DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the communications filed on 07/02/2026.
2. Claims 4-13 are pending in this application.
3. Claims 4-7, 13, have been amended.
4. Claims 14-22 have been cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
5. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
6. As applicant has not provided any arguments of substance regarding the prior rejection, no examiner response is required.
Double Patenting
7. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP §2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 4-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of prior U.S. Patent No. 10,873,841. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each for the reasons noted below. Dependent claims 5-13 of the instant application are similarly rejected with claims 2-10 of prior U.S. Patent No. 10,873,841.
Instant Application 18/940,844
Patent No. 10,873,841
4. An integrated computing system comprising:
means for accessing Add-on Software Components (ASCs) from a global registry, distinct from a plurality of Social Business Platforms (SBPs),
means for executing the ASC to deliver application configuration information
means for configuring the plurality of a plurality of applications from diverse sources and services with the ASCs in accordance with the delivered application configuration information; and
means for integrating to use an integration service associated with the SBPs to plug in the ASCs into the applications and the SBP’s to create a computing environment that integrates the applications, services, and SBPs into an integrated computing environment having a single user interface to the applications and to each of the SBP’s that is accessible to a client platform integrated with the SBPs to use the services by the SBPs.
1. An integrated computing system comprising:
one or more processors;
one or more memory units coupled with the one or more processors;
multiple Social Business Platforms (SBPs) having Add-on Software Components (ASCs) downloaded from a global registry, distinct from the SBPs, that when loaded into the one or more memory units and executed on the one or more processors deliver configuration information and configures applications from diverse sources and services in accordance with the configuration information to work with the SBPs; and
an integration service associated with the SBPs to plug in the ASCs into the applications and the SBPs to create a computing environment that integrates the applications, services, and SBPs into an integrated computing environment having a single user interface to the applications and to each of the SBPs that is accessible to a client platform integrated with the SBPs to use the services by the SBPs.
The differences between instant claim 4 and reference claim 1 of Patent ‘841 lie solely in the claim drafting format, specifically the use of means-plus-function phrasing (means for...) in claim 4 versus the recitation of corresponding structural hardware and software components (one or more processors, one or more memory units, ... having Add-on Software Components...) in claim 1 of Patent ‘841.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), a means-plus-function limitation is construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The structural components recited in reference claim 1 of Patent ‘841 (processors, memory units executing loaded code, and integration services) constitute the exact corresponding structures for performing the functions recited in instant claim 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify the instant application to include Patent ‘841 as claim 4 is merely a restatement of Patent ‘841 claim 1 using functional terminology, and the claims are not patentably distinct.
Claims 4-9, 11-13, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-8, 10, 11, of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,523,260. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each for the reasons noted below. Dependent claims 5-9, 11-13 of the instant application are similarly rejected with claims 3-8, 10, 11, of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,523,260.
Instant Application 18/940,844
Patent No. 11,523,260
4. An integrated computing system comprising:
means for accessing Add-on Software Components (ASCs) from a global registry, distinct from a plurality of Social Business Platforms (SBPs),
means for executing the ASC to deliver application configuration information
means for configuring the plurality of a plurality of applications from diverse sources and services with the ASCs in accordance with the delivered application configuration information; and
means for integrating to use an integration service associated with the SBPs to plug in the ASCs into the applications and the SBP’s to create a computing environment that integrates the applications, services, and SBPs into an integrated computing environment having a single user interface to the applications and to each of the SBP’s that is accessible to a client platform integrated with the SBPs to use the services by the SBPs.
1. A method comprising:
executing code in a computer system to cause the computer system to perform operations comprising:
accessing Add-on Software Components (ASC) from a global registry, distinct from a plurality of Social Business Platforms (SBPs);
executing the ASC to deliver application configuration information;
configuring the plurality of the applications from diverse sources and services with the ASCs in accordance with the delivered application configuration information; and
using an integration service associated with the SBPs to plug in the ASCs into the applications and the SBPs to create a computing environment that integrates the applications, services, and SBPs into an integrated computing environment having a single user interface to the applications and SBPs that is accessible to a client platform integrated with the SBPs to use the services by the SBPs.
The subject matter claimed in instant claim 4 is not patentably distinct from the method of reference claim 1 of Patent ‘260. Specifically, instant claim 4 is directed to an “integrated computing system” recited in means-plus-function format under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), whereas reference claim 1 of Patent ‘260 is directed to a “method” comprising the identical operational steps executed by a computer system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify the instant application to include Patent ‘260 as a claim to a system or apparatus defined by “means for” performing specific functions that map directly to the steps of a patented method is an obvious variation of (and legally coextensive with) that method, as the structural components required to execute the method steps (such as processors and memory) inherently provide the corresponding structure for the claimed system means.
Claims 4-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,167,307. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each for the reasons noted below. Dependent claims 5-13 of the instant application are similarly rejected with claims 2-10 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,167,307.
Instant Application 18/940,844
Patent No. 12,167,307
4. An integrated computing system comprising:
means for accessing Add-on Software Components (ASCs) from a global registry, distinct from a plurality of Social Business Platforms (SBPs),
means for executing the ASC to deliver application configuration information
means for configuring the plurality of a plurality of applications from diverse sources and services with the ASCs in accordance with the delivered application configuration information; and
means for integrating to use an integration service associated with the SBPs to plug in the ASCs into the applications and the SBP’s to create a computing environment that integrates the applications, services, and SBPs into an integrated computing environment having a single user interface to the applications and to each of the SBP’s that is accessible to a client platform integrated with the SBPs to use the services by the SBPs.
1. An integrated computing system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more memories, coupled to the one or more processors, storing code that when executed causes the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
loading Add-on Software Components (ASCs) included in multiple Social Business Platform (SBP's) and downloaded from a global registry, distinct from the SBP's;
executing the ASCs to deliver configuration information and
configure applications from diverse sources and services in accordance with the configuration information to work with the SBP's; and
utilizing an integration service associated with the SBP's to plug in the ASCs into the applications and the SBP's to create a computing environment that integrates the applications, services, and SBP's into an integrated computing environment having a single user interface to the applications and to each of the SBP's that is accessible to a client platform integrated with the SBP's to use the services by the SBP's.
The differences between instant claim 4 and reference claim 1 of Patent ‘307 lie solely in the claim drafting format, specifically the use of means-plus-function phrasing (means for...) in claim 4 versus the recitation of corresponding structural hardware and software components (one or more processors, one or more memory units, ... having Add-on Software Components...) in claim 1 of Patent ‘307.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), a means-plus-function limitation is construed to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The structural components recited in reference claim 1 of Patent ‘307 (processors, memory units executing loaded code, and integration services) constitute the exact corresponding structures for performing the functions recited in instant claim 4.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to modify the instant application to include Patent ‘307 as instant claim 4 is merely a restatement of reference claim 1 of Patent ‘307 using functional terminology, and the claims are not patentably distinct.
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.
8. Claim 1 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.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations 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 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 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.
9. Claims 4-13 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 claims 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.
Specifically, claim 4 recites “means for accessing”, “means for executing”, “means for configuring”, and “means for integrating” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Regarding claim 4, the “means for accessing…executing…configuring…and integrating” are considered specialized functions, such that the “accessing…executing…configuring…and integrating” must disclose the corresponding structure to perform the entire claimed function and an algorithm for the claimed “accessing…executing…configuring…and integrating”.
Claim limitation “means for accessing” appears to be tied to the structure of applicant’s figure 2, computing device, that includes a CPU 204 and memories 206 and 224. However, the written description does not disclose that the structure is clearly linked to the functions or an algorithm. At best, applicant’s specification discloses “in-house servers to access various business software applications and data” and that these “applications and data may be provided by the in-house servers, while others may be provided by remote third party providers” (Applicant’s specification, Paragraph 54). The examiner notes that this paragraph discloses “various business software applications” and not the claimed “Add-On Software Components (ASCs).” There also does not appear to be any flow chart included in the figures. To show an algorithm, it is required to disclose at least two steps, which applicant’s specification does not. Therefore, the written description is deficient.
Claim limitation “means for executing” appears tied to the same structure of figure 2, computing device. However, the written description does not disclose that the structure is clearly linked to the functions or an algorithm. Applicant’s specification discloses a CPU that is the main processor for software program execution in the computing device and that the CPU obtains software instructions form memory module and executes such instructions to carry out computations and/or transfer data between various sources and destinations of data (Applicant’s specification, Paragraph 29). The examiner notes that this paragraph discloses “software program execution” and not the claimed “Add-On Software Components (ASCs).” There also does not appear to be any flow chart included in the figures. To show an algorithm, it is required to disclose at least two steps, which applicant’s specification does not. Therefore, the written description is deficient.
Claim limitation “means for configuring” appears tied to the same structure of figure 2, computing device. However, the written description does not disclose that the structure is clearly linked to the functions or an algorithm. Applicant’s specification discloses that the configuring of applications integrated with an instance of the SBP entails setting various parameters to predetermined states, assigning predetermined values or options to particular parameters, setting communication control parameters, setting paths, setting authorization and/or authentication credentials, selecting protocol options, and the like (Applicant’s specification, Paragraph 61). This does not disclose that two (or more) steps are required for the “means for configuring” as one step may be sufficient for the “means for configuring.” To show an algorithm, it is required to disclose at least two steps, which applicant’s specification does not. Therefore, the written description is deficient.
Claim limitation “means for integrating” appears tied to the same structure of figure 2, computing device. However, the written description does not disclose that the structure is clearly linked to the functions or an algorithm. Applicant’s specification discloses that various software applications from diverse sources such as SBP, in-house servers, and third party providers may be integrated together and be made accessible in one computing environment to the user and that the computing environment is created with the use of one or more ASCs (Applicant’s specification, Paragraph 56). Applicant’s specification merely states that the applications may be “integrated together” using the “ASCs” but not how exactlyt he integration is performed. To show an algorithm, it is required to disclose at least two steps, which applicant’s specification does not. Therefore, the written description is deficient.
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.
Per Federal Register [Vol. 76, No 27, Weds. Feb 9, 2011] guidance, pg. 7167:
The following is a list of non-structural terms that may invoke § 112, ¶6: "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." This list is not exhaustive and other non-structural terms may invoke § 112, ¶6
10. Claims 4-13 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 4 recites “means for accessing”, “means for executing”, “means for configuring”, and “means for integrating” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Regarding claim 4, the “means for accessing…executing…configuring…and integrating” are considered specialized functions, such that the “accessing…executing…configuring…and integrating” must disclose the corresponding structure to perform the entire claimed function and an algorithm for the claimed “accessing…executing…configuring…and integrating”.
Claim limitation “means for accessing” appears to be tied to the structure of applicant’s figure 2, computing device, that includes a CPU 204 and memories 206 and 224. However, the written description does not disclose that the structure is clearly linked to the functions or an algorithm. At best, applicant’s specification discloses “in-house servers to access various business software applications and data” and that these “applications and data may be provided by the in-house servers, while others may be provided by remote third party providers” (Applicant’s specification, Paragraph 54). The examiner notes that this paragraph discloses “various business software applications” and not the claimed “Add-On Software Components (ASCs).” There also does not appear to be any flow chart included in the figures. To show an algorithm, it is required to disclose at least two steps, which applicant’s specification does not. Therefore, the written description is deficient.
Claim limitation “means for executing” appears tied to the same structure of figure 2, computing device. However, the written description does not disclose that the structure is clearly linked to the functions or an algorithm. Applicant’s specification discloses a CPU that is the main processor for software program execution in the computing device and that the CPU obtains software instructions form memory module and executes such instructions to carry out computations and/or transfer data between various sources and destinations of data (Applicant’s specification, Paragraph 29). The examiner notes that this paragraph discloses “software program execution” and not the claimed “Add-On Software Components (ASCs).” There also does not appear to be any flow chart included in the figures. To show an algorithm, it is required to disclose at least two steps, which applicant’s specification does not. Therefore, the written description is deficient.
Claim limitation “means for configuring” appears tied to the same structure of figure 2, computing device. However, the written description does not disclose that the structure is clearly linked to the functions or an algorithm. Applicant’s specification discloses that the configuring of applications integrated with an instance of the SBP entails setting various parameters to predetermined states, assigning predetermined values or options to particular parameters, setting communication control parameters, setting paths, setting authorization and/or authentication credentials, selecting protocol options, and the like (Applicant’s specification, Paragraph 61). This does not disclose that two (or more) steps are required for the “means for configuring” as one step may be sufficient for the “means for configuring.” To show an algorithm, it is required to disclose at least two steps, which applicant’s specification does not. Therefore, the written description is deficient.
Claim limitation “means for integrating” appears tied to the same structure of figure 2, computing device. However, the written description does not disclose that the structure is clearly linked to the functions or an algorithm. Applicant’s specification discloses that various software applications from diverse sources such as SBP, in-house servers, and third party providers may be integrated together and be made accessible in one computing environment to the user and that the computing environment is created with the use of one or more ASCs (Applicant’s specification, Paragraph 56). Applicant’s specification merely states that the applications may be “integrated together” using the “ASCs” but not how exactly the integration is performed. To show an algorithm, it is required to disclose at least two steps, which applicant’s specification does not. Therefore, the written description is deficient
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations 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. SEE ALSO MPEP 2181: Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is the structure, material or act described in the specification as performing the entire claimed function and equivalents to the disclosed structure, material or act. As a result, section 112(f) or pre-AIA section 112, sixth paragraph, limitations will, in some cases, be afforded a more narrow interpretation than a limitation that is not crafted in "means plus function" format.
To overcome this rejection, applicants are encouraged to amend claim 1 with substance equivalent to:
4. An integrated computer system comprising:
one or more processors;
one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors;
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven C. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-5663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7AM - 3PM and alternatively, through e-mail at Steven.Nguyen2@USPTO.gov.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Parry can be reached at 571-272-8328. 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.
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.
/S.C.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451
