DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 17 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of Claim 18. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Here, since Claims 16, 17 and 18 all are machine-readable storage medium embodiments of Claims 1, 2 and 3, respectively; and since Claim 3 incorporates all of the limitations of Claims 1 and 2, Claims 16 and 17 are anticipated by Claim 18, which creates a double-patenting condition when the independent claim is allowed.
Claim 16 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of Claim 19. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Here, since Claim 16 is a machine-readable storage medium embodiment of Claims 1 and 4, respectively; and since Claim 4 incorporates all of the limitations of Claims 1 and 4, Claim 16 is anticipated by Claim 19, which creates a double-patenting condition when the independent claim is allowed.
Claim 16 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of Claim 20. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Here, since Claim 16 is a machine-readable storage medium embodiment of Claims 1 and 5, respectively; and since Claim 5 incorporates all of the limitations of Claims 1 and 5, Claim 16 is anticipated by Claim 20, which creates a double-patenting condition when the independent claim is allowed.
Examiner recommends doing one of two things to cure the objections:
canceling Claims 17-20 since the allowance of independent Claim 1 also allows its dependent claims. Note that Claims 16-20 are each treated as independent claims despite being written in dependent form because they are different embodiments (machine-readable storage medium) vs. method Claim 1 and its dependent method claims; or
(Examiner-preferred) drop the “according to…” altogether and rewrite Claims 17-20’s limitations the same as their corresponding Claims 2-5, but with the embodiment change. As an example, Claim 17 would be rewritten to “The machine-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the service type perception model comprises an input layer, a fast gated recurrent unit layer, and an output layer.”
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of Claim 13. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Here, since Claims 11, 12 and 13 all are electronic device embodiments of Claims 1, 2 and 3, respectively; and since Claim 3 incorporates all of the limitations of Claims 1 and 2, Claims 11 and 12 are anticipated by Claim 13, which creates a double-patenting condition when the independent claim is allowed.
Claim 11 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of Claim 14. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Here, since Claim 11 is an electronic device embodiment of Claims 1 and 4, respectively; and since Claim 4 incorporates all of the limitations of Claims 1 and 4, Claim 11 is anticipated by Claim 14, which creates a double-patenting condition when the independent claim is allowed.
Claim 11 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of Claim 15. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). Here, since Claim 11 is an electronic device embodiment of Claims 1 and 5, respectively; and since Claim 5 incorporates all of the limitations of Claims 1 and 5, Claim 11 is anticipated by Claim 15, which creates a double-patenting condition when the independent claim is allowed.
Examiner recommends doing one of two things to cure the objections:
canceling Claims 12-15 since the allowance of independent Claim 1 also allows its dependent claims. Note that Claims 11-15 are each treated as independent claims despite being written in dependent form because they are different embodiments (electronic devices) vs. method Claim 1 and its dependent method claims; or
(Examiner-preferred) drop the “according to…” altogether and rewrite Claims 12-15’s limitations the same as their corresponding Claims 2-5, but with the embodiment change. As an example, Claim 12 would be rewritten to “The electronic device of claim 11, wherein the service type perception model comprises an input layer, a fast gated recurrent unit layer, and an output layer.”
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.
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.
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 limitation(s) is/are: the service flow perception apparatus comprising a plurality of modules in Claims 6-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Examiner finds the corresponding structure in the originally-filed specification at ¶ [0127] wherein memory is disclosed.
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 § 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 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of machine-readable storage medium includes transitory signals per se. Although the specification lists several statutory examples of machine-readable and computer-readable storage medium, the specification does not expressly exclude transitory signals per se embodiment of machine-readable storage medium. Examiner recommends claiming “non-transitory machine-readable storage medium” to cure the rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here, the limitations presented in the independent claims, taken together as a whole and as presented, cannot be rejected by the prior art of record without using a level of hindsight reasoning that is impermissible. Specifically, the closest prior-art references CN-112085254-A; CN-109657725-A; CN-116582450-A and CN-117370802-A, along with those listed in Form PTO-892, either alone or in combination, fail to disclose all of the limitations that are required in independent Claims 1 and 6.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Interview Practice
USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR)
The USPTO AIR is a new optional online interview scheduling tool that allows Applicants to request an interview with an Examiner for their pending patent application.
The USPTO AIR form is available on our website at: http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice.
By submitting this type of interview request, the pending patent application will be in compliance with the written authorization requirement for Internet communication in accordance with MPEP §502.03. This authorization will be in effect until the Applicant provides a written withdrawal of authorization to the Examiner of record.
If you have questions or need assistance with the USPTO AIR form or with interview practice at the USPTO, please contact an Interview Specialist at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/interview-practice/interview-specialist or send an email to ExaminerInterviewPractice@USPTO.GOV.
Examiner Notes:
A) Prior to conducting any interview (whether using AIR or not), Applicant(s) must submit an agenda including the proposed date and time, all arguments in writing, and proposed claim amendments (if applicable). Any proposed amendments or arguments not presented in the agenda will only be heard by the Examiner, but because the Examiner will not have heard them in advance and been given an equitable opportunity to consider them, no decision will be rendered, nor agreement made. ALL AGENDAS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE EXAMINER AT LEAST 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE START OF THE INTERVIEW, OR THE PREVIOUS BUSINESS DAY, WHICHEVER IS LONGER, or the interview may have to be rescheduled.
B) After-final interviews may be granted, but the agenda must be in compliance with MPEP 713.09 which limits the interview only to discussions of proposed amendments, or clarification for appeal. After-final interviews are not to be conducted for the purpose of rehashing previously made arguments. After seeing the agenda, Examiner will decide whether to grant or deny the interview.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD G KEEHN whose telephone number is (571)270-5007. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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, John A Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/RICHARD G KEEHN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights