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 .
Claims 15-32 have been presented for examination based on the application filed on 12/9/2025.
Claims 15-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim(s) 15-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL by Fu, Hong, et al. "Hybrid automata of an integrated motor-transmission powertrain for automatic gear shift." Proceedings of the 2011 American Control Conference. IEEE, 2011., in view of US 20020091984 A1 by Malik, Robi et al.
This action is made Final.
Claim Interpretation
Rejection for claim 30 reciting "... A non-transitory machine readable carrier comprising a computer program product with program code...", is withdrawn with interpretation that the non-transitory machine readable carrier is a non-transitory machine readable medium and does not comprise forms of energy like carrier waves. Further it should be noted that “non-transitory machine readable carrier” is only recited in Summary of Invention and Claims and not in the detail description or figures/drawnings.
Rejection for claim 26-29 is withdrawn as they are now reciting "... one of more processors ..." is as structure performing the actions in the apparatus claims 26-29. Further it should be noted that "... one of more processors..." is only recited in Summary of Invention and Claims and not in the detail description or figures/drawings.
Response to Arguments
(Argument 1) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.13-14:
PNG
media_image1.png
415
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Response 1) The process of generation of state machine can be done with pencil and paper and its presentation using a processor(s) (on implied computer) is at best use of computer as a tool. Note is taken that there are no rules recited that would automate the process and to that effect applicant has removed all references to automatically performing these steps (as they were not supported by the disclosure showing how they are automated/performed automatically). Based on the amendment the argument that this is an improvement to computer simulation is not persuasive as the computer itself is not improved. The algorithm is not improved as this process is not automated. Hence under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) this remains an abstract idea, and not improvement in functioning of a computer (processor)/technology under MPEP 2106.05(a).
(Argument 2) Applicant has argued in Remarks Pg.14-15:
PNG
media_image2.png
432
648
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Response 2) In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., converting continuous variables into discrete states) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The limitation mentioned does not convert anything, it merely identifies the range. In fact the specification has no mention of converting, let alone converting continuous variables into discrete states. No new arguments are made against Malik and same rationale /response as above is applicable to independent claims 1, 26 and 30. Examiner does not find the argument persuasive and respectfully maintains the rejections below.
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 15-32 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental process without any additional elements that provide a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 15, 26 and 30:
Step 1: the claims 15, 26 and 30 are drawn to a method and system and presumable statutory program product respectively, and examined further as presumably falling under one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim. Taking claim 15 as exemplary claim where the limitations are bolded for abstract idea/judicial exception identification. Similar rationale is applicable to claims 26 and 30 and they would also be rejected likewise.
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 1
15. (New) A method for computer-implemented generation of a state machine from a simulated technical component in a block-based simulation model, wherein the state machine comprising a technical component, where the simulated technical component is a block in the block-based simulation model and comprises a plurality of variables, the method comprising:
selecting, by one or more processors, one or more variables from the plurality of variables, wherein each variable of the plurality of variables comprises a value range with variable values configured to be assigned to the respective variable when running a simulation of the technical component;
generating, by one or more processors, for each selected variable, a plurality of discrete states, wherein each state comprises a subset of values from the value range of the respective selected variable;
generating, by one or more processors, an automaton for each selected variable, wherein a respective automaton is represented by the discrete states of the respective selected variable, and
generating one or more transitions from one discrete state to another discrete state of the respective selected variable,
wherein a respective transition is referenced by a label and is associated with a trigger condition defining a change of the respective selected variable resulting in the respective transition;
generating, by one or more processors, a first product automaton from the automatons of all selected variables, wherein the first product automaton comprises a plurality of vector states representing all combinations of discrete states of the selected variables and a plurality of vector transitions for all transitions of single variables, each vector transition corresponding to a transition from one discrete state to another discrete state of a single variable in a respective vector state, where the discrete states of the other variables in the respective vector state remain unchanged, wherein the label and the trigger condition of the respective vector transition correspond to the label and the trigger condition of the transition to which the respective vector transition corresponds; and
removing, by one or more processors, vector transitions from the first product automaton based on predefined rules applying to the simulation model; and
generating, by one or more processors, the state machine, wherein the first product automaton not containing the removed superfluous vector transitions is a second product automaton which is the generated state machine, wherein the product automaton is reduced in size such that less computational resources are needed when processing the product automaton compared to the simulation model.
Abstract Idea/Mental Process: The generation of /representation of state machine can be done with pencil and paper (and with use of computer as tool). The specification of blocks and variables and their respective assignment can also be done with pencil and paper. Therefore the computer implemented preamble recites mental process (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)(A) and (C)/(D)).
Abstract Idea/Mathematical concept: The simulation model is understood as mathematical model as disclosed in specification ¶[0037]. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Abstract Idea/Mental Process: Selecting variables (opinion/judgement) is a mental step based on observation (what variables are available) and can be done with pencil and paper. Selecting ranges of variables for the simulation is a mental step without any details how this process is performed specifically by a processor.
Use of processor to select is ancillary1 because the computer is generically recited as a tool. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)2.
Abstract Idea/Mental Process: generating subset of values for each variable is considered as mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)(A) and (C)/(D) (relying on specification’s description of the claimed analysis and manipulation of data as being performed mentally "‘using pen and paper methodologies, such as flowsheets and patient charts’"); Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360 (although claimed as computer-implemented, steps of screening messages can be "performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper"). ).
Also see Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B if this step is subsequent to range data gathering for each variable.
In this step also, Use of processor to select is ancillary because the computer is generically recited as a tool. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) .
Abstract Idea/Mental Process: The process of generating automaton representing states, their transitions, trigger conditions and resulting change in variables can all be presented by each state in the state diagram, which can be done with pencil and paper, and therefore is a mental step. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)(A) and (C)/(D).
In this step also, Use of processor to select is ancillary because the computer is generically recited as a tool. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) .
Abstract Idea/Mathematical concept: If generating the automaton is considered as mathematical representation, then this limitation also recites mathematical relationships between states, and their transitions (See Specification Fig.3) and therefore are considered as abstract idea (as in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)).
Abstract Idea/Mental Process/Mathematical Concept: Combining automaton for each state to form a first automaton is also mental step that can be done with pencil and paper (e.g. computer presentation of whole state machine, with variable definition, state definition, trigger and associated transitions). This may also be rejected as mathematical concept representing the state transitions in a state machine. See specification Fig. 3-4.
In this step also, Use of processor to select is ancillary because the computer is generically recited as a tool. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) .
Abstract Idea/Mental Process: removal of
Generation of state machine on a processor is considered as use of computer as a tool, to express state machine on it. State machine is an abstract concept to represent state change based on the transitions, representing any system.
In this step also, Use of processor to select is ancillary because the computer is generically recited as a tool. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) .
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, these covers a mental process including an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion that could be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. Also the mathematical concepts disclosed may also be performed in the mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Step 2A, Prong 2: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d). As per (1) the additional elements are identified as bolded parts of the limitations in column 1 of the table below, and as per (2) the evaluation is shown in the mapping section of the table.
In accordance with this step, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1
Mapping Under Step 2A Prong 2
15. (New) A method for computer-implemented generation of a state machine from a simulated technical component in a block-based simulation model, wherein the state machine comprising a technical component, where the simulated technical component is a block in the block-based simulation model and comprises a plurality of variables, the method comprising:
selecting, by one or more processors, one or more variables from the plurality of variables, wherein each variable of the plurality of variables comprises a value range with variable values configured to be assigned to the respective variable when running a simulation of the technical component;
generating, by one or more processors, for each selected variable, a plurality of discrete states, wherein each state comprises a subset of values from the value range of the respective selected variable;
generating, by one or more processors, an automaton for each selected variable, wherein a respective automaton is represented by the discrete states of the respective selected variable, and
generating one or more transitions from one discrete state to another discrete state of the respective selected variable,
wherein a respective transition is referenced by a label and is associated with a trigger condition defining a change of the respective selected variable resulting in the respective transition;
generating, by one or more processors, a first product automaton from the automatons of all selected variables, wherein the first product automaton comprises a plurality of vector states representing all combinations of discrete states of the selected variables and a plurality of vector transitions for all transitions of single variables, each vector transition corresponding to a transition from one discrete state to another discrete state of a single variable in a respective vector state, where the discrete states of the other variables in the respective vector state remain unchanged, wherein the label and the trigger condition of the respective vector transition correspond to the label and the trigger condition of the transition to which the respective vector transition corresponds; and
removing, by one or more processors, vector transitions from the first product automaton based on predefined rules applying to the simulation model; and
generating, by one or more processors, the state machine, wherein the first product automaton not containing the removed superfluous vector transitions is a second product automaton which is the generated state machine, wherein the product automaton is reduced in size such that less computational resources are needed when processing the product automaton compared to the simulation model.
Under MPEP 2106.05(h) generation of state machine for technical component is at best a field of use of the judicial exception.
Further see Step 2A Prong 1 rejection as above.
See Step 2A Prong 1.
Under MPEP 2106.05(g) determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more in Step 2B is whether the additional elements add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. In this case the this is mere data gathering for selected variables at best.
See Step 2A Prong 1.
See Step 2A Prong 1.
See Step 2A Prong 1.
See Step 2A Prong 1.
See Step 2A Prong 1.
See Step 2A Prong 1.
The one of more processor is generically recited where the processor/computer is used as a tool and do not amount to additional element (only recitation in summary of invention section ¶[0027]).
Step 2B: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. Besides the technical component the claim does not elude to any additional elements. The field of use of this judicial exception in the field of simulating technical component does not improve the functioning of the technical component. The claim 15 is therefore not patent eligible.
Claims 16-18 & 27-29 further add to abstract idea/mental step where the user input is used to perform selecting/generating steps. The claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claims 19-21 & 25 further add to abstract idea/mental step where validation/modification is performed and can be performed with pencil and paper/mathematical concept for comparing (validation). The claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claims 22-23 further add to the abstract idea/mental step where merging is performed and can be performed with pencil and paper to generate third automaton (abstract concept), further based on user input. The claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claim 24 further adds steps (i)-(iii) to the abstract idea/mental step where transitions are merged and can be performed with pencil and paper to generate merged vector states (abstract concept), further based on user input. The claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
Claims 31 and 32 (New) further represent changes to abstract concept of state machine diagram and are considered as further contributing to the abstract idea which can be performed with pencil and paper, as a judgement/opinion (e.g. OR operator for multiple transition condition) based on observation (multiple transition conditions). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claims do not disclose any additional limitations that integrate the judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A Prong 2) or contribute significantly more (Step 2B).
----- This page is left blank after this line -----
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 15-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL by Fu, Hong, et al. "Hybrid automata of an integrated motor-transmission powertrain for automatic gear shift." Proceedings of the 2011 American Control Conference. IEEE, 2011., in view of US 20020091984 A1 by Malik, Robi et al.
Regarding Claim 15, 26 and 30
Fu teaches (Claim 15) A method for computer-implemented generation of a state machine from a simulated technical component in a block-based simulation model (Fu: Abstract & Fig.5) , wherein the state machine comprising a technical component (Fu: Abstract Technical component is integrated motor transmission powertrain) , where the simulated technical component is a block in the block-based simulation model (Fu : §I Col.2 "... The detailed hybrid dynamics of the motor, the gearbox, and then the integrated powertrain are presented in Section III. In Section IV, simulations based on MATLAB Simulink/Stateflow models are performed...." as block based simulation tools) and comprises a plurality of variables (Fu: §II Equation (1) variable U discrete valued control inputs and X the state space) , ,
(Claim 26) Malik and Fu teach An apparatus for computer-implemented generation of a state machine from a simulated technical component in a block-based simulation model, wherein the state machine comprises a technical component, wherein the simulated technical component is a block in the simulation model and comprises a plurality of variables, each variable having a value range with variable values configured to be assigned to the respective variable when running a simulation of the technical component based on the simulation model (Malik: Fig.8 showing the computer apparatus and Fu: As mapped above for claim 15 showing MATLAB/Simulink) , where the apparatus comprises: one or more processors (Malik : Fig.8 & [0131] "... The processor, after properly reducing the automaton, displays the same via a display interface in graphical form. The plants and the process controller are interconnected via a system bus, and a computer memory device is diagrammatically indicated as a designated disk device....") configured to:/
(Claim 30) Malik and Fu teach A non-transitory machine readable carrier comprising a computer program product with program code wherein the program code, when executed on a computer (Malik: Fig.8 showing the computer apparatus; [0089]-[0094] showing the computer program code/medium and Fu: As mapped above for claim 15), causes the computer to:/the method comprising:
selecting, by one or more processors (Fu: § IV. "... The simulation models are developed based on MATLAB Simulink/Stateflow..."; use of MATLAB/Simulink software requires a computer/processor), one or more variables from the plurality of variables (Fu: §II Equation (1) variable U discrete valued control inputs and X the state space) wherein each variable of the plurality of variables comprises a value range with variable values configured to be assigned to the respective variable when running a simulation of the technical component (Fu : §III Pg.4605 Eqn. (4) showing variable Tm with discrete value range:
PNG
media_image3.png
220
802
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The motor torque (Tm) has a value range +/-Tlim with intermediate values of Tm* and 0 in other states, as seen from the equation (4) above. Tm also belongs to continuous set of variables which is discretized as seen on Pg. 4605 Col.2
PNG
media_image4.png
152
434
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Showing Tm belongs to input set U. U is defined as continuous variable as seen on Pg.4505:
PNG
media_image5.png
242
416
media_image5.png
Greyscale
) based on the block-based simulation model (Fu: e.g. Fig.3 showing block based simulation, where each block represents a state of the motor automaton);
generating, by one or more processors (Fu: § IV. "... The simulation models are developed based on MATLAB Simulink/Stateflow..."; use of MATLAB/Simulink software requires a computer/processor), for each selected variable, a plurality of discrete states (Fu: §III Eqn. (3) qm discrete states in Qm) , wherein each state comprises a subset of values from the value range of the respective selected variable (Fu: §III Eqn. (4) where the subset of of values of Tm are associated with each state in Qm) ;
generating, by one or more processors (Fu: § IV. "... The simulation models are developed based on MATLAB Simulink/Stateflow..."; use of MATLAB/Simulink software requires a computer/processor) , an automaton for each selected variable, wherein a respective automaton is represented by the discrete states of the respective selected variable (Fu: Fig.3 showing automaton for ach state meng, mto, mspd
PNG
media_image6.png
298
436
media_image6.png
Greyscale
) , and
generating, by one or more processors (Fu: § IV. "... The simulation models are developed based on MATLAB Simulink/Stateflow..."; use of MATLAB/Simulink software requires a computer/processor), one or more transitions from one discrete state to another discrete state of the respective selected variable (Fu: Tm changes from state to state; §III, Fig.3-4) , wherein a respective transition is referenced by a label and is associated with a trigger condition defining a change of the respective selected variable resulting in the respective transition (Fu: trigger ig and wm causes state change in Fig.3 & 4 and in combine automaton showing labels Sij in Fig.5 ; §III, Fig.3-4) ;
generating, by one or more processors (Fu: § IV. "... The simulation models are developed based on MATLAB Simulink/Stateflow..."; use of MATLAB/Simulink software requires a computer/processor), a first product automaton from the automatons of all selected variables, wherein the first product automaton comprises a plurality of vector states representing all combinations of discrete states of the selected variables and a plurality of vector transitions for all transitions of single variables, each vector transition corresponding to a transition from one discrete state to another discrete state of a single variable in a respective vector state, where the discrete states of the other variables in the respective vector state remain unchanged (Fu: Pg. 4608 Col.2 "... It is seen that the profile of Tgs, i.e. the gearbox output torque, is similar with the one in the internal combustion engine driven vehicle [17]-[18]. However, it has a better performance because the values before and after the shift are nearly invariant in order to ensure the same acceleration....") , wherein the label and the trigger condition of the respective vector transition correspond to the label and the trigger condition of the transition to which the respective vector transition corresponds (Fu: §III and Fig.5
PNG
media_image7.png
467
744
media_image7.png
Greyscale
) ;
Fu does not explicitly teach removing superfluous vector transitions from the first product automaton based on predefined rules applying to the simulation model, …, the first product automaton not containing the removed vector transitions is a second product automaton which is the generated state machine, wherein the product automaton is reduced in size such that less computational recourses are needed when processing the product automaton compared to the simulation model.
Malik teaches removing superfluous vector transitions from the first product automaton (Malik : [0053] "... The idea consists in deleting specific state components Q.sub.i which are irrelevant for determining whether the considered event .sigma. must be allowed or prohibited...."; [0057]) based on predefined rules applying to the simulation model (Malik: [0052]-[0054] rules as in relevance in [0054]); and
generating, by one or more processors (Malik: Fig.8 & [0131] , [0089]showing generation of state machine on a computer) the state machine (Malik: Fig.8, Fig.1-2) , wherein the first product automaton not containing the removed vector transitions is a second product automaton which is the generated state machine (Malik: [0058] second automaton G” from first automaton G/G’) , wherein the product automaton is reduced in size such that less computational recourses are needed when processing the product automaton compared to the simulation model (Malik: [0058]-[0059]).
It would have been obvious to one (e.g. a designer) of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Malik to Fu to complement in combining many automata (DES in Malik) and reducing the state/transitions to make modeling simpler (Malik: [0027]-[0033]). Further motivation to combine would have been that Malik and Fu are analogous art to the instant claim in the field of combining multiple automata/DES representing a technical system (Fu: Abstract & Fig.5; Malik: Abstract [0050]-[0059]).
Regarding Claims 16 & 27 (Updated 1/7/2026)
Malik teaches wherein the selecting is performed based on a predefined selection of at least one variable, or wherein the selecting is performed in response to one or more user inputs via a user interface, where the one or more user inputs specify at least one variable to be selected (Malik: [0091]) .
Regarding Claims 17 & 28 (Updated 1/7/2026)
Malik teaches wherein the generating of the plurality of discrete states is performed based on predefined subsets of values from the value range of one or more selected variables, or wherein the generating of the plurality of discrete states is performed in response to user inputs via a user interface defining subsets of values from the value range of one or more selected variables (Malik: [0047]-[0048]) .
Regarding Claims 18 & 29 (Updated 1/7/2026)
Fu teaches wherein the generating of the automation is performed for at least one selected variable in order to generate an automaton for the at least one selected variable, or wherein the generating of the automation is performed in response to one or more user inputs via a user interface for at least one selected variable in order to generate the automaton for the at least one selected variable, the one or more user inputs specifying the transitions of the at least one selected variable (Fu: Fig.3-5 §II-III ) .
Regarding Claim 19 (Updated 1/7/2026)
Malik teaches The method of claim 15, further comprising: performing a validation between the generating of the first product automation and the removing of the vector transitions (Malik: [0082] "... [0082] In the successive deletion, we apply for each .sigma..sub.j,j=1, . . . ,k, one of the above methods on the DES G', and thereby respectively obtain a DES G.sub.J which has the correct behavior with reference to the control of the event .sigma..sub.J....") .
Fu teaches the validation tests whether the first product automaton generates outputs corresponding to outputs of the simulation model when running a simulation of the technical component based on the simulation model, wherein the method proceeds with the removing of the vector transitions in case of a successful validation (Fu: Fig.6-7 Pg. 4608 Col.2 "... It is seen that the profile of Tgs, i.e. the gearbox output torque, is similar with the one in the internal combustion engine driven vehicle [17]-[18]. However, it has a better performance because the values before and after the shift are nearly invariant in order to ensure the same acceleration....").
Malik teaches wherein otherwise the method provides an input option on a user interface enabling one or more user inputs to modify the first product automaton, whereupon the generating of the first product automation is repeated based on the modified first product automaton (Malik: [0050] "...[0050] In accordance with a preferred mode of the invention, the set of prohibited pairs is iteratively calculated in a plurality of sets in a rising sequence of pairs...." [0061]-[0064]) .
Regarding Claim 20 (Updated 1/7/2026)
Malik and Fu teach The method of claim 19, further comprising: performing an additional validation after the removing of the vector transitions, wherein the additional validation tests whether the second product automaton generates outputs corresponding to outputs of the simulation model when running a simulation of the technical component based on the simulation model, where the method terminates or proceeds with another act without enabling a manual modification of the second product automaton in case of a successful additional validation, and wherein otherwise the method provides an input option on a user interface enabling one or more user inputs to modify the second product automaton, whereupon the removing of the superfluous vector transitions is repeated based on the modified second product automaton (Malik and Fu: In view of In re Harza, where process similar to claim 19 is performed for second automaton and mapped as presented in claim 19 - Malik: [0082] [0050], [0061][0064], Fu: Fig.6-7 Pg. 4608 Col.2) .
Regarding Claim 21 (Updated 1/7/2026)
Malik and Fu teach The method of claim 15, further comprising: performing a validation after the removing of the vector transitions, wherein the validation tests whether the second product automaton generates outputs corresponding to outputs of the simulation model when running a simulation of the technical component based on the simulation model, where the method terminates or proceeds with another act without enabling a manual modification of the second product automaton in case of a successful validation, and wherein otherwise the method provides an input option on a user interface enabling one or more user inputs to modify the second product automaton, whereupon the removing of the superfluous vector transitions is repeated based on the modified second product automaton (Malik and Fu: In view of In re Harza, where process similar to claim 19 is performed for second automaton and mapped as presented in claim 19 - Malik: [0082] [ 0050], [0061][0064], Fu: Fig.6-7 Pg. 4608 Col.2) .
Regarding Claim 22 (Updated 1/7/2026)
Malik teaches The method of claim 15, further comprising: further processing the second product automaton after the removing of the vector transitions (Malik: [0073] [0053]-[0059]) , the further processing comprising one or more merging operations (Malik: [0059]"... A further method deals with combining states: Let there be given a DES G=(.SIGMA.,Q,q.sub.0, .delta.,Q.sub.m) as well as a limitation G'.ltoreq.G and an event .sigma..di-elect cons..SIGMA.. The following method calculates in stepwise fashion a DES G" which exhibits the same behavior as G' with reference to the allowance or prohibition of the event .sigma., but is simpler, as a rule. For this purpose, a relationship .about.Q.times.Q on the state set Q from which it is possible to construct a reduced DES with the aid of the above covering method is determined in each step....") , wherein, in a respective merging operation, several vector states of the second product automaton differing in a value of a single variable are merged to a common vector state substituting the merged vector states (Malik: [0060]-[0077]"... [0077] The process of combining states can be further specialized: When it is possible to produce a partition in the third step of the above combining method, this has the advantages that the method converges more quickly, and that the resulting automaton is guaranteed to be deterministic. This is ensured by the following modification of the method....") , the vector transitions referring to the merged vector states being configured to vector transitions referring to the common vector state, thus resulting in a third product automaton (Malik: [0082] G1…Gk, G3 would be third automaton or G” as in [0058]) .
Regarding Claim 23 (Updated 1/7/2026)
Malik teaches The method of claim 22, wherein at least one merging operation is performed based on predefined rules, or wherein at least one merging operation is performed semi-automatically in response to one or more user inputs via a user interface, the one or more user inputs specifying the specifying the vector states to be merged (Malik: [0071] shows allowed and prohibited states, and combining/merging happens subsequent to it in [0077]) .
Regarding Claim 24 (Updated 1/7/2026)
Malik teaches The method of claim 22, wherein the vector transitions of the merged vector states are configured to vector transitions , and wherein, in case that a vector transition refers to a vector transition from one merged vector state to another merged vector state, a self-loop transition is generated from the common vector state to the common vector state having a new label and the same trigger condition as the vector transition from the merged vector state to the other merged vector state (Malik: Fig.4-5 [0123]-[0138]).
Regarding Claim 25 (Updated 1/7/2026)
Fu and Malik teach The method of claim 22, further comprising: performing a validation after the further processing of the second product automation, wherein the validation tests whether the third product automaton generates outputs corresponding to outputs of the simulation model when running a simulation of the technical component based on the simulation model, wherein the method terminates in case of a successful validation, and wherein otherwise the method provides an input option on a user interface enabling one or more user inputs to modify the third product automaton, whereupon the further processing of the second product automation is repeated based on the modified second product automaton (Malik and Fu: In view of In re Harza, where process similar to claim 19 is performed for second automaton and mapped as presented in claim 19 - Malik: [0082] [ 0050], [0061][0064], Fu: Fig.6-7 Pg. 4608 Col.2) .
Relevant Prior Art of Record
US 20080034427 A1 by Cadambi; Srihari et al. teaches Claim 24 limitation (i) when transition happens from merged state to merged state:
PNG
media_image8.png
510
552
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Cadambi et al does not teach claim 24 clause (ii) and (iii).
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
---- This page is left blank after this line ----
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AKASH SAXENA whose telephone number is (571)272-8351. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7AM-3:30PM.
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, RYAN PITARO can be reached on (571) 272-4071. 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.
AKASH SAXENA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/AKASH SAXENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188 January 7, 2026
1 Specification [0027] (in Summary of Invention) shows generic use of processor where the rest of the disclosure (Detailed description, drawings etc.) does not recite any specific implementation to perform the functions. [0027] states "... [0027] Besides the above method, the disclosure refers to an apparatus configured to perform the computer-implemented method or one or more embodiments of this method. In other words, the apparatus includes one or more processors configured to perform acts a) to e) and optionally perform acts of certain embodiments disclosed herein....".
2 MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states: “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”. In view of the above a review of specification only mentions processor in [0027]
Prosecution Insights