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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/28/2026 was filed before the filing of the first office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 11, the claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) recite an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites obtaining, generating and performing.
The limitation of recites obtaining a policy group, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “obtaining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user receiving policies from another. Similarly, the limitation of generating a query task, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user creating a query and passing it along. Likewise, the limitation of performing a task and/or action, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “by a processor” language, “performing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user implementing a rule or policy. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to obtain, generate and/or perform. The processor in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of policy implementation) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform obtaining, generating and/or performing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 12-20 are rejected under the same rationale as they do not cure any of the deficiencies of independent claims 1, 10 and/or 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim3-4 and 13-14 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art, either alone or in combination does not expressly disclose an object regulation method executed by a device such that discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 10 and 11 in addition to the processes of claims 3-4 and/or 13-14.
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are objected to for being dependent upon an already objected to claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-12 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dong (CN111754189A).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 11, Dong discloses an object regulation method, electronic device, comprising: at least one processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores computer-executable instructions; and the at least one processor executes the computer-executable instructions stored in the memory, to cause the electronic device to implement an object regulation method, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause a computing device to implement an object regulation method, wherein the method comprises[0153-0155]:
obtaining a policy group, wherein the policy group comprises target object information and at least one policy, and the policy comprises: a regulation condition and a regulation action that correspond to each other[0050] (the determining unit determines a task comprising scene information and configuration item);
generating a query task based on the target object information and the regulation condition [0053-0054] (the query unit is set to query the task according to the extracted information);
performing the query task to obtain regulation data and performing the regulation action corresponding to the regulation condition on a target object corresponding to the target object information in response to the regulation data meeting the regulation condition [0050-0055] (the query unit utilizes the task source information and scene configuration information to trigger the preset task if the dynamics are appropriate).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Dong disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 10 and 11. Dong additionally discloses wherein the generating the query task based on the target object information and the regulation condition comprises: extracting a regulation factor from the regulation condition; determining a corresponding data table, a first field of the regulation factor in the data table, and a second field corresponding to the target object information in the data table based on the regulation factor; and generating a query statement corresponding to the query task based on the first field, the second field, and the data table, wherein the query statement is used to read the first field from the data table when the second field matches the target object information [0053-0054 (extracting unit extracts information to limit the mode of execution of the task).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Dong disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 10 and 11. Dong additionally discloses wherein the policy group further comprises a policy execution condition, and the generating the query task based on the target object information and the regulation condition comprises: obtaining current scenario information based on the policy execution condition; and generating the query task based on the target object information and the regulation condition when the current scenario information meets the policy execution condition [0050-0055] (the query unit utilizes the task source information and scene configuration information to trigger the preset task if the dynamics are appropriate).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Dong disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 10 and 11. Dong additionally discloses wherein the policy execution condition comprises at least one of: whether cold start is supported, an execution period, and a scope limit on the regulation action [0050-0055] (the query unit utilizes the task source information and scene configuration information to trigger the preset task if the dynamics are appropriate).
Regarding claims 9 and 19-20, Dong disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 10 and 11. Dong additionally discloses wherein the obtaining the policy group comprises: obtaining the policy group in an enabled state and the policy in an enabled state from the policy group in the enabled state, wherein the policy group is in a disabled state when all policies in the policy group are in a disabled state; and the policy group is in the enabled state when at least one policy in the policy group is in the enabled state [0050-0055] (the query unit utilizes the task source information and scene configuration information to trigger the preset task if the dynamics are appropriate).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bian et al (US 2022/0083874): discloses training a search model, and a method and apparatus for searching for a target object are provided. The method may comprise: obtaining, based on sample query information, a first sample data set used to train the search model. The method may further comprise: determining, based on a pre-constructed knowledge base, additional query information associated with the sample query information. In addition, the method may further comprise: obtaining, based on the additional query information, a second sample data set used to train the search model, wherein the second sample data set is different from the first sample data set. Moreover, the method may further comprise: training the search model based on the sample query information, the first sample data set, and the second sample data set.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENDALL DOLLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm (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, Shewaye Gelagay can be reached at (571)272-4219. 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.
/KENDALL DOLLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436
Prosecution Insights