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 .
Detailed Action
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
1. Claims 1-7 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.
2. The limitation, “a conversion unit that allocates the definitions of the parameters for the setting item on a basis of the definitions of the parameters and the descriptions of the parameters in the data type for the setting item, which have been obtained by the search unit”, as recited in claim 1, and similarly claimed in independent claims 6 and 7, is unclear as the term “allocate” in the context of computing commonly refers to reserving or assigning a portion of a computer's resources for a specific purpose and therefore it is not clear what “allocating” the “definitions of the parameters for the setting item on a basis of the definitions of the parameters" means as it implies that resources for an entity ("the definitions of the parameters") are allocated on the bases of that entity. The Specification only merely paraphrases this feature and therefore does not provide clarification.
3. The limitation, “converts the initial value of the setting item and the range of the
setting values, which have been received by the reception unit, into an initial value and a range of the setting values in the definitions of the parameters in the data type, which have been obtained by the search unit”, as recited in claim 1 and similarly in independent claims 6 and 7, is unclear because one having ordinary skill in the art does not see how an arbitrary/undefined “initial value of a setting item” has to be converted to arrive at an arbitrary/undefined “initial value and a range of the setting values in the definitions of the parameters in the data type”.
4. According to Figure 3, a “range” in the context of the invention is a collection of
different values (see columns 250 and 260) whereas the term “range” is commonly known in the art to refer to a sequence of values defined by a starting point and an ending point. However, there is no passage which discloses how this conversion is performed on the broad level of the objected feature as the passage related to the conversion either repeat/paraphrase the wording of the claim or they use specify, narrowly defined examples (see paragraphs 3-5, 16-18 and 23-29).
- Additionally, the conversion of an undefined value into another undefined value without any details on how the conversion is performed renders the limitation indefinite.
5. The limitation “classifies categories representing a difference between setting item versions on a basis of the initial value of each setting item and the range of the
setting values for the setting item, as recited in claim 1 and similarly in independent claims 6 and 7, is indefinite as it is unclear what the term “categories” means in this context and how a “classification” for a “category” is to be performed.
Paragraph 36 of the originally filed Specification paraphrases the wording of the objected feature as it discloses, “The classification unit 104 classifies categories representing a difference between setting item versions on the basis of the initial value of each setting item and the range of the setting values for the setting item (Step S5)”. Further, Figure 2 and step S5 recites, “Allocate categories to setting item variations”. The Examiner asserts that neither the recitation of the Specification nor step S5 of Figure 2 provides the details necessary for one of ordinary skill in the art to properly interpret this limitation.
6. The limitation “an output that outputs capability information for automatically determining a conversion type…..by combining information from the conversion unit, the reception unit, and the classification”, as recited in claim 1, and similarly claimed in independent claims 6 and 7, is unclear because it is not clear what the term “combining” means in the context of the vaguely defined results provided by the conversion, reception, and classification units. The combining of “information” is dependent on the type of information (i.e. words, numerical values, etc) and can be done in a number of different ways (concatenating into a string of characters/word, logically combining, or adding numerical values, among others). Therefore, the Examiner asserts that a proper interpretation cannot be applied to this arbitrarily introduced “combination” limitation.
7. Claims 1, 6, and 7 each recite the limitation “each setting item”, where neither a single nor a plurality of “setting items” has previously been established/introduced in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
8. Claims 1, 6, and 7 each recite the limitation “between setting item versions”, where the concept of different “versions” of a setting item has not been previously established or introduced. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
9. Due to the numerous 112 issues presented above, a proper interpretation cannot be given to the claims due to the lack of clarity within the claims in view of the Specification/Drawings and therefore they have not been treated on their merits. See In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962).
10. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the independent claims as generally representing (based on Fig. 3 and the accompanying sections of the Specification) a mapping/conversion of configuration parameters (Columns 230, 240, 250, and 260 of Fig. 3) between different versions of a configuration for a device using unique identifiers for each parameter (column 210 of Fig. 3).
11. Dependent claims 2-5 inherit the 112(b) rejection of independent claim 1.
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.
12. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2012/093996, hereafter “Tranxition”. (as cited in the IDS dated 11/19/2025)
13. Per Claim 1, Tranxition teaches using mapping tables for mapping/converting configuration parameters between different versions (Paragraph 57, The translation
definitions table 450 includes one or more entries 455. Each entry 455 corresponds to a configuration setting of an application.).
Tranxition further teaches, “For each configuration setting, the translation system maintains translation definitions that identify the transformations, if any, that may be used to translate an intercepted request and/or a configuration setting from a format used by one version of the application to a format used by another version of the application.”, where the term “transformation” is used to refer to a function that converts the attributes of a configuration setting (e.g. the location, name, value (data), type, etc), configuration setting metadata, and/or the like from one format to another format. (Paragraph 13).
Tranxition also teaches a setting ID field 435 that can be used to identify a parameter between different versions even if the name of that parameter was changed (Paragraph 54).
14. Claims 2-5 specify details for mapping or matching source values to target values. These are considered routine implementation details in the field of data mapping/matching (at the current abstraction level of these claims), as they can be directly derived from the existing source and target values that need to be mapped.
15. Per Claims 6 and 7, Tranxition teaches both method (Claims 1-14) and computer readable medium embodiments (Claims 24 and 25).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T MISIURA whose telephone number is (571)272-0889 - (Direct Fax: 571-273-0889). The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Jung can be reached on (571) 272-3779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Brian T Misiura/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights