DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
The present application was filed 19 September 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
It uses the trademarks GOOGLE, DART, OPAL, JAVA, PYTHON in paragraphs [0018], [0026], [0032], [0039] without capitalizing every letter of the mark or, or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term. See M.P.E.P. § 608.01(v).
Drawings
The drawings filed 18 July 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
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:
The “…set of observer methods…is identified by using an event dispatcher…” in claim 6;
The “…class associated with the event object, is identified by using an event dispatcher…” in claim 6;
The “…set of observer methods…is identified by using an event dispatcher…” in claim 14;
The “…class associated with the event object, is identified by using an event dispatcher…” in claim 14.
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 6 and 14 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.
As to claim 6 and 14, limitations of these claims noted above invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph as noted. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions of each limitation and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the claimed functions. For computer-implemented means plus function limitations, note that the disclosed structure must include an algorithm for performing the function claimed. See MPEP § 2181(II)(B). And the specification provides no algorithm sufficient for performing any of the claimed functions here. It does little more than repeat the language of the claims. See, e.g., pars. [0022] and [0036] of the specification.
Since the specification lacks sufficient corresponding structure, the claim is indefinite and an equivalent is any element that performs the specified function. See M.P.E.P. §§ 2181(II)(B) and 2185.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 6 and 14, the claims include means-plus function limitations lacking sufficient corresponding structure as noted above. Such limitations also lack written description. See M.P.E.P. § 2163.03(VI).
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, 3, 5-9, 11, 13-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Twohig et al. (US 2020/0310996) (art made of record – hereinafter Twohig).
As to claim 1, Twohig discloses a method for use in a computing device (e.g., Twohig, par. [0123]), the method comprising:
obtaining an event object; (e.g., Twohig, par. [0017]: a publisher can send any type of object as a message payload; par. [0089]: the notification of the first event comprises a first object)
identifying a class that is associated with the event object; (e.g., Twohig, par. [0026]: on publication, an event can be fired with the fully qualified class name of the message; par. [0035]: bus 102 can parse the publication message to determine a class being identified)
identifying an inheritance hierarchy that is associated with the class, the inheritance hierarchy including one or more superclasses that are inherited, directly or indirectly, by the class associated with the event object; (e.g., Twohig, par. [0089]: the first notification of the first event comprises a first object of a first class name; par. [0090]:operation 708 comprises sending a second notification of the first event. In examples, operation 708 comprises sending the first event to a second component that subscribes to a second channel, the second event channel corresponding to a first object oriented superclass of the first object oriented class; par. [0092]: In some examples, operation 708 comprises sending the first notification of the first event to a third component that subscribes to a third event channel, the third event channel corresponding to a first object oriented superclass of the first object oriented class)
for the class associated with the event object and each of the superclasses, identifying a respective set of observer methods, each of the observer methods being an observer method that accepts the event object as an argument; (e.g., Twohig, par. [0027]: when subscribing to a message, the subscriber must provide a listener method [observer method] that will be called back and will have the message passed to it [i.e., excepts it as a parameter]; par. [0062]: message bus 506 can publish a message to a subscriber by utilizing the callback method [observer method, i.e., the aforementioned listener] provided by the that subscriber in the subscription message; par. [0114]: publishing a message to subscribers. This can comprise sending the message using the callback method of the subscriber, for each subscriber of the event channel [so the callback method for each subscriber is used (identified)])
invoking each of the observer methods in any of the sets by using of the event object as an input parameter, (e.g., Twohig, par. [0114]: publishing a message to subscribers. This can comprise sending the message using the callback method of the subscriber, for each subscriber of the event channel; par. [0080]: a first callback computer component that is invoked in the sending the first notification of the first notification of the first event to the first component; par. [0027]: when subscribing to a message, the subscriber must provide a listener method [observer method] that will be called back and will have the message passed to it [i.e., it is an input parameter]) each of the observer methods being invoked by using reflection (e.g., Twohig, par. [0079]: operation 704 comprises registering a first component to receive messages corresponding to a first class name; par. [0083]: operation 704 comprises recursively examining a set of subclasses of the first class name [i.e., since reflection is used in 704 to register subscribers and the methods are invoked to send messages to the subscribers (see above), the invocation is performed “by using” reflection]).
As to claim 3, Twohig discloses the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Twohig further discloses:
wherein the computing device is part of a system that uses parameter contravariance (e.g., Twohig, par. [0027]: the message bus can ensure type safety by checking that the listener method takes a parameter of a safe type. Safe types can be the type subscribed to, as well as a super-type of that type [parameter contravariance because the method can receive superclasses of the type subscribed to\)
As to claim 5, Twohig discloses the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Twohig further discloses:
wherein the respective set of observer methods for any of the superclasses, and the class associated with the event object, includes one or more observer methods (e.g., Twohig, par. [0027]: when subscribing to a message, the subscriber must provide a listener method that will be called back and will have the message passed to it; par. [0114]: publishing a message to subscribers. This can comprise sending the message using the callback method of the subscriber, for each subscriber of the event channel; par. [0026]: the subscription mechanism can have ensured that all listeners for superclasses of that message will also be connected).
As to claim 6, Twohig discloses the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Twohig further discloses:
wherein the respective set of observer methods for any of the superclasses, and the class associated with the event object, is identified by using an event dispatcher of the computing device (e.g., Twohig, par. [0062]: message bus 506 [dispatcher] can publish a message to a subscriber by utilizing the callback method provided by that subscriber [which would require identifying it]; par. [0035]: bus 102 can parse the publication message to determine a class being identified).
As to claim 7, Twohig discloses the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Twohig further discloses:
wherein identifying the inheritance hierarchy includes identifying each and every superclass that is inherited, directly or indirectly, by the class associated with the event object (e.g., Twohig, par. [0026]: the subscription mechanism can have ensured that all listeners for superclasses of that message will be connected to this channel).
As to claim 8, Twohig discloses the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Twohig further discloses:
wherein none of the identified sets of observer methods includes observer methods that do not accept the event object as an input parameter (e.g., Twohig, par. [0027]: the publisher must provide a listener method that will have the message passed to it [accept the event as an input parameter. The message bus can ensure type safety by checking that the listener method takes a parameter of a safe type).
As to claim 9, it is a system claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Further limitations, disclosed by Twohig, include:
a memory; (e.g., Twohig, par. [0130]: storage media such as flash memory cards, any such storage media can contain instructions for performing the methods of the specification) and
at least one processor that is operatively coupled to the memory, the at least one processor being configured to perform the operations (e.g., Twohig, par. [0138]: a processor executes instructions to perform operations).
As to claim 11, it is a system claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 13, it is a system claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 14, it is a system claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 15, it is a system claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 16, it is a system claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 8. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 17, it is a medium claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Further limitations, disclosed by Twohig, include:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more processor-executable instructions, which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform the operations (e.g., Twohig, par. [0130]: storage media such as flash memory cards, any such storage media can contain instructions for performing the methods of the specification)
As to claim 19, it is a medium claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2, 4, 10, 12, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Twohig (US 2020/0310996) in view of Chan et al. (US 6,230,160) (art made of record – hereinafter Chan).
As to claim 2, Twohig discloses the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the observer methods in any of the sets includes an observer method that is executed of a remote device.
However, in a analogous art, Chan discloses:
wherein at least one of the observer methods in any of the sets includes an observer method that is executed of a remote device (e.g., Chan, col. 5 ll. 17-18: invoking listener methods in the registered client bean; col. 5 ll. 26-27: a Java client bean 30 running on a different machine).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the observer methods of Twohig such that they include an observer method that is executed of a remote device, as taught by Chan, as Chan would provide the advantage of a means of accessing events of a component on another machine. (See Chan, col. 3 ll. 19-25, col. 2 ll. 18-22)
As to claim 4, Twohig discloses the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly disclose wherein invoking each of the observer methods in any of the sets includes obtaining a bean object for a class where the observer method is defined and using the bean object to invoke the observer method.
However, in an analogous art, Chan discloses:
wherein invoking each of the observer methods in any of the sets includes obtaining a bean object for a class where the observer method is defined and using the bean object to invoke the observer method (e.g., Chan, col. 5 ll. 17-21: invoking listener methods [observer methods] in the registered client bean [bean object] (block 18). The event is now passed to the client bean (block 20) since the client bean implements the methods defined in the event’s listener interface; col. 4 ll. 58-59: the client and server beans 4 and 6 are instances of object oriented classes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invoking of observer methods of Twohig to include obtaining a bean object for a class where the observer method is defined and using the bean object to invoke the observer method, as taught by Chan, as Chan would provide the advantage of a means of passing the event to a bean object. (See Chan, col. 5 ll. 17-21). Use of bean objects also provides a means of code reusability. (See Chan, col. 1 ll. 33-35).
As to claim 10, it is a system claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 12, it is a system claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 18, it is a medium claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 20, it is a medium claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD AGUILERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11AM - 7:30PM EST.
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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at (571)272-6799. 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.
/TODD AGUILERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights