DETAILED ACTION
This final rejection is responsive to communication filed January 23, 2026. Claims 1-20 are cancelled. Claims 21-36 have been added. Claims 21-36 are pending in this application.
This application is a CON of US Patent Application 18/163,490 filed 02/02/2023, which is now US PAT 12265534. US Patent Application 18/163,490 is a CON of US Patent Application 16/838,459 filed 04/02/2020, which is now US PAT 11580102.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-36 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims appear to use the terms “iteration function” and “iterative function” interchangeably. The claims should be amended to use consistent terminology to avoid any indefiniteness. For the purposes of examination the examiner assumes the terms mean the same thing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 21-36 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. Claims 21 and 29 have been amended to include limitations that are not described in the specification.
For example, the specification does not describe “identify a set of query operations…wherein the set of query operations has a high probability of repeat execution”, “wherein the iterative function includes a first set of conditions, a first set of execution control parameters, a desired result”, “adjusting one or more of the first set of conditions and one or more of the first set of execution parameters”, “optimize…to include the iterative function in the query proximal to the set of the query operations.” The specification does not mention or describe identifying a set of query operations having a high probability of repeat execution, or optimizing the query to have the iterative function proximal to the set of query operations (i.e. next to query operations having a high probability of repeat execution). Although the specification mentions the terms an iteration function, iterative process, iterations, conditions, parameters, and result, the specification does not describe an iteration function having a first set of conditions, a first set of execution control parameters, and a desired result. Similarly, the specification does not describe the replay operation adjusting the first set of conditions and one or more of the first set of execution parameters. The specification dose not even use the term “execution control parameters.” Claims 22-28 and 30-36 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected claims 21 and 29. Further, claims 25, 28, 33 and 36 use language similar to that rejected above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 21-36 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. Claims 21 and 29 recite “establish the iteration function regarding the set of query operations.” It is unclear as to what is meant by establishing the iteration function because the iteration function is part of the obtained query. Claims 22-28 and 30-36 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected claims 21 and 29.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has canceled original claims 1-20 and added claims 21-36. Therefore, there are no arguments that require a response.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY whose telephone number is (571)272-5599. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30, EST, M-F.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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.
/ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156