DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the above identified application filed on March 09, 2026. The application contains claims 1-20.
Claims 1 and 11 are amended
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 09, 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on March 10, 2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed on March 09, 2026 have been fully considered and the objections and rejections are updated accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments do not correct all the issues as pointed out in the previous office action and introduce new issues. The 35 USC § 112 claim rejections have been updated to reflect the issues that still remain. Please see below for details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections as set forth in the Non-Final Rejection dated June 16, 2025 are maintained until the claim language has been clarified to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Applicant regards as the invention.
Examiner’s Note
The examiner urges Applicant to thoroughly review the claims and correct all the issues set forth in this office action below to advance the present application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 16 and 18, respectively: “… to be performed …” should read “… performed …” so that the claim language is active not intended use.
Claim 11, line 18 and 21, respectively: “… to be performed …” should read “… performed …” so that the claim language is active not intended use.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 each recite the limitation “wherein the instrument configuration defines a mapping of the at least one available action to the at least one data object and at least one/on inverse dependency based at least in part on at least one object type” in lines 9-11 and 11-13, respectively. However, the specification only discusses generating/creating an inverse dependency graph in the Abstract and paragraphs [0004], [0005], and [0007]. There is no disclosure that supports the claim language “… the instrument configuration … defines … at least one inverse dependency …”. Therefore, claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from their corresponding independent claims 1 and 11, respectively.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the instrument configuration defines a mapping of the at least one available action to the at least one data object and at least one inverse dependency based at least in part on at least one object type” in lines 9-11. It is unclear how the “at least one inverse dependency” relates to the “mapping” that is specific to “the at least one data object” and how “at least one object type” relates to “the at least one data object”. The newly introduced limitation “wherein the at least one inverse dependency maps a change to a data object to one or more reactive actions on other data objects” does not address the above issues because it is recited in generic terms that apply to all data objects, not specifically to “the at least one data object”. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the plurality of key-value pairs" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the instrument configuration defines a mapping of the at least one available action to the at least one data object and at least on inverse dependency based at least in part on at least one object type” in lines 11-13. The typo “on” in “at least on inverse dependency” needs to be corrected. In addition, it is unclear how the “at least on inverse dependency” relates to the “mapping” that is specific to “the at least one data object” and how “at least one object type” relates to “the at least on data object”. The newly introduced limitation “wherein the at least one inverse dependency maps a change to a data object to one or more reactive actions on other data objects” does not address the above issues because it is recited in generic terms that apply to all data objects, not specifically to “the at least one data object”. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the at least one inverse dependency" in line 14 and 22, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the plurality of key-value pairs" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Therefore, claim 11 is indefinite and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are also rejected for inheriting the deficiency from their corresponding independent claims 1 and 11, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIAOQIN HU whose telephone number is (571)272-1792. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571) 272-4085. 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.
/XIAOQIN HU/Examiner, Art Unit 2168
/CHARLES RONES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2168