CTNF 19/062,753 CTNF 85676 DETAILED ACTION The instant application having Application No. 19/062,753 filed on 02/25/2025 is presented for examination by the Examiner. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1, 3-4 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation “.. each of a plurality of job steps ..” in line 7, which should be changed to “.. each of a the plurality of job steps ..” Claim 3 recites the limitation “.. job including one or a plurality of job steps and includes management information ..” in lines 6-7. Which should be changed to “.. job including one or a the plurality of job steps and includes the management information ..” Claim 3 also recites the limitation “.. the job steps ..” in line 10, which should be changed to “.. the plurality of job steps..” Claim 4 recites the limitations: “.. management information to be used for access verification of a data set ..” in lines 10-11. Which should be changed to “.. the management information to be used for the access verification of a the data set ..” “.. management information to be used for access verification of a volume ..” in lines 12-13. Which should be changed to “.. the management information to be used for the access verification of a the volume ..” “.. management information to be used for access verification of a storage pool ..” in lines 14-15. Which should be changed to “.. the management information to be used for the access verification of a the storage pool ..” Claim 6 recites the limitation “.. a request for execution ..” in lines 11-12. Which should be changed to “.. a the request for execution ..” Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA CLAIM INTERPRETATION 07-30-03 AIA 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. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph: Use of “Means” (or “Step”) in Claim Drafting and Rebuttable Presumptions Raised. 07-30-05 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. 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph, Invoked Despite Absence of “Means” 07-30-06 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 limitations are: “an acquisition unit configured to..,” “a change unit configured to..” “..a storage unit configured to…” and “..a verification unit configured to..” in claims 1-8 . 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 at least figure 2 of 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 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 1-9 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. Claim 1 recites the limitations: “.. the job step ..” in line 10. It is unclear which one of the plurality of job steps this limitation refers to. “.. in the job step for which the program ..” in lines 14-15 and 26. It is unclear which one of the plurality of steps and which one of the programs these limitations refer to. Claim 2 recites the limitations: “.. a program associated with each of the plurality of job steps, ..” in lines 7-8. It is unclear if one same program is associated with each one of the plurality of job steps or that each different program is associated with one of the plurality of job steps. “.. the job step, ” in line 11. It is unclear which one of the plurality of job steps this limitation refers to. “.. the program associated with the job step ..” in lines 12-13 and 22. It is unclear which one of the programs and which job step of the plurality of job steps these limitation refer to. Claim 3 recites the limitation: “when the execution of the job..” in line 12. There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 recites the limitation: “.. associated with the program ..” in line 12. It is unclear which one of the programs this limitation refers to. Claim 5 recites the limitations: “.. the management information to be used ..” in line 4. It is unclear if this management is the management information that has been changed by the changed unit. “.. job step ..” in lines 6 and 8. It is unclear which one of the plurality of job steps these limitations refer to. Claim 6 recites the limitations: “.. the program migrated ..” in line 12. It is unclear which one of the programs this limitation refers to. Claim 7 recites the limitation: “”.. the extracted information .” There is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 is rejected for the same rationale as claim 1 above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHY ANH TRAN VU whose telephone number is (571)270-7317. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 am-1 pm. 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, Taghi T Arani can be reached at (571) 272-3787. 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. /PHY ANH T VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438 Application/Control Number: 19/062,753 Page 2 Art Unit: 2438 Application/Control Number: 19/062,753 Page 3 Art Unit: 2438 Application/Control Number: 19/062,753 Page 4 Art Unit: 2438 Application/Control Number: 19/062,753 Page 5 Art Unit: 2438 Application/Control Number: 19/062,753 Page 6 Art Unit: 2438 Application/Control Number: 19/062,753 Page 7 Art Unit: 2438 Application/Control Number: 19/062,753 Page 8 Art Unit: 2438
Prosecution Insights