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) 1-17 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” 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” 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… utilizing, by the central activity tracking manager, 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...'” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended “issuing a simulator control command to terminate the simulation” is additional element. Simply implementing a known process (like terminating a simulation) on a computer or using generic software functionality to control a model does not transform the abstract concept into a patentable invention. In addition, The amended “computing an activity value, computing a functional performance value, and rendering an activity check results summary corresponding to the plurality of testbench components” are mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
The Remarks state, “The ordered combination of claim 1 elements including receiving structured ATU messages, registering distributed components by location, and utilizing simulation data to drive simulator control and analytical outcomes forms a technological process that cannot be performed by the human mind.” However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. “[R]eceiving structured ATU messages” is selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). “[R]egistering distributed components by location” is a form of bookkeeping or keeping a ledger, and that is a "pen and paper" mental example. “[U]tilizing simulation data to drive simulator control and analytical outcomes” involves cognitive processes. The claim recites “to drive one or more outcomes corresponding to the simulation.” While the simulation itself is a computer-driven environment, the human interpretation involves cognitive processes including “computing an activity value” or “rendering an activity check results summary corresponding to the plurality of testbench components.”
The Remarks state, among listing of Step 2A, Prong two, or Step 2B, “Transformation of Simulation Activity Data into Structured Diagnostic Outputs… Such transformation of input data into actionable outcomes is evidence of a technical solution…,” for example. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The structured diagnostic outputs, such as functional performance values, summary results, or identification of mismatches between expected and actual component behaviour, all can be done in human mind. The technical solution itself is actually an abstract idea.
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 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