similarity between the first and the at least one second command pipeline by the generation device, and based on a predefined threshold for the at least one similarity, and selecting the at least one second command pipeline as a generated pipeline, when the predefined threshold is exceeded by the at least one similarity; and
f) providing the generated pipeline to a command device and controlling the technical device (D) based on the generated pipeline;
wherein when determining similarities during step c), an error measure based on a sum of squared differences in accordance with the following relation is utilized:
M
w
,
p
,
r
j
=
Σ
i
=
1
n
w
i
p
i
-
r
i
,
j
2
,
where
p
i
and
r
i
,
j
are percentages of programming or scripting languages in local and remote projects, represented by the first and the at least one second command pipeline, respectively,
w
i
represents a relevance to each language, represented by the first and the at least one second command pipeline, assigned manually by an user, which must be positive numbers and
Σ
i
=
1
n
w
i
= 1,
n
is a maximum number of programming languages from the local and remote projects, represented by the first and the at least one second command pipeline,
i
is an index of a programming language for the first and the at least one second command pipeline, and
j
is ae number of the remote project, represented by the first and the at least one second command pipeline, and a most similar project
j
, out of the first and the at least one second command pipeline, corresponds to the minimum value of
M
w
,
p
,
r
j
.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-3736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at (571)272-3744. 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.
/William H. Wood/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights