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 .
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 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For claims 10 and 14-15,
Step 2A prong 1: The claims are considered an exception because they recite concepts that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or using pen and paper, and they do not necessarily require generic or any computer components to be completed. The claims recite computer components that execute the operations/steps performed (system, processor, medium, machine, application code), however that does not change the fact that the operations/steps can still be performed in the mind only, and that the computer components are not necessary. The operation of translating (description into policy based on labels) can easily be performed in the mind or pen and paper.
Step 2A prong 2: The recited additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because (i) the generic elements recited above do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea as they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea utilizing a computer ii) the translating the the objects of the translating is not sufficiently complex and/or laborious that would mandate the use of a computing components.
Step 2B: The claim recites the activity of translating. This activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional because it is so generically claimed, officially mote that translating is well-understood, routine, and conventional
For claims 11-13 and 16-21, the claim further specifies additional translating and assigning and explanion of the object of the translating. This addition does not change the fact the operations can be performed in the mind only (Step 2A prong 1), that the operations are not sufficiently complex (Step 2A prong 2), and that the addition is not an operation that can be analyzed according to the Berkheimer Memo (Step 2B).
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.
Claims 13, 18, and 21 ares rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. The term “the policy” is unclear because earlier in the claim, an option of having more than one policy, and so, it is unclear to which policy the claim refers to. It is suggested that the claim be amended to “the at least one policy”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bilgiday (US 2017/0344438 A1).
For claim 10, Bilgiday teaches a system comprising: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium having encoded thereon instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, perform a method comprising an act of translating a description of a state machine into at least one policy to be enforced at run time (see [0048]: view switching as said translating; a microprocessor is a state machine and it switches to safe mode; safe mode is an enforced policy) based on metadata labels associated with application code and/or data manipulated by the application code (the switching is upon a trap instruction which is application code; as there are multiple types of traps taught (software based, hardware FCU trap, security trap), each one has its own labels/attributes).
For claim 11, Bilgiday teaches the limitations of claim 10 for the reasons above and further teaches the state machine represents a safety property to be enforced while the application code is executed (view locations pointed to above: in safe mode only essential and minimal components are used; this is a safe mode property).
For claim 12, Bilgiday teaches the limitations of claim 10 for the reasons above and further teaches translating the description of the state machine comprises: assigning a metadata symbol to a value of a state variable of the state machine (see locations pointed to above: FRR contains such state variables).
For claim 13, Bilgiday teaches the limitations of claim 10 for the reasons above and further teaches translating the description of the state machine comprises: translating a transition of the state machine into a rule of the policy (see locations pointed to above: safe modes has rules of minimality).
For claims 14 and 19-21, the claim recite essentially similar limitations as claims 10-13 respectively. Claims 14 and 19-21 are a method
For claims 15-18, the claim recite essentially similar limitations as claims 10-13 respectively. Claims 15-18 are a medium
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAIR LEIBOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-3796. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/YAIR LEIBOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights