DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is responsive to the applicant’s arguments filed on 4/8/26.
2. The present application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
3. Claims 1-6, 10-17 and 19-21 are currently pending.
4. Claims 1, 10-11, 13, 17 and 19 are amended.
5. Claims 7-9 and 18 are canceled. Claim 21 is new.
Response to Arguments
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 101
6. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the recently amended limitation of the independent claims that
states “generate, based on at least the system data, a system model that includes a set of
capabilities related to the set of components of the industrial system, wherein each
capability included in the set of capabilities represents a corresponding industrial function
of at least one component of the set of components of the industrial system” cannot be
conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. The applicant argues that the human
mind is not equipped to generate a system model as recited in the current claims. (Remarks:
pages 9-10)
7. Examiner Response:
The examiner notes that the limitation of the independent claims that states “generate,
based on at least the system data, a system model that includes a set of capabilities related
to the set of components of the industrial system” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the system data is or what the set of capabilities of the system model are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the examiner notes that the limitation of the independent claims that state “wherein
each capability included in the set of capabilities represents a corresponding industrial
function of at least one component of the set of components of the industrial system”
doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and
paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step
that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this
limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
8. Applicants argue:
The applicant argues that the current claims provide an improvement to the functioning
of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, where system modeling accuracy,
efficiency, effectiveness and customizability are improved. (Remarks: pages 11-13)
9. Examiner Response:
The examiner first notes that in MPEP 2106.05(f) (2) it states “claiming the improved
speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not “provide a
sufficient inventive concept.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA)
(“Intellectual Ventures v. Capital One Bank”), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This
explains as to why the claim limitations are not improving the functionality of a computer.
Further, the examiner has not seen what technical field is being improved.
Also, for claim 1, the claim includes the additional element of an electronic processor. The electronic processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The examiner’s response regarding the applicant’s arguments to the newly added limitations are shown below.
Response: 35 U.S.C. § 102
10. The examiner’s response regarding the applicant’s arguments to the newly added limitations are shown 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 1-6, 10-17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper.
Claims 1, 13 and 17
Regarding step 1, claims 1, 13 and 17 are directed towards a system, a method and a medium which has the claims fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 13
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 13 recites “wherein each capability included in the
set of capabilities represents a corresponding industrial function of at least one component
of the set of components of the industrial system”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself
from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under
the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in
the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the
“Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “receiving, with an electronic processor, a request for a system model of an industrial system associated with a set of components” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “accessing, with the electronic processor, system data related to the set of components the industrial system” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of generating, with the electronic processor, based on at least the
system data, a system model that includes a set of capabilities related to the set of
components of the industrial system” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the system data is or what the set of capabilities of the system model are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “providing, with the electronic processor, the system
model for display at a display device via a graphical user interface” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “receiving, with the electronic processor, an input that defines an additional capability related to an industrial function, wherein the input includes (i) a custom subset of components of the set of components and (ii) a custom relationship between the subset of components, wherein the custom relationship controls functionality of the custom subset of components such that the custom subset of components perform the industrial function related to the additional capability” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “and configuring, based on the additional capability, the custom subset of components to perform the industrial function related to the additional capability.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the subset of components are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim includes the additional element of an electronic processor. The electronic processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitations of “receiving, with an electronic processor, a
request for a system model of an industrial system associated with a set of components”, “accessing, with the electronic processor, system data related to the set of components the industrial system”, “providing, with the electronic processor, the system model for display at a display device via a graphical user interface” and “receiving, with the electronic processor, an input that defines an additional capability related to an industrial function, wherein the input includes (i) a custom subset of components of the set of components and (ii) a custom relationship between the subset of components, wherein the custom relationship controls functionality of the custom subset of components such that the custom subset of components perform the industrial function related to the additional capability” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of generating, with the electronic processor, based on at least the
system data, a system model that includes a set of capabilities related to the set of
components of the industrial system” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the system data is or what the set of capabilities of the system model are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and configuring, based on the additional capability, the custom subset of components to perform the industrial function related to the additional capability.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the subset of components are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, 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 element of an electronic processor amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 1
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites “wherein each capability included in the
set of capabilities represents a corresponding industrial function of at least one component
of the set of components of the industrial system”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself
from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under
the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in
the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the
“Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “receive a request for a system model of an industrial system that includes a set of components” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “access, from a database, system data related to the set of components of the industrial system” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “generate, based on at least the system data, a system model
that includes a set of capabilities related to the set of components of the industrial system” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the system data is or what the set of capabilities of the system model are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of Also, the limitation of “provide the system model for display at a display device via a graphical user interface” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “receiving, via the graphical user interface, an input that defines an additional capability related to an industrial function, wherein the input includes (i) a custom subset of components of the set of components and (ii) a custom relationship between the subset of components, wherein the custom relationship controls functionality of the custom subset of components such that the custom subset of components perform the industrial function related to the additional capability” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “and configure, based on the additional capability, the custom subset of components to perform the industrial function related to the additional capability.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the subset of components are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim includes the additional element of an electronic processor. The electronic processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitations of “receive a request for a system model of an industrial system that includes a set of components”, “access, from a database, system data related to the set of components of the industrial system”, “provide the system model for display at a display device via a graphical user interface” and “receiving, via the graphical user interface, an input that defines an additional capability related to an industrial function, wherein the input includes (i) a custom subset of components of the set of components and (ii) a custom relationship between the subset of components, wherein the custom relationship controls functionality of the custom subset of components such that the custom subset of components perform the industrial function related to the additional capability” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “generate, based on at least the system data, a system model
that includes a set of capabilities related to the set of components of the industrial system” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the system data is or what the set of capabilities of the system model are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and configure, based on the additional capability, the custom subset of components to perform the industrial function related to the additional capability.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the subset of components are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, 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 element of an electronic processor amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 17
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 17 recites “wherein each capability included in the
set of capabilities represents a corresponding industrial function of the industrial system”.
This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or
with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is
a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper.
As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “receiving a request for a system model of an industrial system that includes a set of components” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “accessing system data related to the set of components of the industrial system” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “generating, based on at least the system data, a system model
that includes a set of capabilities related to the set of components of the industrial system” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the system data is or what the set of capabilities of the system model are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of Also, the limitation of “provide the system model for display at a display device” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “receiving an input that defines an additional capability related to an industrial function, wherein the input includes (i) a custom subset of components of the set of components and (ii) a custom relationship between the subset of components, wherein the custom relationship controls functionality of the custom subset of components such that the custom subset of components perform the industrial function related to the additional capability” amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Also, the limitation of “and configuring, based on the additional capability, the custom subset of components to perform the industrial function related to the additional capability.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the subset of components are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim includes the additional elements of an electronic processor and medium. The electronic processor and medium are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitations of “receiving a request for a system model of an industrial system that includes a set of components”, “accessing system data related to the set of components of the industrial system”, “provide the system model for display at a display device” and “receiving an input that defines an additional capability related to an industrial function, wherein the input includes (i) a custom subset of components of the set of components and (ii) a custom relationship between the subset of components, wherein the custom relationship controls functionality of the custom subset of components such that the custom subset of components perform the industrial function related to the additional capability” are also shown to reflect the court decisions of Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, shown in MPEP 2106.05(d) (II).
Also, the limitation of “generating, based on at least the system data, a system model
that includes a set of capabilities related to the set of components of the industrial system” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the system data is or what the set of capabilities of the system model are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and configuring, based on the additional capability, the custom subset of components to perform the industrial function related to the additional capability.” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the subset of components are. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, 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 an electronic processor and medium amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 2
Dependent claim 2 recites “wherein the system model includes a set of components with relationships”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 2 recites “wherein each relationship governs interaction between at least two components included in the set of components”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 3
Dependent claim 3 recites “wherein each capability includes a subset of components included in the set of components and at least one relationship between at least two components included in the subset of components”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 4
Dependent claim 4 recites “wherein the at least one relationship governs interaction between the at least two components”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 5
Dependent claim 5 recites “wherein the at least one relationship is a custom relationship defined by an end-user based on an application of the industrial system”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6
Dependent claim 6 recites “wherein the set of components includes a first component and a second component”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 6 recites “wherein the first component is associated with a first capability of the set of capabilities and the second component is associated with a second capability of the set of capabilities”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 6 recites “wherein the first capability is different from the second capability”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 10 and 19
Dependent claims 10 and 19 recite “wherein the electronic processor is further configured to configure the custom subset of components to interact according to the custom relationship to perform the industrial function”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate how the components are being configured. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the claim includes the additional element of an electronic processor. The electronic processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 11
Dependent claim 11 recites “wherein the system data associated with the industrial system includes a set of components”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 11 recites “wherein the set of components includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a device associated with the industrial system, a state associated with the industrial system, and a process associated with the industrial system.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 12 and 20
Dependent claims 12 and 20 recite “wherein the electronic processor is further configured to generate a hierarchical representation of the system model for display.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the claim includes the additional element of an electronic processor. The electronic processor is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 14
Dependent claim 14 recites “receiving a user input defining a new capability, the user input indicating a custom relationship between two or more components included in the set of components”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claim 14 recites “wherein generating the system model includes generating the system model based at least in part on the new capability.”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the new capability is or how the system model is generated. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Claim 15
Dependent claim 15 recites “wherein generating the system model includes generating the system model such that each capability includes a subset of components included in the set of components and at least one relationship between at least two components included in the subset of components”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 15 recites “wherein the at least one relationship is a custom relationship defined by an end- user based on an application of the industrial system.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 16
Dependent claim 16 recites “wherein generating the system model includes generating a system model that includes a set of components including a first component and a second component”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 16 recites “wherein the first component is associated with a first capability of the set of capabilities and the second component is associated with a second capability of the set of capabilities”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 16 recites “wherein the first capability is different from the second capability”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 21
Dependent claim 21 recites “wherein the electronic processor is further configured to: re-generate, based on the input, the system model to include the additional capability;”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. This limitation doesn’t indicate what the additional capability is. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Dependent claim 21 recites “and provide the system model as re-generated for display at the display device via the graphical user interface.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 1-6, 10-17 and 19-21 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-17 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Ciolfi (U.S. PGPub 2006/0282252) (from IDS dated 2/28/24).
With respect to claim 1, Ciolfi discloses “A system for modeling capabilities within system models of industrial systems” as [Ciolfi (paragraph [0049] “FIG. 3A is an exemplary functional model 220 for a distributed embedded system in the illustrative embodiment of the present. The functional model 220 includes functional units (F1, F2, . . . , Fn) 310-350. Each of the functional units (F1, F2, . . . , Fn) 310-350 is configured to include one or more blocks that perform a specific functional operation.”, Ciolfi paragraph [0041] “The electronic device 100 may receive through the input control 140 input data necessary for creating models in the block diagram modeling environment, such as the selection of the attributes and operations of component blocks in the models.”)];
“the system comprising: an electronic processor configured to receive a request for a system model of an industrial system that includes a set of components” as [Ciolfi (paragraph [0035] “The functional model is represented as functional units and each unit is configured to include one or more elements that perform a specific functional operation. The deployment model includes multiple processing units (or processors) carrying out one or more processes (or tasks), such as programs and sets of instructions. In the illustrative embodiment, the functional units in the functional model can be mapped to the processing units or processors in the deployment model. For example, each of the functional units may be mapped to a different processor, a certain functional unit may be mapped to multiple processors, or several functional units may be mapped to a single processor.”, Ciolfi paragraph [0037] “When the users directly create a deployment model, there is no functional model and the users are free to edit and rearrange the deployment model as they wish. However, if the users start creating a functional model, and then request the system to generate a deployment model, the users may be restricted in editing the deployment model…..For example, the functional model may contain units that are mapped to specific processors in the deployment model. If the users edit with the unit and don't change the external interface (e.g. inputs and outputs) of the unit, then the changes can be automatically updated or reflected in the functional mode.”)];
“access, from a database, system data related to the set of components of the industrial system” as [Ciolfi (paragraph [0041] “The electronic device 100 may include a Central Processing Unit (CPU) 110, a memory device 120, storage medium 130, an input control 140, a network interface 160, a MODEM 150, a display 170, etc. The input control 140 may interface with a keyboard 180, a mouse 190, and other input devices. The electronic device 100 may receive through the input control 140 input data necessary for creating models in the block diagram modeling environment, such as the selection of the attributes and operations of component blocks in the models. The electronic device 100 may display in the display 170 the models generated in the block diagram modeling environment.”, Ciolfi paragraph [0042] “The memory 120 fetches from the storage 130 and provides to the CPU 110 code that needs to be accessed by the CPU 110 to operate the electronic device 100 and to run the block diagram modeling environment. The storage 130 usually contains software tools for applications. The storage 130 includes, in particular, code 131 for the operating system (OS) of the device 100, code 132 for applications running on the operation system, such as applications for providing the block diagram modeling environment, and data 133 used or generated in the device 100, such as the data for block diagram models generated in the block diagram modeling environment.”)];
“generate, based on at least the system data, a system model that includes a set of
capabilities related to the set of components of the industrial system, wherein each capability included in the set of capabilities represents a corresponding industrial function of at least one component of the set of components of the industrial system” as [Ciolfi (paragraph [0041] “The electronic device 100 may receive through the input control 140 input data necessary for creating models in the block diagram modeling environment, such as the selection of the attributes and operations of component blocks in the models.”, Ciolfi paragraph [0049] “FIG. 3A is an exemplary functional model 220 for a distributed embedded system in the illustrative embodiment of the present. The functional model 220 includes functional units (F1, F2, . . . , Fn) 310-350. Each of the functional units (F1, F2, . . . , Fn) 310-350 is configured to include one or more blocks that perform a specific functional operation. The user interfaces 210 allow users to draw, edit, annotate, save, and print out block diagram representations. In building the block diagram model 220, users may use graphical user interfaces (GUIs) provided in the block modeling environment 200.”, Ciolfi paragraph [0063] “FIG. 6A depicts a typical automotive example of mapping the function units to the deployment model through the system integrator. The C1 block 661 models the user input such as the input received through an accelerator pedal. The C2 and C3 blocks 662 and 663 model a feedback control law representing, for example, "Brake-by-wire" and "Electronic Throttle Control" capabilities found within an automobile. The output of C2 block 662 represents a vector valued signal that is to be fed into the braking actuators which are physically separated from the location at which the signal calculation occurs.”, Figs. 3A, 6A)];
“provide the system model for display at a display device via a graphical user interface” as [Ciolfi (paragraph [0041] “The electronic device 100 may include a Central Processing Unit (CPU) 110, a memory device 120, storage medium 130, an input control 140, a network interface 160, a MODEM 150, a display 170, etc. The input control 140 may interface with a keyboard 180, a mouse 190, and other input devices. The electronic device 100 may receive through the input control 140 input data necessary for creating models in the block diagram modeling environment, such as the selection of the attributes and operations of component blocks in the models. The electronic device 100 may display in the display 170 the models generated in the block diagram modeling environment.”)];
“receiving, via the graphical user interface, an input that defines an additional capability related to an industrial function” as [Ciolfi (paragraph [0033] “Simulink.RTM. enables users to design a block diagram for a target system, simulate the system's behavior, analyze the performance of the system, and refine the design of the system. Simulink.RTM. allows users to design target systems through a user interface that allows drafting of block diagrams of the target systems. All of the blocks in a block library provided by Simulink.RTM. and other programs are available to users when the users are building the block diagram of the target systems. Individual users may be able to customize this model block to: (a) reorganize blocks in some custom format, (b) delete blocks they do not use, and (c) add custom blocks they have designed.”, Ciolfi paragraph [0049] “FIG. 3A is an exemplary functional model 220 for a distributed embedded system in the illustrative embodiment of the present. The functional model 220 includes functional units (F1, F2, . . . , Fn) 310-350. Each of the functional units (F1, F2, . . . , Fn) 310-350 is configured to include one or more blocks that perform a specific functional operation. The user interfaces 210 allow users to draw, edit, annotate, save, and print out block diagram representations. In building the block diagram model 220, users may use graphical user interfaces (GUIs) provided in the block modeling environment 200.”)];
“wherein the input includes (i) a custom subset of components of the set of components and (ii) a custom relationship between the subset of components, wherein the custom relationship controls functionality of the custom subset of components such that the custom subset of components perform the industrial function related to the additional capability” as [Ciolfi (paragraph [0033] “Simulink.RTM. enables users to design a block diagram for a target system, simulate the system's behavior, analyze the performance of the system, and refine the design of the system. Simulink.RTM. allows users to design target systems through a user interface that allows drafting of block diagrams of the target systems. All of the blocks in a block library provided by Simulink.RTM. and other programs are available to users when the users are building the block diagram of the target systems. Individual users may be able to customize this model block to: (a) reorganize blocks in some custom format, (b) delete blocks they do not use, and (c) add custom blocks they have designed.”, Ciolfi paragraph [0035] “The illustrative embodiment of the present invention provides two different views of a model for the multiprocessor system, including the functional view of the model (hereinafter referred to as "the functional model") and the architectural (or deployment) view of the model (hereinafter referred to as "the deployment model"). The functional model is represented as functional units and each unit is configured to include one or more elements that perform a specific functional operation. The deployment model includes multiple processing units (or processors) carrying out one or more processes (or tasks), such as programs and sets of instructions. In the illustrative embodiment, the functional units in the functional model can be mapped to the processing units or processors in the deployment model. For example, each of the functional units may be mapped to a different processor, a certain functional unit may be mapped to multiple processors, or several functional units may be mapped to a single processor.”, Ciolfi paragraph [0049] “FIG. 3A is an exemplary functional model 220 for a distributed embedded system in the illustrative embodiment of the present. The functional model 220 includes functional units (F1, F2, . . . , Fn) 310-350. Each of the functional units (F1, F2, . . . , Fn) 310-350 is configured to include one or more blocks that perform a specific functional operation. The user interfaces 210 allow users to draw, edit, annotate, save, and print out block diagram representations. In building the block diagram model 220, users may use graphical user interfaces (GUIs) provided in the block modeling environment 200.”)];
“and configure, based on the additional capability, the custom subset of components to perform the industrial function related to the additional capability” as [Ciolfi (paragraph [0035] “The illustrative embodiment of the present invention provides for modeling a multiprocessor system in a block diagram modeling environment. The illustrative embodiment of the present invention provides two different views of a model for the multiprocessor system, including the functional view of the model (hereinafter referred to as "the functional model") and the architectural (or deployment) view of the model (hereinafter referred to as "the deployment model"). The functional model is represented as functional units and each unit is configured to include one or more elements that perform a specific functional operation.”, Ciolfi paragraph [0036] “This feature of the present invention enables a plurality of teams to work on separate functional units in a single model and the separate functional units to be combined into the deployment model. For example, when modeling a vehicle system, a plurality of teams can work on separate functional units of the vehicle system, including an engine unit, a brake unit, etc.”, Ciolfi paragraph [0039] “In the distributed embedded system, each processor has a defined role and performs different tasks from other processors. In the parallel computing or processing system, an algorithm, such as a filtering algorithm, is performed by executing different portions of the algorithm in parallel on different processors to produce the answer faster.”)];
With respect to claim 2, Ciolfi discloses “wherein the system model includes a set of components with relationships, wherein each relationship governs interaction between at least two components included in the set of components.” as [Ciolfi (paragraph [0049] “FIG. 3A is an exemplary functional model 220 for a distributed embedded system in the illustrative embodiment of the present. The functional model 220 includes functional units (F1, F2, . . . , Fn) 310-350. Each of the functional units (F1, F2, . . . , Fn) 310-350 is configured to include one or more blocks that perform a specific functional operation. The user interfaces 210 allow users to draw, edit, annotate, save, and print out block diagram representations. In building the block diagram model 220, users may use graphical user interfaces (GUIs) provided in the block modeling environment 200.”, Fig. 3A, Fig. 3A of the Ciolfi reference show F1 can interact with F2 and F4)];
With respect to claim 3, Ciolfi discloses “wherein each capability includes a subset of components included in the set of components and at least one relationship between at least two components included in the subset of components.” as [Ciolfi (paragraph [0049] “FIG. 3A is an exemplary functional model 220 for a distributed embedded system in the illustrative embodiment of the present. The functional model 220 includes functional units (F1, F2, . . . , Fn) 310-350. Each of the functional units (F1, F2, . . . , Fn) 310-350 is configured to include one or more blocks that perform a specific functional operation. The user interfaces 210 allow users to draw, edit, annotate, save, and print out block diagram representations. In building the block diagram model 220, users may use graphical user interfaces (GUIs) provided in the block modeling environment 200.”, The examiner considers the blocks to be the subset of components, since the functional units within the functional model include one or more blocks that perform a specific functional operation)];
With respect to claim 4, Ciolfi discloses “wherein the at least one relationship governs interaction between the at least two components.” as [Ciolfi (Fig. 3A, Fig. 3A of the Ciolfi shows the interaction between the different functional units)];
With respect to claim 5, Ciolfi discloses “wherein the at least one relationship is a custom relationship defined by an end-user based on an application of the industrial system.” as [Ciolfi (paragraph [0033] “Simulink.RTM. enables users to design a block diagram for a target system, simulate the system's behavior, analyze the performance of the system, and refine the design of the system. Simulink.RTM. allows users to design target systems through a user interface that allows drafting of block diagrams of the target systems. All of the blocks in a block library provided by Simulink.RTM. and other programs are available to users when the users are building the block diagram of the target systems. Individual users may be able to customize this model block to: (a) reorganize blocks in some custom format, (b) delete blocks they do not use, and (c) add custom blocks they have designed.”, Ciolfi paragraph [0049] “FIG. 3A is an exemplary functional model 220 for a distributed embedded system in the illustrative embodiment of the present. The functional model 220 includes functional units (F1, F2, . . . , Fn) 310-350. Each of the functional units (F1, F2, . . . , Fn) 310-350 is configured to include one or more blocks that perform a specific functional operation. The user interfaces 210 allow users to draw, edit, annotate, save, and print out block diagram representations. In building the block diagram model 220, users may use graphical user interfaces (GUIs) provided in the block modeling environment 200.”, Users can customize the model block, which demonstrates there is a custom relationship defined by a user)];
With respect to claim 6, Ciolfi discloses “wherein the set of components includes a first component and a second component, wherein the first component is associated with a first capability of the set of capabilities and the second component is associated with a second capability of the set of capabilities, wherein the first capability is different from the second capability.” as [Ciolfi (paragraph [0049] “FIG. 3A is an exemplary functional model 220 for a distributed embedded system in the illustrative embodiment of the present. The functional model 220 includes functional units (F1, F2, . . . , Fn) 310-350. Each of the functional units (F1, F2, . . . , Fn) 310-350 is configured to include one or more blocks that perform a specific functional operation. The user interfaces 210 allow users to draw, edit, annotate, save, and print out block diagram representations. In building the block diagram model 220, users may use graphical user interfaces (GUIs) provided in the block modeling environment 200.”, Ciolfi paragraph [0063] “FIG. 6A depicts a typical automotive example of mapping the function units to the deployment model through the system integrator. The C1 block 661 models the user input such as the input received through an accelerator pedal. The C2 and C3 blocks 662 and 663 model a feedback control law representing, for example, "Brake-by-wire" and "Electronic Throttle Control" capabilities found within an automobile. The output of C2 block 662 represents a vector valued signal that is to be fed into the braking actuators which are physically separated from the location at which the signal calculation occurs.”, Fig. 3A, The blocks of the functional units perform specific functional operation)];
With respect to claim 10, Ciolfi discloses “wherein the electronic processor is further configured to configure the custom subset of components to interact according to the custom relationship to perform the industrial function” as [Ciolfi (paragraph [0035] “The illustrative embodiment of the present invention provides two different views of a model for the multiprocessor system, including the functional view of the model (hereinafter referred to as "the functional model") and the architectural (or deployment) view of the model (hereinafter referred to as "the deployment model"). The functional model is represented as functional units and each unit is configured to include one or more elements that perform a specific functional operation. The deployment model includes multiple processing units (or processors) carrying out one or more processes (or tasks), such as programs and sets of instructions. In the illustrative embodiment, the functional units in the functional model can be mapped to the processing units or processors in the deployment model. For example, each of the functional units may be mapped to a different processor, a certain functional unit may be mapped to multiple processors, or several functional units may be mapped to a single processor.”, Ciolfi paragraph [0049] “FIG. 3A is an exemplary functional model 220 for a distributed embedded system in the illustrative embodiment of the present. The functional model 220 includes functional units (F1, F2, . . . , Fn) 310-350. Each of the functional units (F1, F2, . . . , Fn) 310-350 is configured to include one or more blocks that perform a specific functional operation. The user interfaces 210 allow users to draw, edit, annotate, save, and print out block diagram representations. In building the block diagram model 220, users may use graphical user interfaces (GUIs) provided in the block modeling environment 200.”)];
With respect to claim 11, Ciolfi discloses “wherein the system data associated with the industrial system includes a set of components, wherein the set of components includes at least one selected from a group consisting of a device associated with the industrial system, a state associated with the industrial system, and a process associated with the industrial system.” as [Ciolfi (paragraph [0041] “The electronic device 100 may receive through the input control 140 input data necessary for creating models in the block diagram modeling environment, such as the selection of the attributes and operations of component blocks in the models. The electronic device 100 may display in the display 170 the models generated in the block diagram modeling environment. The network interface 160 and the MODEM 150 enable the electronic device 100 to communicate with other electronic devices through communication networks”, The examiner considers the selection of the attributes and operations of the component blocks to be the selection of a component, since the functional units include one or more blocks that perform a specific functional operation)];
With respect to claim 12, Ciolfi discloses “wherein the electronic processor is further configured to generate a hierarchical representation of the system model for display.” as [Ciolfi (paragraph [0062] “FIG. 5 depicts another exemplary deployment model having a hierarchical structure in the illustrative embodiment. In the hierarchical structure of the distributed embedded system, at least one node block of the deployment model 230 may reference a sub-model that implements another or second distributed embedded system.”, Fig. 5)];
With respect to claim 13, Ciolfi discloses “A method for modeling capabilities within system models of industrial systems” as [Ciolfi (paragraph [0007] “ In another aspect of the present invention, a method is provided for generating a model for a multiprocessor system in a modeling environment. A plurality of nodes are displayed on a display, wherein the nodes represent processing units of the multiprocessor system.”, Ciolfi paragraph [0049] “FIG. 3A is an exemplary functional model 220 for a distributed embedded system in the illustrative embodiment of the present. The functional model 220 includes functional units (F1, F2, . . . , Fn) 310-350. Each of the functional units (F1, F2, . . . , Fn) 310-350 is configured to include one or more blocks that perform a specific functional operation.”, Ciolfi paragraph [0041] “The electronic device 100 may receive through the input control 140 input data necessary for creating models in the block diagram modeling environment, such as the selection of the attributes and operations of component blocks in the models.”)];
The other limitations of the claim recite the same substantive limitations as claim 1 above and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 14, Ciolfi discloses “receiving a user input defining a new capability, the user input indicating a custom relationship between two or more components included in the set of components, wherein generating the system model includes generating the system model based at least in part on the new capability.” as [Ciolfi (paragraph [0033] “Simulink.RTM. enables users to design a block diagram for a target system, simulate the system's behavior, analyze the performance of the system, and refine the design of the system. Simulink.RTM. allows users to design target systems through a user interface that allows drafting of block diagrams of the target systems. All of the blocks in a block library provided by Simulink.RTM. and other programs are available to users when the users are building the block diagram of the target systems. Individual users may be able to customize this model block to: (a) reorganize blocks in some custom format, (b) delete blocks they do not use, and (c) add custom blocks they have designed.”, Ciolfi paragraph [0049] “FIG. 3A is an exemplary functional model 220 for a distributed embedded system in the illustrative embodiment of the present. The functional model 220 includes functional units (F1, F2, . . . , Fn) 310-350. Each of the functional units (F1, F2, . . . , Fn) 310-350 is configured to include one or more blocks that perform a specific functional operation. The user interfaces 210 allow users to draw, edit, annotate, save, and print out block diagram representations. In building the block diagram model 220, users may use graphical user interfaces (GUIs) provided in the block modeling environment 200.”, Users can customize the model block, which demonstrates there is a custom relationship defined by a user)];
With respect to claim 15, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 3 and 5 above and is rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 16, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 6, above and is rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 17, Ciolfi discloses “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by an electronic processor, perform a set of functions” as [Ciolfi (paragraph [0041] “The electronic device 100 may include a Central Processing Unit (CPU) 110, a memory device 120, storage medium 130, an input control 140, a network interface 160, a MODEM 150, a display 170, etc.”, Ciolfi paragraph [0049] “FIG. 3A is an exemplary functional model 220 for a distributed embedded system in the illustrative embodiment of the present. The functional model 220 includes functional units (F1, F2, . . . , Fn) 310-350. Each of the functional units (F1, F2, . . . , Fn) 310-350 is configured to include one or more blocks that perform a specific functional operation.”, Fig. 1A)];
The other limitations of the claim recite the same substantive limitations as claim 1 above and are rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 19, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 10, above and is rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 20, the claim recites the same substantive limitations as claim 12, above and is rejected using the same teachings.
With respect to claim 21, Ciolfi discloses “wherein the electronic processor is further configured to: re-generate, based on the input, the system model to include the additional capability” as [Ciolfi (paragraph [0037] “Alternatively, users can be allowed to create and edit the deployment model directly to include functional elements or blocks in the processing units independently of the functional model. When the users directly create a deployment model, there is no functional model and the users are free to edit and rearrange the deployment model as they wish. However, if the users start creating a functional model, and then request the system to generate a deployment model, the users may be restricted in editing the deployment model. For example, it may be desirable to disallow editing the structure of the deployment model. Editing within the nodes of the deployment model can be allowed. The restrictions are optional, but aid in ensuring that the deployment model is synchronized with the functional model. In particular, if the users regenerate the deployment model, their edits to the previously generated deployment model should not be lost. Ensuring those edits to the previously generated deployment model are not lost is achieved by restricting the type of edits such that the edits can be automatically translated back to the functional model. For example, the functional model may contain units that are mapped to specific processors in the deployment model. If the users edit with the unit and don't change the external interface (e.g. inputs and outputs) of the unit, then the changes can be automatically updated or reflected in the functional mode”)];
“and provide the system model as re-generated for display at the display device via the graphical user interface.” as [Ciolfi (paragraph [0041] “The electronic device 100 may include a Central Processing Unit (CPU) 110, a memory device 120, storage medium 130, an input control 140, a network interface 160, a MODEM 150, a display 170, etc. The input control 140 may interface with a keyboard 180, a mouse 190, and other input devices. The electronic device 100 may receive through the input control 140 input data necessary for creating models in the block diagram modeling environment, such as the selection of the attributes and operations of component blocks in the models. The electronic device 100 may display in the display 170 the models generated in the block diagram modeling environment.”)];
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of Muehleck et al. (WO 0011579) is a computer-aided system which is capable of displaying component and process structures for configurable product classes, where the product classes being stored in a data structure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD E COTHRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5594. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -5:30PM EST M-F.
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 F 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.
/BERNARD E COTHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights