DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 8, and 16 are amended. Claims 17 and 18 are added.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. 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: Claims 1-13, 17, and 18 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes. Claim 14 is directed to a processor and falls within the statutory category of machines. Claim 15 is directed to a system and falls within the statutory category of machines. Claim 16 is directed to a medium and falls within the statutory category of articles of manufacture.
Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1 and 14-16: The limitation of “determining an execution time of the subtask…,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can easily take a set of two values, a start time and an end time, and from those values do a simple subtraction step in order to determine an execution time.
Claim 18: The limitation of “computation of components of the user information…,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Paragraph [0018] of the specification clarifies the nature of such components to be computed, stating that it “comprises in particular the computation of average values, minimum values and / or maximum values…” Clearly, computation of averages, minimums, and maximum values can be performed in the human mind.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 14-16 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 14-16, and 18: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements – “a real time system executed on a computer core of a processor,” “executing tasks on the computer core…,” “memory,” “a processor comprising at least one computer core…,” “a real time system comprising at least one processor…,” “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium…,” and “an end event,” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)) which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claims 1, 14-16, and 18 recite the following additional elements – “recording a first processor time…,” “recording a second processor time…” “storing a time information…,” “time information on a number of computing steps predetermined or predefined per task is stored in memory…,” and “an end event is received,” which are merely recitations insignificant post-solution data storage and reporting activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and will also be addressed below in Step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claim 8 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 14-16, and 18: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, 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 amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, to the extent that “recording a first processor time…,” “recording a second processor time…” “storing a time information…,” “time information on a number of computing steps predetermined or predefined per task is stored in memory…,” and “an end event is received” are positively recited steps of storing and receiving data, this would be insignificant extra-solution data gathering and reporting activity which is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 14-16, and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 2-13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non-statutory for at least the reasons stated above. The claims are dependent on claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the non-statutory deficiencies of claim 1. For instance, the claims simply include additional clarifications on the nature of the various claimed items or the algorithm for the mental process rejected above and for when or how it should be executed. Claims 2-13 and 17 do not add any steps or elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 2-13 and 17 are therefore not drawn to patent-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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lao et al (U.S. Pat. No. 9448833 B1, hereinafter Lao).
Lao was cited in the previous office action.
As per claim 1, Lao teaches the limitations as claimed, including a method for documenting computing steps of a real time system executed on a computer core of a processor, the method comprising:
executing tasks on the computer core, the tasks comprise one or more subtasks, wherein during a computing step in each case a subtask of a task is executed (Abstract, Lines 1-2);
recording a first processor time at a beginning of a computing step (Col. 5, Lines 46-48);
recording a second processor time at an end of a computing step (Col. 5, Lines 46-48);
storing a time information based on the first and the second processor time in memory, the time information being stored in the memory such that it corresponds to the subtask and the task that was executed during the computing step (Col. 5, Lines 46-48); and
determining an execution time of the subtask by assigning the first processor time and the second processor time stored in the memory to exactly one subtask (Col. 5, Lines 32-57 teaches storing start and stop times for individual subtasks).
As per claim 2, Lao teaches that the processor time is a local time determined by the processor, which depends in particular on the clocking of the processor (Col. 5, Lines 46-48).
As per claim 5, Lao teaches that time information on a number of computing steps predetermined or predefined per task is stored in memory and / or time information on the computing steps of a number of periods predetermined or predefined per task is stored in memory (Col. 12, Lines 37-49).
As per claim 6, Lao teaches that a plurality of subtasks of a task are combined into a group and the user information depends on the time information on the computing steps of the group of subtasks of the task (Col. 12, Lines 50-67, where by definition, subtasks are combined into a group, that group being the task of which they are subtasks).
As per claim 14, it is a processor claim with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 15, it is a system claim with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 16, it is a computer program product claim with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lao in view of Ainslie et al (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0331408 A1, hereinafter Ainslie).
Ainslie was cited in the previous office action.
As per claim 3, Lao does not expressly teach that a user interface is provided with a user information dependent on the time information, wherein the user information is based on the execution time of the computing step.
However, Ainslie teaches that a user interface is provided with a user information dependent on the time information, wherein the user information is based on the execution time of the computing step (Paragraph [0089]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Ainslie with those of Lao in order to allow for Lao’s method to give updated information to users, which could be used in decision making, helping to improve the efficiency of tasks monitored in the method, which could potentially increase buy-in among prospective users.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lao in view of Garofalakis et al (U.S. Pat. No. 5845279, hereinafter Garofalakis).
Garofalakis was cited in the previous office action.
As per claim 4, Lao does not expressly teach that the tasks comprise periodic tasks, the execution of which is repeated with a period, and wherein, during a period, one or more subtasks of the task are executed.
However, Garofalakis teaches that the tasks comprise periodic tasks, the execution of which is repeated with a period, and wherein, during a period, one or more subtasks of the task are executed (Col. 9, Lines 59-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Garofalakis with those of Lao in order to allow for Lao’s method to work with a wide variety of tasks, helping to increase its flexibility in solving users’ problems, which could increase buy-in among prospective users.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lao in view of Khoukhi et al (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0188273 A1, hereinafter Khoukhi).
Khouki was cited in the previous office action.
As per claim 7, Lao does not teach that an automatic control or a simulated technical environment, comprising an internal control, is simulated by the real time system and a subtask of the task or a group of subtasks of the task relate to a control algorithm of the automatic control or the internal control.
However, Khoukhi teaches that an automatic control or a simulated technical environment, comprising an internal control, is simulated by the real time system and a subtask of the task or a group of subtasks of the task relate to a control algorithm of the automatic control or the internal control (Paragraph [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Khoukhi with those of Lao in order to allow for Lao’s method to work with a wide variety of environments, helping to increase its flexibility in solving users’ problems, which could increase buy-in among prospective users.
As per claim 8, Lao does not expressly teach that components of the user information are computed using time information stored in memory for a plurality of computing steps.
However, Khoukhi teaches that components of the user information are computed using time information stored in memory for a plurality of computing steps (Paragraph [0040).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Khoukhi with those of Lao in order to allow for Lao’s method to work with a wide variety of environments, helping to increase its flexibility in solving users’ problems, which could increase buy-in among prospective users.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lao in view of Kamiya et al (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0264922 A1, hereinafter Kamiya).
Kamiya was cited in the previous office action.
As per claim 12, Lao does not expressly teach that there are tasks of different priority and the execution of a subtask of a task of a lower priority is interrupted by the execution of a subtask of a task of a higher priority, and wherein the user information comprises the duration of the interrupt of the execution of the lower priority task.
However, Kamiya teaches that there are tasks of different priority and the execution of a subtask of a task of a lower priority is interrupted by the execution of a subtask of a task of a higher priority, and wherein the user information comprises the duration of the interrupt of the execution of the lower priority task (Paragraph [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Kamiya with those of Lao in order to allow for Lao’s method to ensure that important work is done efficiently and is not held up by less critical items, which could increase the reliability of the method.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to previously existing rejections, applicant argues the following in the remarks:
a. On page 7, applicant argues that claim 8 should not be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it does not include any limitations that can be performed by the human mind.
b. On page 8, applicant argues that the Lao reference fails to teach the newly amended claim language of claim 1.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant:
a. The examiner would point out that because claim 8 depends from claim 1, it includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 1’s limitations include “determining an execution time…” in a step that would require nothing more than a simple subtraction and could therefore be performed in the human mind. Thus, the rejection stands.
b. The examiner would point out that Lao does teach recording start and stop times individually for different subtasks and further teaches computation and aggregation of various statistics based on those recordings. Thus, the rejection stands.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory Kessler whose telephone number is (571)270-7762. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 - 5, Alternate Fridays 8:30-4.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at (571)272-3338. 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.
/GREGORY A KESSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197