DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in response to Application filed October 21, 2025.
Examiner has presented the rejections of all of the independent claims first (e.g. claims 1, 9 and 17) followed subsequently by the rejections of the respective dependent claims.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
No Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed by Applicant with this Application. If the applicant is aware of any prior art or any other co-pending applications not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Specification
The Specification has been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any grammatical/spelling or any other errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Remarks
In claim 1 recited the limitations of “A method” should read as “A computer-implemented method including a hardware processor”
Objection
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR § 1.84(o) because the following drawing elements lack meaningful legends (e.g., descriptive legend):
Figure 5 needed identifying legends for understanding of the drawing.
Correction is required.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR § 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR § 1.84(o) because the following drawing elements lack meaningful legends (e.g., descriptive legend):
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 USC 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, e.g., claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 1. The method of claims 1-8, computing device of claims 9-16, and non-transitory storage medium of claims 17-20 are directed to one of the eligible categories of subject matter and therefore satisfy Step 1.
Step 2A. Prong one of the 2019 PEG:
1. In accordance with Step 2A, prong one, the limitations are directed to additional elements include computing device, processing unit, memory and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
2. The limitations are recited in claims 1, 9 and 17 are cleaning up resources, comprising: in response to a user editing a draft, saving information of at least one object of the draft in a first set and saving a weak reference to the at least one object in a second set, wherein each object is linked to a corresponding resource and is reclaimable etc. is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. That is, other than reciting computing device, processing unit, memory and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The steps can be done my nominally, insignificantly or user can perform each of the tasks merely manually and can consider as a data gathering performance. Further, the limitations can be as automatics cleanup/delete/remove system for resources that are no longer being used in an editable draft. User editing draft or unused draft can be a user changing/modifying documents, image, video or any other multimedia data. The limitations can be merely interpret as a user creating a presentation using images X, Y and Z. Later, the user deletes image Y from the presentation. The system notices: resources it knows about X, Y, Z. Resources still used in the current draft: X, Z It can then clean up the stored object, file, memory, cache entry or other resources associated with Y. Saving a weak reference to the at least one object in a second set can be recording image, document, video, audio or multimedia data. The limitations can be merely reclaiming object garbage collection, collecting, storing, and retrieving data. These limitations are routine and conventional and all the process can perform in human mind. The claims do not include specific technical implementation and improve computer functionality. Further, the claims do not recite a specific improvement to computer memory operation and do not recite unconventional technical implementation. Furthermore, TLI Communications provides an example of a claim invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. The court stated that the claims describe steps of recording, administration and archiving of digital images, and found them to be directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. 823 F.3d at 612, 118 USPQ2d at 1747. Thus, the limitations are directed to abstract idea and can be manually performed by human. If a claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls with mental process grouping of abstract ideas.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG: the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The processor, system, memory and non-transitory computer-readable medium in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality or insignificant extra solution activity such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, Accordingly, these additional element (processor, system, memory and non-transitory computer-readable medium) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B.
Claims 1, 10 and 17 recited additional limitations, such that determining an object of a resource unused in the draft by comparing the first set with the second set; and cleaning up the resource corresponding to the unused object. These limitations are a context which encompasses merely any types of determining functions such use while user editing the presentation they decided image Y should not be use or unnecessary for the particular presentation. Further, merely, saying comparing and determining is an evaluation function or judgement. The claim does not recited how it is determining. The additional elements are broadly applied to the abstract idea at a high level of generality, they are directed to extra solution activity or they operate in a well-understood, routine, and conventional manner (MPEP § 2106.05(f); MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). Storing and retrieving information in memory (e.g. Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc..). Courts have held computer-implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amount to nothing more than generic computer function merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by human thinking. Using generic computing components (e.g., computing device, processing unit, memory and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) does not amount to significantly more than the abstract and is not enough to transform an abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible. Further, the subject matter can also interpret as well-understood, routine and conventional functions (e.g., electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document/object, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank….). There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. They are merely collective functions provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claim 2 recited the limitations of recording address information, which are merely saving a type of information. The limitations are mental process. Dependent claim 3 recited the limitations of adding the at least object to the data structure, which are describing adding on object to any data structure. The limitations are routine and conventional. Dependent claims 4 and 5 recited the limitations of destroying, based on garbage collection mechanism and ignore the weak reference to the at least one object in the second set. The limitations are describing removing the object from a file system which are unnecessary or cannot be use. The limitations are routine and conventional. Dependent claims 6 and 7 recited the limitations of determining a destroyed object in the second set; and determining the object of the resource unused in the draft based on information corresponding to the destroyed object in the first set. These limitations are describing dividing which object should be removed among multiple object and which can be record or store. The limitations are mental process. Dependent claim 8 recited the limitations of resetting the first set and the second set after cleaning up the resource corresponding to the unused object. These limitations are describing making decision or determining again which object or resource can be use and removed. The limitations are mental process. Dependent claims 10-16 are same scope as claims 2-8 and are similarly rejected. Dependent claims 18-20 are same scope as claims 2-4 and are similarly rejected. The claim recited limitations are do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. As such, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 103
10. 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 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.
11. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
12. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holt (US 2016/0006758 A1) in view of Collins et al. (US 2018/0089250 A1), hereinafter Collins.
As for claim 1, Holt teaches a method for cleaning up resources, comprising: in response to a user…., saving information of at least one object of…in a first set and saving a weak reference to the at least one object in a second set (see [0028], e.g., receives input data from an untrusted source, and which operates an application program which can utilise said input data, [0031], utilises data from said cache, intercepting said data before it is utilised by said application program and subjecting the intercepted data to a data content test, [0041], each stored input value a weak reference is created and placed in a reference queue of such references),
wherein each object is linked to a corresponding resource and is reclaimable (see [0040], e.g., create a tainted. value cache which is a memory into which input values which are untrusted are initially stored, [0041], e.g., carried out from time to time to remove from the queue those weak references which correspond to input values which have already been reclaimed or deleted);
determining an object of a resource unused in the draft by comparing the first set with the second set; and cleaning up the resource corresponding to the unused object (see [0045], e.g., determine the likelihood that they are tainted, if they are regarded as being tainted then they can be further examined and appropriate action taken, [0050], e.g., subsequently, a thread can poll the reference queue and retrieve the weak reference of the now-reclaimed Input Value and remove the weak reference entry from the Tainted Value Cache to complete the Tainted. Value Cache garbage-collection cycle).
Holt teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly teach the limitations of “editing a draft, the draft”. Although, Holt teaches source code is modified to invoke an IsTainted Method before the invocation of the Sink Method, copy all of the parameters ([0101]). However, in the same field of endeavor Collins teaches the limitations of “editing a draft, the draft” (see Collins, [0053], e.g., draft copies of bulk edits to hierarchies of resource data objects in a hierarchical data store).
Holt and Collins both references teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are from the same field of endeavor, such as managing resource or memory in computing system, deleting resources from the memory as necessary, updating the stored data or repository.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Collins’s teaching to Holt system for a hierarchical data structure which provide an optimal way to organize data for a variety of different applications. Thus, managing system resources which involves defining and enforcing the permitted actions, configurations, controls or any other definition of behaviors for the system resources. Managing system resources help security policies, access rights of permitted actions for system resources (see Collins, [0015]).
As for claim 9,
The limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claim 1 because claim 9 is a computing device claim for implementing those steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Collins’s teaching to Holt system for a hierarchical data structure which provide an optimal way to organize data for a variety of different applications. Thus, managing system resources which involves defining and enforcing the permitted actions, configurations, controls or any other definition of behaviors for the system resources. Managing system resources help security policies, access rights of permitted actions for system resources (see Collins, [0015]).
As for claim 17,
The limitations therein have substantially the same scope as claim 1 because claim 17 is a non-transitory storage medium claim for implementing those steps of claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Collins’s teaching to Holt system for a hierarchical data structure which provide an optimal way to organize data for a variety of different applications. Thus, managing system resources which involves defining and enforcing the permitted actions, configurations, controls or any other definition of behaviors for the system resources. Managing system resources help security policies, access rights of permitted actions for system resources (see Collins, [0015]).
As to claim 2, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Holt and Collins teach:
wherein the at least one object has address information, and saving the information of the at least one object of the draft in the first set comprises: recording the address information of the at least one object in the first set in response to a resource of the at least one object being added to the draft (see Halt, [0040]; Also see, Collins [0053]).
As to claim 3, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Holt and Collins teach:
wherein the second set comprises a data structure based on the weak reference, and saving the weak reference to the at least one object in the second set comprises: adding the at least one object to the data structure based on the weak reference in response to a resource of the at least one object being added to the draft (see Halt, [0004], [0041]; Also see, Collins [0053]).
As to claim 4, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Holt and Collins teach:
further comprising: destroying, based on a garbage collection mechanism, an object of a resource not referenced by the draft among the at least one object (see Halt, [0021], [0043]; Also see, Collins [0053]).
As to claim 5, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Holt and Collins teach:
wherein the garbage collection mechanism ignores the weak reference to the at least one object in the second set (see Holt, [0004]).
As to claim 6, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Holt and Collins teach:
wherein determining the object of the resource unused in the draft comprises: determining a destroyed object in the second set; and determining the object of the resource unused in the draft based on information corresponding to the destroyed object in the first set (see Halt, [0045], [0101]; Also see, Collins [0053]).
As to claim 7, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Holt and Collins teach:
wherein determining the object of the resource unused in the draft comprises: comparing, in response to determining that the draft is saved, the first set with the second set to determine the object of the resource unused in the draft (see Halt, [0003], [0018]; Also see, Collins [0053]).
As to claim 8, this claim is rejected based on the same reason as above to reject the claim above and are similarly rejected including the following:
Holt and Collins teach: further comprising: resetting the first set and the second set after cleaning up the resource corresponding to the unused object (see Halt, [0065]).
Claims 10-16 correspond in scope to claims 2-8 and are similarly rejected.
Claims 18-20 correspond in scope to claims 2-4 and are similarly rejected.
Prior Arts
13. US 20050262432 A1 teaches garbage collection algorithm or other suitable algorithm, complete versions of the document and the parts they contain that are not referenced elsewhere can be discarded when the last reference to the version object is removed. Automatically reclaim old versions once all processes operating on them are no longer interested. As used in this disclosure, "reclaiming" includes but is not limited to dropping, freeing, removing, compressing or storing the obsolete version in another location ([0030]).
US 2018/0063066 A1 teaches a container and multiple draft segments, and the objects can be stored in the form of key-value table. The connections amongst the various draft segments and the connections between the container and the draft segments are stored in a hierarchy structure, e.g., a tree structure. Thus, when a child node is created (e.g., for a draft segment), a pointer to its parent is saved with the child node ([0004]).
WO2018/057881 teaches data objects describing system resources, apply policies to multiple resource data objects. Apply policies along with path of the tree structure from the resource data objects to the root of the tree structure ([0032]).
Also see, US 7356758, US 7302639, US 7811161, US 20100299321, US 7945584, US 7725811, US 20040243613, US 10747952, US 7925616, US 10237227, US 11422932, US 20040243613, US 10237227, US 20240028509, these reference also read the claim recited limitation. These references are state of the art at the time of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
14. The examiner suggests, in response to this Office action, support being shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application because:
a. 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1) requires antecedent basis in the Specification or original disclosure for any new language, including terms and phrases, added to the claims;
and because:
b. 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) requires the Drawings to illustrate or show all claimed features.
Applicant must clearly point out the patentable novelty that they think the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made, and must also explain how the amendments avoid the references or objections. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c).
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider each of the cited references in entirety
as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage disclosed by the examiner.
15. The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action (see MPEP § 7.96).
Contact Information
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Daniel A Kuddus whose telephone number is (571) 270-1722. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday 8.00 a.m.-5.30 p.m. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays from 8.00 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Boris Gorney can be reached on (571) 270-5626. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing 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 the 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL A KUDDUS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
08/15/26
Prosecution Insights