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
1. Claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The listing of references in the specification (i.e. NPLs listed in paragraphs of specification such as [0006], [0008]-[0010], [0045], and so on) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
3. Claims1-2 and 7-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 1, it recites the limitation “deriving the control-related state of the PN extended from the kth variant closed-form formula (CFF) system for numbers,” in the preamble which would be better as “deriving a control-related state of an PN extended from a kth variant closed-form formula (CFF) system for numbers,”. Further what is “kth variant closed-form formula (CFF) system”? More specifically what is “k”?
As per Claim 1, it recites the limitation “the first system and the second system An invertible one-to-one mapping between;” which is unclear what the limitation refers. What is “An invertible one-to-one mapping between”?
As per Claim 1, it recites the limitation “formula The parameter gen can be obtained by replacing it with k−gen, and its corresponding reachability state can be directly obtained through a reversible one-to-one mapping” in lines 9-11 which contains language i. e. “can be obtained” and “can be directly obtained” that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. Further it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claimed limitation “directly” is; it is unclear what the limitation “it’ and “its” refers. Furthermore, the phrase “formula The parameter” in line 9 would be better as “formula, a parameter”
As per Claim 2, it recites the limitation “directly” which is unclear what the metes and bounds of the claimed invention is.
As per Claim 7, it recites the limitation “EFC of” in line 2 which would be better as “embedded filter coefficient (EFC) of”.
As per Claim 8, it recites the limitation “EFC” in line 2 and 5 which would be better as “embedded filter coefficient (EFC)”.
As per Claim 9, it recites the limitation “EFC” in line 2 and 4 which would be better as “embedded filter coefficient (EFC)”.
As per Claim 10, it recites the limitation “the basic model” in line 3 and “the real-time reachability information system control application” in line 4 which would be better as “a basic model” and “a real-time reachability information system control application”. Further the limitation “TRM” in line 4 would be better as “Topological Reverse Mirroring (TRM)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
4. Claims 1-10 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per Claims 1-10, the claims appear to be generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. For example, Claim 1 recites the limitation “by proving that the first system Gen-Right(k, gen) and the second system Gen_Left(k, k−gen) are topological inverse networks of Gen-Left(k, gen), the first system and the second system An invertible one-to-one mapping between; wherein the first series Gen-Right(k, gen) and Gen-Left(k, k−gen) have the same closed-form formula, and by putting Gen-Left(k, gen) in the verified closed-form formula The parameter gen can be obtained by replacing it with k−gen, and its corresponding reachability state can be directly obtained through a reversible one-to-one mapping.” which is unclear what/how is the provided in the step of “providing”. In particular, what is the second system? Is it “Gen-Left(k, gen)” or “Gen_Left(k, k−gen)”? Claim fails to define what the parameters refer: k, gen, and k-gen. Further the limitation “the verified closed-form formula” lacks antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Also the limitation “by putting Gen-Left(k, gen) in the verified closed-form formula The parameter gen can be obtained by replacing it with k−gen, and its corresponding reachability state can be directly obtained through a reversible one-to-one mapping” is unclear and indefinite. The step of “putting Gen-Left(k, gen) in the verified closed-form formula” is unclear since “verified” is not determined in a prior step therefore to “putting” has no nexus. Also how is “the verified closed-form formula” different from “the same closed-form formula”?
As per Claim 2, it recites the limitation: “wherein the method is based on knowledge-based use of the verified network accessibility and closure solution information to change parameter values such as itineraries, non-shared resources and multi-scepter shared resource locations, and directly obtain the new network, the network architecture has a reversible one-to-one mapping of the reachability and closure solution information of the new network architecture, the method is referred to here as Topological Reverse Mirroring (TRM)” which narrative and indefinite. The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Further the limitation “the method is referred to here as Topological Reverse Mirroring (TRM)” is unclear what the limitation refers. In particular, it is unclear which “the method” is referring to. Further it appear to be the printed matter. Thus, there is no patentable weight is given. Further the limitation “the verified network accessibility and closure solution information”, “the new network”, “the network architecture” and “the reachability and closure solution information”, and “the new network architecture,” lacks antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As per Claim 3, it recites the limitation “the topological inverse mirror system” which lacks antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As per Claim 5, it recites the limitation “providing the CFF of the number of CRSs of the double-deficient k-order system of non-shared resources” which is unclear what the limitation refers. In particular, the limitation “the number of CRSs” and “k-order” is unclear and indefinite. Further the limitation “the double-deficient k-order system” lacks antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As per Claim 6, it recites the limitation “wherein the method further includes using embedded filter coefficients (EFC) in front of the CFF as a necessary condition for each of the α and β of the CRS” which is unclear what the limitation refers. In particular, the limitation “in front of the CFF” means? Is it a part of CFF or a precondition? Further the limitation “the α and β of the CRS” lacks antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. What are parameters α and β? What is CRS?
As per Claim 7, it recites the limitation “wherein the necessary conditions for the EFC of the reachable state are α≥0 and β≥0; where min(max(min(α, β, 0)+1, 0), 1)) is used as the embedded filter coefficient (EFC) to exclude possibilities (α<0 or β<0)” which is unclear what the limitation refers. What are parameters α and β? Further the limitation “the necessary conditions”, “the EFC”, and “the reachable state” lacks antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As per Claim 8, it recites the limitation “wherein the necessary conditions for the EFC of the active state are α≥0 and β≥0, but excluding the conditions of α=0 and β=0; where, using (min(max(min(α, β, 0)+1, 0), 1)) (min(max(max(α, 0), max(β, 0)), 1)) as EFC.” which is unclear what the limitation refers. What are parameters α and β? Further the limitation “the necessary conditions”, “the EFC”, and “the active state” lacks antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As per Claim 9, it recites the limitation “wherein the basic condition of the EFC of the dead state is (α=β=0) union (α>0 and β>0); where, use 1−(min(max(max(α, 0), max(β, 0)), 1)); max(min(α, β, 1), 0) as (α>0 and β>0) EFC of CFF under condition” which is unclear what the limitation refers. What are parameters α and β? Further the limitation “the basic condition”, “the EFC”, and “the dead state” lacks antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As per Claim 10, it recites the limitation “wherein the CFF of the number of CRSs of the non-shared resource double-deficient k-order system is used as the basic model for deriving the CFF of more complex PNs by applying the TRM, and provides decision-making based on the current state of the real-time reachability information system control application” which is unclear what the limitation refers. In particular, what are the limitation “CRS”, “TRM” and “k-order”? The limitation “more complex” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. Further the limitation “the number of CRSs”, “the non-shared resource double-deficient k-order system”, “the TRM”, and “the current state of the real-time reachability information system control application” lacks antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
5. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
(Step 1) The claim 1-10 is directed a methods and fall within the statutory category of processes.
(Step 2A – Prong One) For the sake of identifying the abstract ideas, a copy of the claim is provided below. Abstract ideas are bolded.
Claim 1 recites:
by proving that the first system Gen-Right(k, gen) and the second system Gen_Left(k, k−gen) are topological inverse networks of Gen-Left(k, gen) (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering), the first system and the second system An invertible one-to-one mapping between (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering); wherein the first series Gen-Right(k, gen) and Gen-Left(k, k−gen) have the same closed-form formula (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering), and
by putting Gen-Left(k, gen) in the verified closed-form formula The parameter gen can be obtained by replacing it with k−gen, and its corresponding reachability state can be directly obtained through a reversible one-to-one mapping (a mathematical concept and a mental process).
Therefore, the limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, an abstract idea.
(Step 2A – Prong Two: integration into practical application) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)): “by proving that the first system Gen-Right(k, gen) and the second system Gen_Left(k, k−gen) are topological inverse networks of Gen-Left(k, gen) (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering), the first system and the second system An invertible one-to-one mapping between (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering); wherein the first series Gen-Right(k, gen) and Gen-Left(k, k−gen) have the same closed-form formula (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering)”. Further the additional element of “Petri net (PN)” and “topological inverse networks” is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
(Step 2B - inventive concept) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “Petri net (PN)” and “topological inverse networks” is an insignificant extra-solution activity which is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Further as discussed above claim 1 recites the limitation which is an insignificant extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim, amounts to mere data gathering/outputting (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) which is the element that the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d) II. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)); iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93): “by proving that the first system Gen-Right(k, gen) and the second system Gen_Left(k, k−gen) are topological inverse networks of Gen-Left(k, gen) (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering)”
Also the claim recites the limitation which insignificant extra-solution activity for the act of outputting itself , is equivalent to “apply it”, and/or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)): “the first system and the second system An invertible one-to-one mapping between (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering); wherein the first series Gen-Right(k, gen) and Gen-Left(k, k−gen) have the same closed-form formula (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering)”.
Further dependent claims 2-10 recite:
2. The method for analyzing reachability of a Petri net as claim 1, wherein the method is based on knowledge-based use of the verified network accessibility and closure solution information to change parameter values such as itineraries, non-shared resources and multi-scepter shared resource locations, and directly obtain the new network (a mathematical concept and a mental process), the network architecture has a reversible one-to-one mapping of the reachability and closure solution information of the new network architecture, the method is referred to here as Topological Reverse Mirroring (TRM). (a mathematical concept and a mental process)
3. The method for analyzing reachability of a Petri net as claim 2, wherein the topological inverse mirror system is used to analyze reachability and derive a closed-form formula to control the number of control-related states. (insignificant extra-solution activity - “apply it”)
4. The method for analyzing reachability of a Petri net as claim 3, wherein the control-related states are reachable, active, prohibited, deadlocked, livelocked, and unreachable. (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering);
5. The method for analyzing reachability of a Petri net as claim 1, wherein the method further includes providing the CFF of the number of CRSs of the double-deficient k-order system of non-shared resources. (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering and “apply it”)
6. The method for analyzing reachability of a Petri net as claim 5, wherein the method further includes using embedded filter coefficients (EFC) in front of the CFF as a necessary condition for each of the α and β of the CRS. (insignificant extra-solution activity - data gathering and “apply it”)
7. The method for analyzing reachability of a Petri net as claim 5, wherein the necessary conditions for the EFC of the reachable state are α≥0 and β≥0; where min(max(min(α, β, 0)+1, 0), 1)) is used as the embedded filter coefficient (EFC) to exclude possibilities (α<0 or β<0). (insignificant extra-solution activity - data gathering and “apply it”)
8. The method for analyzing reachability of a Petri net as claim 5, wherein the necessary conditions for the EFC of the active state are α≥0 and β≥0, but excluding the conditions of α=0 and β=0; where, using (min(max(min(α, β, 0)+1, 0), 1)) (min(max(max(α, 0), max(β, 0)), 1)) as EFC. (insignificant extra-solution activity - data gathering and “apply it”)
9. The method for analyzing reachability of a Petri net as claim 5, wherein the basic condition of the EFC of the dead state is (α=β=0) union (α>0 and β>0); where, use 1−(min(max(max(α, 0), max(β, 0)), 1)); max(min(α, β, 1), 0) as (α>0 and β>0) EFC of CFF under condition. (insignificant extra-solution activity - data gathering and “apply it”)
10. The method for analyzing reachability of a Petri net as claim 1, wherein the CFF of the number of CRSs of the non-shared resource double-deficient k-order system is used as the basic model for deriving the CFF of more complex PNs by applying the TRM, (insignificant extra-solution activity - data gathering and “apply it”) and provides decision-making based on the current state of the real-time reachability information system control application. (idea of solution or outcome without sufficient detail on how it's accomplished – specifically with respect to how “the current state” is used.)
Considering the claim both individually and in combination, there is no element or combination of elements recited contains any “inventive concept” or adds “significantly more” to transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible application.
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.
6. Claim(s) 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu (“Reachability-related analysis of double-deficient k-th order systems of Petri nets in terms of a closed-form solution”).
Yu teaches:
1. A method for analyzing reachability of a Petri net (PN) and deriving the control-related state of the PN extended from the kth variant closed-form formula (CFF) system for numbers (Abstract), the method comprising:
by proving that the first system Gen-Right(k, gen) and the second system Gen_Left(k, k−gen) (“(gen-right and genleft k-th order systems)” on the right column of Pg 3087) are topological inverse networks of Gen-Left(k, gen), the first system and the second system An invertible one-to-one mapping between (“fL(zL) (resp. fR(zR)) is a sequence function mapping to a vector set of the token distribution of resource places of NCSL (resp. NCSR).” section IV);
wherein the first series Gen-Right(k, gen) and Gen-Left(k, k−gen) have the same closed-form formula, and by putting Gen-Left(k, gen) in the verified closed-form formula (“the closed-form formulae (CFF)/solutions refer to the closed-form formulae/solutions of each type of CRS for PNs.” on the right column of Pg 3087) The parameter gen can be obtained by replacing it with k−gen, and its corresponding reachability state can be directly obtained through a reversible one-to-one mapping (“Let Nr be the reverse net of a PN N. Chao [13] constructed the concept of a complete reachability graph (CRG) and split the reachability graph of the PN N into several states: reachable (from the initial state), live (reachable to the initial state), forbidden (reachable to the deadlock or livelock states [31] only), deadlock (reachable to no state), livelock [31] (reachable to the livelock state only), non-reachable (from the initial state), and empty-siphon+non-reachable (both nonreachable states in N and Nr ).” on the left column of Pg 3088).
2. The method for analyzing reachability of a Petri net as claim 1, wherein the method is based on knowledge-based use of the verified network accessibility and closure solution information to change parameter values such as itineraries, non-shared resources and multi-scepter shared resource locations, and directly obtain the new network, the network architecture has a reversible one-to-one mapping of the reachability and closure solution information of the new network architecture (“constructing the CFS for various k-th order systems with a non-sharing resource r* in different specific locations (gen-right and genleft k-th order systems) [14-24]; combined with a top nonsharing circle subnet (TNCS, denoted as a TNCS k-th order system [31]) and a non-sharing resource for the left-hand-side process [32], respectively. We [24, 28] enhance this framework by adding the concept of proof by model, to accelerate the construction of the CFS for PNs.” on the right column of Pg 3087), the method is referred to here as Topological Reverse Mirroring (TRM) (Section II-IV).
3. The method for analyzing reachability of a Petri net as claim 2, wherein the topological inverse mirror system is used to analyze reachability and derive a closed-form formula to control the number of control-related states (“CFS for a deficient k-th order system, we can apply the deficient reachablility ratio (DRO)” on the left column of Pg 3088; section “IV. COMPUTATION OF THE REACHABLE AND LIVE STATES OF A DOUBLE-NCS SYSTEM”, Figure 1-2).
4. The method for analyzing reachability of a Petri net as claim 3, wherein the control-related states are reachable, active, prohibited, deadlocked, livelocked, and unreachable (“the construction of the concept of a complete reachability graph (CRG) for PNs; on the basis of CRG, the reachability graph of the control net is classified into the following states: reachable, live, forbidden, deadlock, livelock (added by Chao and Yu [31]), non-reachable and empty-siphon+non-reachable.” on the right column of Pg 3087).
5. The method for analyzing reachability of a Petri net as claim 1, wherein the method further includes providing the CFF of the number of CRSs of the double-deficient k-order system of non-shared resources (“NCS in each process (a double-NCS k-th order system), this article presents a method for constructing the CFS for the double-deficient k-th order system, which is the essential element of such a system and is also the fundamental net structure of a system with multi-non-sharing subnets.” on the left column of Pg 3088; section IV).
6. The method for analyzing reachability of a Petri net as claim 5, wherein the method further includes using embedded filter coefficients (EFC) in front of the CFF as a necessary condition for each of the α and β of the CRS (“a reachable state in a k-th order system will be an element of the set {(d1 ... dj 1 ej+2 ... ek)|1≤j≤k}∪{(e1 ... ek)}, where di = 1 or 0 (i = 1 to j) and ep = 0 or –1 (p = j+2 to k) and the total number of reachable states is (k+2)2(k–1) .” on the left column of pg 3089; Theorem 2 on the right column of pg 3089; section III).
10. The method for analyzing reachability of a Petri net as claim 1, wherein the CFF of the number of CRSs of the non-shared resource double-deficient k-order system is used as the basic model for deriving the CFF of more complex PNs by applying the TRM, and provides decision-making based on the current state of the real-time reachability information system control application (“The most important contribution of the CFS for PNs is that the CRS information of a very large PN can be derived in real time, such that we can apply the information to enhance the capability of dynamically modeling a RAS using a PN.” on the right column of pg 3087; section IV-V “apply the DRO as the decision-making indicator of a dynamic token allocation mechanism for multi-indepentent and large double-NCS systems.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
7. Claim(s) 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (“Reachability-related analysis of double-deficient k-th order systems of Petri nets in terms of a closed-form solution”) as applied to claim 1-6 and 10 above, and further in view of Yu2 (“Parameterized of Control Related States of Gen-Right k-th Order System of Petri Nets Based on Proof by Model of Gen-Left”)
As per Claim 7, Yu teaches wherein the necessary conditions for the EFC of the reachable state are α≥0 and β≥0 (“a reachable state in a k-th order system will be an element of the set {(d1 ... dj 1 ej+2 ... ek)|1≤j≤k}∪{(e1 ... ek)}, where di = 1 or 0 (i = 1 to j) and ep = 0 or –1 (p = j+2 to k) and the total number of reachable states is (k+2)2(k–1) .” on the left column of pg 3089; Theorem 2 on the right column of pg 3089; section III);
Yu fails to teach explicitly where min(max(min(α, β, 0)+1, 0), 1)) is used as the embedded filter coefficient (EFC) to exclude possibilities (α<0 or β<0).
Yu2 teaches where min(max(min(α, β, 0)+1, 0), 1)) is used as the embedded filter coefficient (EFC) to exclude possibilities (α<0 or β<0) (section IV “MinProcess(sub-statet)”).
Yu and Yu2 are analogous art because they are both related to a method for analyzing reachability of a Petri net (PN).
It would have obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of cited references. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate Yu2 into Yu’s invention for purpose of analyzing reachability of a Petri net (PN) to provide a simple deadlock avoiding function algorithm in very large and dynamic resource allocation variant k-th order systems (Yu2: Conclusion).
As per Claim 8, Yu teaches wherein the necessary conditions for the EFC of the active state are α≥0 and β≥0, but excluding the conditions of α=0 and β=0 (“a live state in a k-th order system will be an element of the set{(d1 ... dk)|di = 1 or 0}∪{(e1 ... ek)| ei = –1 or 0} and the total number of live states is 2k+1–1” on the left column of pg 3089; Theorem 1 on the right column of pg 3089; section III).
Yu fails to teach explicitly where, using (min(max(min(α, β, 0)+1, 0), 1)) (min(max(max(α, 0), max(β, 0)), 1)) as EFC.
Yu2 teaches where, using (min(max(min(α, β, 0)+1, 0), 1)) (min(max(max(α, 0), max(β, 0)), 1)) as EFC (section IV “MinProcess(sub-statet)”).
As per Claim 9, Yu teaches wherein the basic condition of the EFC of the dead state is (α=β=0) union (α>0 and β>0) (“deadlock (Ć)” section II-III).
Yu fails to teach explicitly use 1−(min(max(max(α, 0), max(β, 0)), 1)); max(min(α, β, 1), 0) as (α>0 and β>0) EFC of CFF under condition.
Yu2 teaches where, use 1−(min(max(max(α, 0), max(β, 0)), 1)); max(min(α, β, 1), 0) as (α>0 and β>0) EFC of CFF under condition (“section IV “MinProcess(sub-statet)”).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yu (“The Closed-Form Solution of the Control Related States of Deficient Gen-Left k-th order System (the essential element of non-sharing subnet) of Petri Nets”) discloses a the Control Related States for the Deficient Gen-Left k-th order systems (the initial marking of idle places in one process is less than k) which is an essential element of non-sharing subnet in PNs.
Zhong et al. (“Deadlock analysis and control using Petri net decomposition techniques”) discloses a deadlock analysis and control using Petri net.
Chao et al. (“Enumeration of Reachable (forbidden, live, and deadlock) States of Top k-th Order System (with a non-sharing resource place) of Petri Nets”) discloses a reachable (forbidden, live, and deadlock) states for top k-th order systems with a formula depending on parameter k for a subclass of nets with k sharing resources.
Yan et al. (CN 109063264 A) discloses a multi-stage task system reliability modeling and analysis method.
Li et al. (AU 2018100664 A4) discloses a method for controlling a complex network of electronic devices with a Peri net.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNHEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-2164. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm ET.
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 at (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.
EUNHEE KIM
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2188
/EUNHEE KIM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188