Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/22/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 01/22/2026 has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1, 12, and 15 have been amended.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-11 is directed to using a computing device to perform steps for testing equipment failure, claim 12-18 is directed to a method using a computing device to perform steps for test equipment failure, and claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method for testing equipment failure. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 12:
A method, comprising:
initiating, by a processor of a first computing device, a test on a first device- under-test connected in electronic communication with the first computing device, wherein the first device-under-test is connected in electronic communication with the first computing device via a first of a plurality of communication ports;
monitoring, by the processor, a status of the test on the first device-under-test;
in response to the monitoring indicating a failed test, incrementing a counter, wherein the counter indicates a total number of failures on the first of the plurality of communication ports;
in response to the monitoring indicating any passed test, resetting the counter;
storing a value of the counter in a memory of the first computing device.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“monitoring, by the processor, a status of the test on the first device-under-test” is directed to a mental step of data gathering.
“in response to the monitoring indicating a failed test, incrementing a counter, wherein the counter indicates a total number of failures on the first of the plurality of communication ports” is directed to math, specifically the field of statistics and data analysis because the most basic relation is simply counting the number of failures, which is a fundamental mathematical operation and calculating the total number of failures is often a component in determining system reliability metrics like: Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF): This metric represents the average time between failures, and calculating it involves dividing the total operational hours by the number of failures; Failure Rate: This indicates how often failures occur within a specified time period, and it's calculated by dividing the number of failures by the total time; Probability of Failure (PoF): This is the probability that a system or component will fail, and it can be calculated using the MTBF.
“in response to the monitoring indicating any passed test, resetting the counter” is directed to mathematical because in mathematics and programming, a counter tracks the index of a sequence. Resetting it often defines a new sub-sequence, such as resetting a counter to 1 when start a new chapter or dataset.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “calculation” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of “in response to the monitoring indicating a failed test, incrementing a counter, wherein the counter indicates a total number of failures on the first of the plurality of communication ports; ; in response to the monitoring indicating any passed test, resetting the counter” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“initiating, by a processor of a first computing device, a test on a first device- under-test connected in electronic communication with the first computing device, wherein the first device-under-test is connected in electronic communication with the first computing device via a first of a plurality of communication ports” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“monitoring, by the processor, a status of the test on the first device-under-test” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“in response to the monitoring indicating a failed test, incrementing a counter, wherein the counter indicates a total number of failures on the first of the plurality of communication ports” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“in response to the monitoring indicating any passed test, resetting the counter” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“storing a value of the counter in a memory of the first computing device” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim is merely collecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“initiating, by a processor of a first computing device, a test on a first device- under-test connected in electronic communication with the first computing device, wherein the first device-under-test is connected in electronic communication with the first computing device via a first of a plurality of communication ports” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“monitoring, by the processor, a status of the test on the first device-under-test” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“in response to the monitoring indicating a failed test, incrementing a counter, wherein the counter indicates a total number of failures on the first of the plurality of communication ports” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“in response to the monitoring indicating any passed test, resetting the counter” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“storing a value of the counter in a memory of the first computing device” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The step of monitoring for a passed test, resetting a counter, and storing a value in memory are generally considered “well-understood, routine, and conventional” activities. Under the Allice/Mayo two-step framework, these elements typically do not amount to “significantly more” than a judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 1:
A system comprising:
a first device-under-test comprising a communication port; and a first computing device comprising: a processor; a memory; a display device; and a plurality of communication ports; wherein a first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device is configured to be connected in electronic communication with the communication port of the first device-under-test; wherein the processor of the first computing device is configured to:
monitor a status of a test performed on the first device-under-test;
in response to the status indicating a failed test, increment a counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device indicating a total number of failures on the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device;
in response to the status indicating a passed test, reset the counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device, wherein the counter is reset for any passed test of the first device-under-test;
store a value of the counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device in the memory of the first computing device; and
in response to the value of the counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device being greater than a threshold, cause the display device of the first computing device to display an indicator that a consecutive number of failures is greater than the threshold;
in response to the value of the counter being less than the threshold, continue to monitor the status of the test performed on the device-under-test.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“monitor a status of a test performed on the first device-under-test” is directed to a mental step of data gathering
“in response to the status indicating a failed test, increment a counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device indicating a total number of failures on the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device” is directed to math, specifically the field of statistics and data analysis because the most basic relation is simply counting the number of failures, which is a fundamental mathematical operation and calculating the total number of failures is often a component in determining system reliability metrics like: Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF): This metric represents the average time between failures, and calculating it involves dividing the total operational hours by the number of failures; Failure Rate: This indicates how often failures occur within a specified time period, and it's calculated by dividing the number of failures by the total time; Probability of Failure (PoF): This is the probability that a system or component will fail, and it can be calculated using the MTBF.
“in response to the status indicating a passed test, reset the counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device, wherein the counter is reset for any passed test of the first device-under-test” is directed to mathematical because in mathematics and programming, a counter tracks the index of a sequence. Resetting it often defines a new sub-sequence, such as resetting a counter to 1 when start a new chapter or dataset.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “calculation” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of “in response to the status indicating a failed test, increment a counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device indicating a total number of failures on the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device; in response to the status indicating a passed test, reset the counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device, wherein the counter is reset for any passed test of the first device-under-test” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“A system comprising: a first device-under-test comprising a communication port; and a first computing device comprising: a processor; a memory; a display device; and a plurality of communication ports; wherein a first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device is configured to be connected in electronic communication with the communication port of the first device-under-test; wherein the processor of the first computing device is configured” recited in the preamble does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“monitor a status of a test performed on the first device-under-test” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“in response to the status indicating a failed test, increment a counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device indicating a total number of failures on the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“in response to the status indicating a passed test, reset the counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device, wherein the counter is reset for any passed test of the first device-under-test” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“store a value of the counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device in the memory of the first computing device” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“in response to the value of the counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device being greater than a threshold, cause the display device of the first computing device to display an indicator that a consecutive number of failures is greater than the threshold” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
“in response to the value of the counter being less than the threshold, continue to monitor the status of the test performed on the device-under-test” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim is merely gathering data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“A system comprising: a first device-under-test comprising a communication port; and a first computing device comprising: a processor; a memory; a display device; and a plurality of communication ports; wherein a first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device is configured to be connected in electronic communication with the communication port of the first device-under-test; wherein the processor of the first computing device is configured” recited in the preamble does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“monitor a status of a test performed on the first device-under-test” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“in response to the status indicating a failed test, increment a counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device indicating a total number of failures on the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“in response to the status indicating a passed test, reset the counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device, wherein the counter is reset for any passed test of the first device-under-test” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“store a value of the counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device in the memory of the first computing device” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“in response to the value of the counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device being greater than a threshold, cause the display device of the first computing device to display an indicator that a consecutive number of failures is greater than the threshold” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
“in response to the value of the counter being less than the threshold, continue to monitor the status of the test performed on the device-under-test” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
The step of monitoring for a passed test, resetting a counter, and storing a value in memory are generally considered “well-understood, routine, and conventional” activities. Under the Allice/Mayo two-step framework, these elements typically do not amount to “significantly more” than a judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea similar to claim 12. The additional elements (i.e., A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform the steps) are recited at a high level of generality, necessary, routine, or conventional to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. When considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See Alice Corp. and 2014 Interim Guidance.
Dependent claims 2-11, 13-18, and 20 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Hence the claims 1-20 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
Claim(s) 12, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poppe et al. US 2021/0073094 (“herafter” as Poppe) in view of Vogley (US 6,617,872).
Regarding claims 12 and 19, Poppe disclose a computer and method, comprising: initiating, by a processor of a first computing device (110a), a test on a first device-under-test (130a) connected in electronic communication with the first computing device (110a), wherein the first device-under-test is connected in electronic communication with the first computing device via a first of a plurality of communication ports (120) (see Fig.1, para. [0084]); monitoring, by the processor, a status of the test on the first device-under-test (para. [0085]-[0086], [0089]); in response to the monitoring indicating a failed test, incrementing a counter, wherein the counter indicates a total number of failures on the first of the plurality of communication ports (e.g. para. [0059], [0214]); storing a value of the counter in a memory of the first computing device (para. [0214]].
Poppe disclose the passed test (para. [0089]). However, Poppe fails to disclose in response to the monitoring indicating any passed test, resetting the counter.
Vogley teaches in response to the monitoring indicating any passed test, resetting the counter (e.g. Col.4, lines 12-23: in the step 132 counter is incremented and the power supply output voltage is modified in accordance with the changed sequence number in the counter. At this point, the procedure goes to step 134 to determine whether this is the first pass for the margin test. In step 136 if it is the first pass, the test counters are reset, and status is reflected to the microprocessor in step 138. In step 150 determines the procedure goes to the step 152. Test counters are reset, and the status is reflected to the microprocessor. Thereafter the procedure goes to the step 154 for a comparison to determine whether or not this is the last frequency margin pass. In step 156 if it is not the last pass, the procedure goes through step 144 and back to step 118. ... Thereafter in steps 140 and 142, a determination is made whether this is the last voltage margin test. If it is not the last voltage margin test, the voltage margin test is started again in step 144. The procedure returns to step 118 and loops back through the voltage margin test). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate in response to the monitoring indicating any passed test, resetting the counter of Vogley with the method of Poppe for the purposes of providing a low cost high speed integrated circuit test arrangement for testing plurality device under test.
Regarding claim 18, Poppe disclose feature of claim18, except in response to the monitoring indicating a passed test, resetting the counter
Vogley teaches in response to the monitoring indicating a passed test, resetting the counter (e.g. Col.4, lines 15-17).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate in response to the monitoring indicating a passed test, resetting the counter of Vogley with the method of Poppe for the purposes of providing a low cost high speed integrated circuit test arrangement for testing plurality device under test.
Claim(s) 13-17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poppe et al. US 2021/0073094 (“herafter” as Poppe) in view of Vogley (US 6,617,872) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Wen et al. US 12,164,400 (“hereafter” as Wen).
Regarding claim 13, the combination Poppe and Vogley fail to disclose comparing, by the processor, the counter to a threshold; and in response to the value of the counter being greater than a threshold, displaying, on a display device of the first computing device, an indicator that a consecutive number of failures is greater than the threshold; in response to the value of the counter being less than the threshold, monitoring the status of the test performed on the first device-under-test.
Wen teaches comparing, by the processor, the counter to a threshold; and in response to the value of the counter being greater than a threshold, displaying, on a display device of the first computing device, an indicator that a consecutive number of failures is greater than the threshold (e.g. Col.6, lines 26-43, Col.6, line 62-Col.7, line 23); in response to the value of the counter being less than the threshold, monitoring the status of the test performed on the first device-under-test (e.g. Col.12, 44-53: Additional testing is performed on the device under test based on the probability of failure at operation 630). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate comparing, by the processor, the counter to a threshold; and in response to the value of the counter being greater than a threshold, displaying, on a display device of the first computing device, an indicator that a consecutive number of failures is greater than the threshold; in response to the value of the counter being less than the threshold, monitoring the status of the test performed on the first device-under-test of Wen with the method of Poppe in view of Vogley for the purposes of providing a high frequency data acquisition rate during the testing.
Regarding claim 14, Poppe discloses determining, by the processor, a total number of failed tests executed on the first of the plurality of communication ports; determining, by the processor, a value of a total number of tests executed on the first of the plurality of communication ports (para. [0059]); storing the percentage (number) of failures for the first of the plurality of communication ports in the memory of the first computing device (para. [0214]).
Poppe fail to disclose in response to the total of number of tests exceeding a threshold, determining, by the processor, a failure percentage based on the total number of failed tests and the total number of tests.
Wen teaches in response to the total of number of tests exceeding a threshold, determining, by the processor, a failure percentage based on the total number of failed tests and the total number of tests; storing the failure percentage for the first of the plurality of communication ports in the memory of the first computing device (e.g. Col.6, line 63-Col.7, lines 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate n response to the total of number of tests exceeding a threshold, determining, by the processor, a failure percentage based on the total number of failed tests and the total number of tests; storing the failure percentage for the first of the plurality of communication ports in the memory of the first computing device of Wen with the method of Poppe in view of Vogley for the purposes of providing a high frequency data acquisition rate during the testing.
Regarding claim 15, Poppe discloses initiating, by the processor of the first computing device, a test on a second device-under-test (130b), wherein the second device-under-test is connected in electronic communication with the first computing device via a second of a plurality of communication ports; monitoring, by the processor, a status of the test on the second device-under-test (see Poppe, Fig.1, para. [0084]-[0086], [0089])); in response to the monitoring indicating a failed test, incrementing a counter, wherein the counter indicates a total number of failures on the second of the plurality of communication ports (e.g. para. [0059], [0214]); storing a value of the counter in the memory of the first computing device (e.g. para. [0214]).
Poppe fails to disclose in response to the monitoring indicating a passed test, resetting the counter
Vogley teaches in response to the monitoring indicating a passed test, resetting the counter (e.g. Col.4, lines 15-17).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate in response to the monitoring indicating a passed test, resetting the counter of Vogley with the method of Poppe for the purposes of providing a low cost high speed integrated circuit test arrangement for testing plurality device under test.
Regarding claim 16, Poppe discloses determining, by the processor, a total number of failed tests executed on the second of the plurality of communication ports; determining, by the processor, a value of a total number of tests executed on the second of the plurality of communication ports (para. [0059]); storing the percentage (number) of failures for the second of the plurality of communication ports in the memory of the first computing device (para. [0214]).
Poppe fail to disclose in response to the total of number of tests exceeding a threshold, determining, by the processor, a failure percentage based on the total number of failed tests and the total number of tests.
Wen teaches in response to the total of number of tests exceeding a threshold, determining, by the processor, a failure percentage based on the total number of failed tests and the total number of tests; storing the failure percentage for the first of the plurality of communication ports in the memory of the first computing device (e.g. Col.6, line 63-Col.7, lines 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate in response to the total of number of tests exceeding a threshold, determining, by the processor, a failure percentage based on the total number of failed tests and the total number of tests; storing the failure percentage for the first of the plurality of communication ports in the memory of the first computing device of Wen with the method of Poppe in view of Vogley for the purposes of providing a high frequency data acquisition rate during the testing.
Regarding claim 17, the combination Poppe and Vogley fail to disclose comparing the failure percentage for the first of the plurality of communication ports and the failure percentage for the second of the plurality of communication ports; and in response to the first of the plurality of communication ports having a higher failure percentage than the second of the plurality of communication ports, displaying, on a display device of the first computing device, an indicator that the first of the plurality of communication ports is failing at a higher rate than the second of the plurality of communication ports.
Wen teaches comparing the failure percentage for the first of the plurality of communication ports and the failure percentage for the second of the plurality of communication ports; and in response to the first of the plurality of communication ports having a higher failure percentage than the second of the plurality of communication ports, displaying, on a display device of the first computing device, an indicator that the first of the plurality of communication ports is failing at a higher rate than the second of the plurality of communication ports (e.g. Col.6, lines 26-43, Col.6, line 62-Col.7, line 23). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate comparing the failure percentage for the first of the plurality of communication ports and the failure percentage for the second of the plurality of communication ports; and in response to the first of the plurality of communication ports having a higher failure percentage than the second of the plurality of communication ports, displaying, on a display device of the first computing device, an indicator that the first of the plurality of communication ports is failing at a higher rate than the second of the plurality of communication ports of Wen with the method of Poppe in view of Vogley for the purposes of providing a high frequency data acquisition rate during the testing.
Regarding claim 20, the combination Poppe of Vogley fail to disclose comparing the counter to a threshold; and in response to the value of the counter being greater than a threshold, displaying, on a display device, an indicator that a consecutive number of failures is greater than the threshold; in response to the value of the counter being less than the threshold, monitoring the status of the test performed on the device-under-test.
Wen teaches comparing the counter to a threshold; and in response to the value of the counter being greater than a threshold, displaying, on a display device, an indicator that a consecutive number of failures is greater than the threshold (e.g. Col.6, lines 26-43, Col.6, line 62-Col.7, line 23); in response to the value of the counter being less than the threshold, monitoring the status of the test performed on the device-under-test (e.g. Col.12, 44-53: Additional testing is performed on the device under test based on the probability of failure at operation 630). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate comparing the counter to a threshold; and in response to the value of the counter being greater than a threshold, displaying, on a display device, an indicator that a consecutive number of failures is greater than the threshold; in response to the value of the counter being less than the threshold, monitoring the status of the test performed on the device-under-test of Wen with the method of Poppe in view of Vogley for the purposes of providing a high frequency data acquisition rate during the testing.
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poppe et al. US 2021/0073094 (“herafter” as Poppe) in view of Vogley (US 6,617,872) and Wen et al. US 12,164,400 (“hereafter” as Wen).
Regarding claim 1, Poppe discloses a system comprising: a first device-under-test (130a) comprising a communication port; and a first computing device (110a) comprising: a processor; a memory; and a plurality of communication ports (see Fig.1, para. [0084]); wherein a first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device is configured to be connected in electronic communication with the communication port of the first device-under-test (130a); wherein the processor of the first computing device is configured to: monitor a status of a test performed on the first device-under-test (para. [0085]-[0086], [0089]); in response to the status indicating a failed test, increment a counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device indicating a total number of failures on the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device (e.g. para. [0059], [0214]); store a value of the counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device in the memory of the first computing device (para. [0214]].
Poppe fails to disclose in response to the status indicating a passed test, reset the counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device, wherein the counter is reset for any passed test of the first device-under-test; and in response to the value of the counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device being greater than a threshold, cause the display device of the first computing device to display an indicator that a consecutive number of failures is greater than the threshold; in response to the value of the counter being less than the threshold, continue to monitor the status of the test performed on the device-under-test.
Vogley teaches in response to the status indicating a passed test, reset the counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device, wherein the counter is reset for any passed test of the first device-under-test (e.g. Col.4, lines 12-23).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate in response to the status indicating a passed test, reset the counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device, wherein the counter is reset for any passed test of the first device-under-test of Vogley with the method of Poppe for the purposes of providing a low cost high speed integrated circuit test arrangement for testing plurality device under test.
Wen teaches in response to the value of the counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device being greater than a threshold, cause the display device of the first computing device to display an indicator that a consecutive number of failures is greater than the threshold (e.g. Col.6, lines 26-43, Col.6, line 62-Col.7, line 23); in response to the value of the counter being less than the threshold, continue to monitor the status of the test performed on the device-under-test (e.g. Col.12, 44-53: Additional testing is performed on the device under test based on the probability of failure at operation 630). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate comparing, by the processor, the counter to a threshold; and in response to the value of the counter being greater than a threshold, displaying, on a display device of the first computing device, an indicator that a consecutive number of failures is greater than the threshold; in response to the value of the counter being less than the threshold, monitoring the status of the test performed on the first device-under-test of Wen with the method of Poppe in view of Vogley for the purposes of providing a high frequency data acquisition rate during the testing.
Regarding claim 2, Poppe discloses a second device-under-test (130b) having a communication port; wherein a second of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device is configured to be connected in electronic communication with the communication port of the second device-under-test (130b) (see Fig.1, para. [0084]); wherein the processor of the first computing device is configured to: monitor a status of a test performed on the second device-under-test (para. [0085]-[0086], [0089]); in response to the status indicating a failed test, increment a counter associated with the second of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device indicating a total number of failures on the second of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device (e.g. para. [0059], [0214]); store a value of the counter associated with the second of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device in the memory of the first computing device (e.g. para. [0214]);
Poppe fails to disclose in response to the status indicating a passed test, reset the counter associated with the second of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device; in response to the value of the counter associated with the second of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device being greater than a threshold, cause the display device of the first computing device to display an indicator that a consecutive number of failures is greater than the threshold; in response to the value of the counter being less than the threshold, continue to monitor the status of the test performed on the device-under-test.
Vogley teaches in response to the status indicating a passed test, reset the counter associated with the second of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device (e.g. Col.4, lines 15-17).Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate in response to the status indicating a passed test, reset the counter associated with the second of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device of Vogley with the method of Poppe for the purposes of providing a low cost high speed integrated circuit test arrangement for testing plurality device under test.
Wen teaches in response to the value of the counter associated with the second of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device being greater than a threshold, cause the display device of the first computing device to display an indicator that a consecutive number of failures is greater than the threshold (e.g. Col.6, lines 26-43, Col.6, line 62-Col.7, line 23); in response to the value of the counter being less than the threshold, continue to monitor the status of the test performed on the device-under-test (e.g. Col.12, 44-53: Additional testing is performed on the device under test based on the probability of failure at operation 630). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate in response to the value of the counter associated with the second of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device being greater than a threshold, cause the display device of the first computing device to display an indicator that a consecutive number of failures is greater than the threshold; in response to the value of the counter being less than the threshold, continue to monitor the status of the test performed on the device-under-test of Wen with the method of Poppe in view of Vogley for the purposes of providing a high frequency data acquisition rate during the testing.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Poppe, Vogley, and Wen as discussed in claim 2, teach feature a third device-under-test having a communication port; wherein the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device is configured to be connected in electronic communication with the communication port of the third device-under-test after disconnection of the first device-under-test; wherein the processor of the first computing device is configured to: monitor a status of a test performed on the third device-under-test; in response to the status indicating a failed test, increment a counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device indicating a total number of failures on the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device; in response to the status indicating a passed test, reset the counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device; store a value of the counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device in the memory of the first computing device; and in response to the value of the counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device being greater than a threshold, cause the display device of the first computing device to display an indicator that a consecutive number of failures is greater than the threshold; in response to the value of the counter being less than the threshold, continue to monitor the status of the test performed on the device-under-test.
Regarding claim 4, the combination Poppe and Vogley fail to disclose wherein the processor of the first computing device is configured to periodically compute a first failure percentage of the first of the plurality of communication ports and a second failure percentage of the second of the plurality of communication ports; and wherein the processor of the first computing device is configured to cause the display device of the first computing device to display an indicator that one of the first failure percentage or the second failure percentage is higher than the other of the first failure percentage or the second failure percentage.
Wen teaches wherein the processor of the first computing device is configured to periodically compute a first failure percentage of the first of the plurality of communication ports and a second failure percentage of the second of the plurality of communication ports; and wherein the processor of the first computing device is configured to cause the display device of the first computing device to display an indicator that one of the first failure percentage or the second failure percentage is higher than the other of the first failure percentage or the second failure percentage (e.g. Col.6, lines 26-43, Col.6, line 62-Col.7, line 23). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate wherein the processor of the first computing device is configured to periodically compute a first failure percentage of the first of the plurality of communication ports and a second failure percentage of the second of the plurality of communication ports; and wherein the processor of the first computing device is configured to cause the display device of the first computing device to display an indicator that one of the first failure percentage or the second failure percentage is higher than the other of the first failure percentage or the second failure percentage of Wen with the method of Poppe in view of Vogley for the purposes of providing a high frequency data acquisition rate during the testing.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of of Poppe, Vogley, and Wen as discussed in claim 2, teach feature a second device-under-test having a communication port; a second computing device comprising: a processor; a memory; a display device; and a plurality of communication ports; wherein a first of the plurality of communication ports of the second computing device is configured to be connected in electronic communication with the communication port of the second device-under-test; wherein the processor of the second computing device is configured to: monitor a status of a test performed on the second device-under-test; in response to the status indicating a failed test, increment a counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the second computing device indicating a total number of failures on the first of the plurality of communication ports of the second computing device; in response to the status indicating a passed test, reset the counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the second computing device; store a value of the counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the second computing device in the memory of the second computing device; and in response to the value of the counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the second computing device being greater than a threshold, cause the display device of the second computing device to display an indicator that a consecutive number of failures is greater than the threshold; in response to the value of the counter being less than the threshold, continue to monitor the status of the test performed on the second device-under-test.
Regarding claim 6, Poppe discloses the first computing device (110a) and the second computing device (110b) are in a first group of computing devices (see Fig.1).
Regarding claim 7, Poppe discloses the first computing device is configured to receive an indication to disable port monitoring (HSIO 120) (e.g. para. [0121]: Also the ATE can notice that the command sequence has broken for some other reason, e.g. due to a failure of the HSIO DFT, which typically invalidates all the payload).
Regarding claim 8, Wen disclose the first computing device further comprises a light indicator, the light indicator configured to be enabled in response to the indicator being displayed on the display device (e.g. Col.17, lines 12-21, Col.15, lines 37-40).
Regarding claim 9, Wen disclose a server device (102), wherein the first computing device is connected in electronic communication with the server device, wherein the first computing device is configured to output a report to the server device (see Fig.1, Col.4, lines 29-58).
Regarding claim 10, Poppe discloses the first computing device is configured to periodically determine the counter for each of the plurality of communication ports (para. [0059], [0214]).
Regarding claim 11, Wen discloses in response to a restart of the first computing device, the monitoring is enabled (e.g. Col.12, 44-53: Additional testing is performed on the device under test based on the probability of failure at operation 630).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
-Applicant argues that claim 1 requires, in part, “a first computing device” that includes “a plurality of communication ports” and that “monitor[s] a status of a test performed on the first device-under-test.” The first computing device ultimately “display[s] an indicator that a consecutive number of failures is greater than the threshold.” Claim 1 includes operations that cannot be performed in the human mind and are not just mathematical fundamentals. Claim 1 requires a “computing device” to be able to detect failures “of a test performed on the first device-under-test.” The first computing device requires electronic communication with the device-under-test to be able to decipher whether the prescribed test was completed successfully. The human mind cannot perform this functionality. Notwithstanding the above, the system of claim 1 results in an improved first computing device because the first computing device can predict failures to the hardware that are contributing to failures of the tests on the device-under-test that are not in fact a result of some issue with the device-under-test. Eliminating the false positives can lead to more effective testing of the devices-under-test.
Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The recited steps alone can be done by a human mind and/or using pen and paper, so they are abstract ideas. Using “computing device” to detect failures “of a test performed on the first device-under-test.” Is merely applying the abstract data processing to a computer, not an improvement the computer itself.
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
It is unclear how the determination of the value of counter in improvement of the function of a computer or improvement another technology or technical filed. The step of “in response to the status indicating a failed test, increment a counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device indicating a total number of failures on the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device” is directed to math, specifically the field of statistics and data analysis because the most basic relation is simply counting the number of failures, which is a fundamental mathematical operation and calculating the total number of failures is often a component in determining system reliability metrics like: Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF): This metric represents the average time between failures, and calculating it involves dividing the total operational hours by the number of failures; Failure Rate: This indicates how often failures occur within a specified time period, and it's calculated by dividing the number of failures by the total time; Probability of Failure (PoF): This is the probability that a system or component will fail, and it can be calculated using the MTBF.
Based on USPTO guidance regarding patent eligibility (Alice/Mayo test), the limitation “in response to the status indicating a passed test, reset the counter associated with the first of the plurality of communication ports of the first computing device, wherein the counter is reset for any passed test of the first device-under-test” may not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, depending on whether it provide a specific technical improvement or merely automates a conventional process.
The claims do not provide a specific technical solution or improved to the operation of the computing device or communication system. The claims do not provide a meaningful, technical improvement to the computer’s functionality, rather than merely performing a routine, conventional activity (for example, if the counter reset specifically increases efficiency, reduces memory usage, or improves the accuracy of a specialized manufacturing tester, it can be considered a technical improvement).
Therefore, the discussed improvement (i.e. computing device) is related to an abstract idea itself, which is identifying an ordering of variable for a mathematical formula. As discussed in 2106.05(a)(II), an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology and does not improve computer functionality.
-Applicant argues that Vogley does not teach, “in response to the monitoring indicating any passed test, resetting the counter“ in claim 12 , “the counter is reset for any passed test of the first device-under-test.” and Vogley is not using the term “pass” and “the counter is reset for any passed test of the first device-under-test” in claim 1. Col. 4, lines 15-17 of Vogley states that “[a]t this point, the procedure goes to step 134 to determine whether this is the first pass for the margin test. In step 136 if it is the first pass, the test counters are reset, and status is reflected to the microprocessor in step 138”. However, element 138 of Vogley resets a test counter only if it is the first time that the system has passed a test.
Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding claim 12, Vogley disclose (e.g. Col.4, lines 12-22: in the step 132 counter is incremented and the power supply output voltage is modified in accordance with the changed sequence number in the counter. At this point, the procedure goes to step 134 to determine whether this is the first pass for the margin test. In step 136 if it is the first pass, the test counters are reset, and status is reflected to the microprocessor in step 138. In step 150 determines the procedure goes to the step 152. Test counters are reset, and the status is reflected to the microprocessor. Thereafter the procedure goes to the step 154 for a comparison to determine whether or not this is the last frequency margin pass. In step 156 if it is not the last pass, the procedure goes through step 144 and back to step 118. .. Thereafter in steps 140 and 142, a determination is made whether this is the last voltage margin test. If it is not the last voltage margin test, the voltage margin test is started again in step 144. The procedure returns to step 118 and loops back through the voltage margin test). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to incorporate in response to the monitoring indicating a passed test, resetting the counter of Vogley with the method of Poppe for the purposes of providing a low cost high speed integrated circuit test arrangement for testing plurality device under test.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857