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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recites a limitation(s) of registering each of the plurality of testbench components in response to receiving the first ATU message from the corresponding ATU, wherein each of the plurality of testbench components is registered based on the unique Identity (ID) associated with each of the plurality of testbench components and the object handle to access the corresponding ATU; selecting one or more configuration settings corresponding to the ATU of each of the plurality of testbench components based on one or more user requirements; utilizing the at least one second ATU message received from the ATU of each of the plurality of testbench components to drive one or more outcomes corresponding to the simulation including at least one of issuing a simulator control command to terminate the simulation, computing an activity value, computing a functional performance value, and rendering an activity check results summary corresponding to the plurality of testbench components, which is a mental process.
The claim(s) recites a series of steps and, therefore, is/are a process. The limitation(s), as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor,” “a memory,” “a medium,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, “registering” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses a user recording each of the plurality of testbench components in response to receiving the first ATU message from the corresponding ATU, wherein each of the plurality of testbench components is registered based on the unique Identity (ID) associated with each of the plurality of testbench components and the object handle to access the corresponding ATU, “selecting” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses the user selecting one or more configuration settings corresponding to the ATU of each of the plurality of testbench components based on one or more user requirements, and “utilizing” in the context of the claim(s) encompasses the user making use of the at least one second ATU message received from the ATU of each of the plurality of testbench components to drive one or more outcomes corresponding to the simulation including at least one of issuing a simulator control command to terminate the simulation, computing an activity value, computing a functional performance value, and rendering an activity check results summary corresponding to the plurality of testbench components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, a step of “receiving, by a central activity tracking manager, a first Activity Tracking Unit (ATU) message from an ATU pre-installed within each of a plurality of testbench components, wherein the first ATU message comprises a unique Identity (ID) associated with each of the plurality of testbench components, an object handle to access the corresponding ATU, and an availability status of the corresponding ATU;” or “receiving, by the central activity tracking manager, at least one second ATU message from the corresponding ATU based on the one or more configuration settings, at an end of the simulation, wherein the at least one second ATU message comprises an output associated with a set of activities performed by each of the plurality of testbench components based on the one or more configuration settings, wherein the output associated with the set of activities comprises a number of packets processed by each of the plurality of testbench components, content within each of the number of packets, sequence of processing each of the number of packets, idle cycles associated with the number of packets, the number of packets processing frequency of each of the plurality of testbench components, a status information of each of the plurality of testbench components, and start time and end time associated with processing of each of the number of packets” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering ATU messages for use in the registering or utilizing step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. In addition, the claim(s) recites additional elements of “a processor,” “a memory,” “a medium,” which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic “processor” performing a generic computer function of receiving the ATU messages) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea.
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 claim(s) does not provide any indication that the recited system/medium is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that receiving or transmitting data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the step of “receiving, by a central activity tracking manager, a first Activity Tracking Unit (ATU) message from an ATU pre-installed within each of a plurality of testbench components, wherein the first ATU message comprises a unique Identity (ID) associated with each of the plurality of testbench components, an object handle to access the corresponding ATU, and an availability status of the corresponding ATU;” and “receiving, by the central activity tracking manager, at least one second ATU message from the corresponding ATU based on the one or more configuration settings, at an end of the simulation, wherein the at least one second ATU message comprises an output associated with a set of activities performed by each of the plurality of testbench components based on the one or more configuration settings, wherein the output associated with the set of activities comprises a number of packets processed by each of the plurality of testbench components, content within each of the number of packets, sequence of processing each of the number of packets, idle cycles associated with the number of packets, the number of packets processing frequency of each of the plurality of testbench components, a status information of each of the plurality of testbench components, and start time and end time associated with processing of each of the number of packets” is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. In addition, the additional elements of using “a processor,” “a memory,” “a medium” to perform the claimed invention amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's Remarks have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections under 101, the Remarks state, “Step 2A Prong One: The Claims Do Not Recite a Judicial Exception … receiving first and second Activity Tracking Unit (ATU) messages from a plurality of distributed testbench components, where each ATU is pre-installed within a corresponding component and communicates structured activity data to a central activity tracking manager. These ATU messages are not generic data observations but are machine-generated outputs produced during simulation execution,… “ However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The fact that these ATU messages are machine-generated outputs does not rescue the underlying concept from being abstract. Gathering, processing, and analyzing data—even specialized or real-time machine data—falls under the abstract idea category of data collection and organization.
The Remarks state, “registering each testbench component using a unique identity (ID) in combination with an object handle configured to access the corresponding ATU. This limitation defines a specific machine-level association mechanism enabling dynamic interaction between the central manager and distributed ATUs. The use of object handles to access embedded tracking units reflects programmatic referencing within a simulation framework, which is not a concept that can be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The test for subject matter eligibility is not satisfied merely by showing that a process is implemented on a machine or uses machine-specific variables. The applicant’s characterization of an "object handle" as a "machine-level association mechanism" merely describes generic data referencing native to modern object-oriented programming systems.
The Remarks state, “receiving, by the central activity tracking manager, at least one second ATU message from the corresponding ATU based on the one or more configuration settings, at an end of the simulation, wherein the at least one second ATU message comprises an output associated with a set of activities performed by each of the plurality of testbench components based on the one or more configuration settings, wherein the output associated with the set of activities comprises a number of packets processed by each of the plurality of testbench components, content within each of the number of packets, sequence of processing each of the number of packets, idle cycles associated with the number of packets, the number of packets processing frequency of each of the plurality of testbench components, a status information of each of the plurality of testbench components, and start time and end time associated with processing of each of the number of packets.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language merely specifies what data is contained (content, idle cycles, sequence), not a novel or non-conventional data architecture or memory configuration that improves computer performance. The claim simply uses a computer as an ordinary tool to track simulation outputs. It does not provide a technological solution to a technical problem in the underlying hardware or computing architecture.
The Remarks state, “the claimed "utilizing" step is not a generic evaluation but instead requires driving simulation-level outcomes based on the received ATU messages, including issuing simulator control commands and computing performance-related values derived from the structured activity data. These operations are executed within the simulation environment and directly affect system behavior, rather than merely representing human interpretation of information.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Because this limitation is drafted in the disjunctive ("at least one of"), the claim does not mandate issuing simulator control commands or actively altering the state of the simulation.
The Remarks state, “the claims as a whole integrate any such alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The claims recite a specific, technically constrained architecture for activity tracking and simulation control, which improves the functioning of simulation systems and cannot be reduced to mere mental steps” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim fails to recite specific technical improvements to the physical operation of the computer or simulator itself (such as reduced memory overhead, optimized bus communication protocols, or low-level instruction caching). Instead, the claim merely manages routine data flow between abstract software modules ("Activity Tracking Unit" and "central activity tracking manager").
The Remarks state, “This architecture provides a technical solution to the problem of tracking distributed component activity in complex simulation environments, where conventional approaches rely on manual instrumentation or static logging.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. They rely on perceived advantages and alleged non-conventionality over prior art techniques, rather than demonstrating that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
The Remarks state, “These operations are integrated into the simulation control loop and directly affect system behavior. For example: Terminating a simulation based on aggregated activity data is a machine executed control operation, not a mental step. Computing performance metrics from packet-level timing and sequencing requires algorithmic aggregation across distributed components. Rendering activity summaries based on structured multi-parameter inputs reflects post-simulation analytical processing tied to system execution. Thus, the claimed invention goes beyond mere analysis and instead controls and modifies the operation of the simulation system itself, satisfying MPEP § 2106.05(a)” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Because this limitation is drafted in the disjunctive ("at least one of"), the claim does not mandate issuing simulator control commands or actively altering the state of the simulation. In addition, algorithmic aggregation remain abstract ideas. It merely implements the abstract calculation on a computer. Moreover, rendering information to an end user does not improve the operational functioning of the test environment or simulator itself; it merely conveys the output of the abstract data gathering and analysis.
The Remarks state, “The rejection improperly oversimplifies the claimed invention and fails to consider the specific technical arrangement and ordered combination of elements as required under Berkheimer.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. An ordered combination does not yield an inventive concept when the constituent steps simply follow the ordinary, logical sequence of generic data handling. In addition, The claim limitations dictate what data is collected (e.g., packet numbers, packet content, sequence, idle cycles, start/end times) and what ultimate outcome occurs (terminating a simulation, generating summaries, computing values), rather than a specific technical improvement to the simulation architecture itself.
The Remarks state, “the Examiner provides no evidence that the following claimed invention's features are conventional: embedding ATUs within each testbench component, using object handles to access ATUs, configuring ATUs based on user-defined settings, and generating structured, packet-level activity datasets across distributed components… The Examiner's Step 2B rejection is based on an oversimplified characterization of the claimed invention and lacks the evidentiary support required under Berkheimer.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has not oversimplified the claim. The core concept of tracking component activity, aggregating event metrics, and controlling simulation termination based on those metrics remains an abstract idea (a mental process, method of organizing human activity, and mathematical/logical data manipulation). The inventive concept inquiry under Step 2B focuses on what the claim elements add beyond the abstract concept itself. An abstract idea cannot supply the inventive concept for its own patent eligibility. Moreover, viewing the claimed elements as an ordered combination yields nothing more than the predictable, sequential aggregation of conventional steps. The components perform their natural, expected functions in an expected sequence without improving the functioning of the simulation engine itself or overcoming a technical problem unique to hardware simulation architecture. Rather, the claim automates verification reporting using generic programming techniques.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE LIN whose telephone number is (571)431-0706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached on (571) 272-3655. 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.
/KATHERINE LIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
