DETAILED ACTION
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a computer system comprising only ‘a processor.’ Paragraph 128 of the Specification defines a processor as being directed to a virtual machine. Therefore, the processor is software per se. Software per se is considered non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-19 with an earliest effective filing date of 8/11/22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chernyak et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2005/0080502 published on 4/14/05 as cited on IDS).
With respect to claim 1, the Chernyak reference teaches a method of engineering a physical system, the method being computer-implemented, the method comprising:
providing engineering information (paragraph 76), lifecycle information (paragraphs 74-75), and at least one test case in an engineering database (paragraph 76), wherein the engineering information is related to physical information, mechanical information, electrical information, electronic information, hydraulic information, thermal information, control information, electric power information, process-oriented information, or any combination thereof of the physical system (Hardware Electrical Systems [paragraph 4]), wherein the lifecycle information is related to conception information, requirements information, use cases information, issues information, design information, realization information, service information, or any combination thereof of the physical system (paragraph 6), and wherein a respective engineering artifact included in the engineering information, a respective lifecycle artifact included in the lifecycle information, a compliance of the respective engineering artifact with the respective lifecycle artifact, or any combination thereof is testable using the respective test case (paragraphs 70, 81, 83, 87-89, and 98);
providing the lifecycle information in a lifecycle database (paragraph 74);
performing the test using the respective test case and generating a respective test result in the engineering database, respectively (paragraphs 87-89 and 98); and
storing the respective test result in the lifecycle database (paragraphs 87-89 and 98) and linking the respective test result to the respective lifecycle artifact stored in the lifecycle database, respectively (the systems are incorporated together as in Figure 5).
With respect to claim 2, the Chernyak reference teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. In addition, the Chernyak reference teaches providing a respective lifecycle test case in the lifecycle database; and importing the respective lifecycle test case from the lifecycle database to the engineering database and storing the respective lifecycle test case in the engineering database as the respective test case (paragraphs 6, 70, 81, 83, 87-89, and 98).
With respect to claim 3, the Chernyak reference teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Additionally, the Chernyak reference teaches providing at least one parameter of the respective test case in the engineering database, wherein the respective parameter includes input data, expected output data, a number of repetitions, information on a callback, or any combination thereof (paragraph 23).
With respect to claim 4, the Chernyak reference teaches all the limitations of claim 3 as described above. In addition, the Chernyak reference teaches storing the provided, respective parameter of the respective test case in the lifecycle database; and linking the respective parameter of the respective test case to the respective test case stored in the lifecycle database (paragraphs 85 and 102).
With respect to claim 5, the Chernyak reference teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Additionally, the Chernyak reference teaches providing a lifecycle user interface (UI) to a user for interacting with the lifecycle database (paragraph 99); capturing an intent of the user (paragraph 68), such that performing the test using the respective test case and generating a respective test result in the engineering database, respectively, are triggered; and performing the test using the respective test case and generating a respective test result in the engineering database, respectively, upon the captured intent of the user (paragraphs 70, 81, 83, 87-89, and 98).
With respect to claim 6, the Chernyak reference teaches all the limitations of claim 5 as described above. In addition, the Chernyak reference teaches sending a trigger signal to the engineering database upon the captured intent of the user; and performing the test using the respective test case and generating the respective test result in the engineering database, respectively, upon receipt of the trigger signal by the engineering database (paragraphs 6, 70, 81, 83, 87-89, and 98).
With respect to claim 7, the Chernyak reference teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Additionally, the Chernyak reference teaches providing a respective engineering artifact placeholder and a respective test case placeholder in the lifecycle database, the respective engineering artifact placeholder and the respective test case placeholder representing the respective engineering artifact and the respective test case stored in the engineering database in the lifecycle database, respectively (paragraphs 70, 81, 83, 87-89, and 98); and providing a respective first connector and a respective second connector for connecting the respective engineering artifact and the respective test case stored in the engineering database directly or indirectly with the respective engineering artifact placeholder and the respective test case placeholder stored in the lifecycle database, respectively (paragraph 77).
With respect to claim 8, the Chernyak reference teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. In addition, the Chernyak reference teaches providing a respective lifecycle artifact placeholder in the engineering database, the respective lifecycle artifact placeholder representing the respective lifecycle artifact stored in the lifecycle database in the engineering database (paragraphs 6, 74, and 75); and providing a respective third connector for connecting the respective lifecycle artifact stored in the lifecycle database directly or indirectly with the respective lifecycle artifact placeholder stored in the engineering database (paragraph 77).
With respect to claim 9, the Chernyak reference teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Additionally, the Chernyak reference teaches that in case of at least one deficiency of the engineered physical system: providing information on the at least one deficiency of the engineered physical system; determining at least one piece of engineering-related information of the engineered physical system, the engineering-related information of the engineered physical system including the respective engineering artifact, the respective lifecycle artifact, the respective test case, and the respective test result that has been generated throughout the engineering process of the physical system and is related to the provided information on the respective deficiency; and displaying the determined, respective piece of engineering-related information to the user in the lifecycle UI (paragraph 88).
With respect to claim 10, the Chernyak reference teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as described above. In addition, the Chernyak reference teaches displaying the information on the at least one deficiency of the engineered physical system (the system notifies the user about deficient components [paragraph 87]).
With respect to claim 11, the Chernyak reference teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Additionally, the Chernyak reference teaches engineering, modeling, simulating, analyzing, or any combination thereof of the physical system using the engineering information, the lifecycle information, the respective test case, and the respective test result (paragraphs 70, 81, 83, 87-89, and 98).
With respect to claim 12, the Chernyak reference teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. In addition, the Chernyak reference teaches measuring or determining the engineering information of the physical system (paragraph 85).
With respect to claim 13, the Chernyak reference teaches all the limitations of claim 12 as described above. Additionally, the Chernyak reference teaches that measuring or determining the engineering information of the physical system comprises measuring or determining the engineering information of the physical system using a sensor, CAD data, communication data, or any combination thereof relating to the physical system (paragraph 85).
With respect to claim 14, the limitations of claim 14 are merely the computer system embodiment of claim 1 and claim 14 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 14 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 and claim 14 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to claim 15, the limitations of claim 15 are merely the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium embodiment of claim 1 and claim 15 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 15 are rejected in the analysis of claim 1 and claim 15 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to claim 16, the limitations of claim 16 are merely the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium embodiment of claim 2 and claim 16 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 16 are rejected in the analysis of claim 2 and claim 16 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to claim 17, the limitations of claim 17 are merely the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium embodiment of claim 3 and claim 17 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 17 are rejected in the analysis of claim 3 and claim 17 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to claim 18, the limitations of claim 18 are merely the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium embodiment of claim 4 and claim 18 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 18 are rejected in the analysis of claim 4 and claim 18 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
With respect to claim 19, the limitations of claim 19 are merely the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium embodiment of claim 5 and claim 19 recites no further significant limitations therein. Therefore, the limitations of claim 19 are rejected in the analysis of claim 5 and claim 19 is likewise rejected on the same basis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Abarham et al. U.S. Patent No. 12,314,641
Systems and methods are provided for a computer-implemented method for simulating operation of a physical system represented by a plurality of mesh cells. A plurality of pre-simulations of the physical system are performed, where a pre-simulation determines an output metric value for each mesh cell based on a plurality of input metric values. A dimension reduction is performed on results of the pre-simulations to generate condensed training data, and a simulation model is generated using a machine learning algorithm to train a plurality of sub-models for simulating output metric values for the plurality of mesh cells based on the condensed training data. The simulation model is configured to provide simulation inputs to the trained sub-models to generate an output metric value for each of the plurality of mesh cells.
Entin U.S. Publication No. 2023/0274042
A computer-implemented method and system including providing engineering information in an engineering database, providing lifecycle information in a lifecycle database, providing a respective first connector for connecting a respective engineering artifact comprised by the engineering information directly or indirectly with a respective lifecycle artifact comprised by the lifecycle information, wherein the respective first connector is stored in the engineering database, providing a respective second connector for connecting the respective lifecycle artifact directly or indirectly with the respective engineering artifact, wherein the respective second connector is stored in the lifecycle database, providing a deletion of the respective first connector; and deleting the respective second connector.
Lester et al. U.S. Publication No. 2022/0284148
A method of managing a design lifecycle of a structural part includes accessing memory storing computer-readable program code for identifying a supplier for the structural part. The method includes executing the code to cause an apparatus to identify the supplier. The method also includes generating a first design of the structural part, the first design describing a geometry of the structural part and requirements for attributes of the structural part. The method also includes performing a search of a database of existing designs for a second design based on search criteria including multiple ones of the geometry and the requirements, and selecting a design from the first design and the second design based on the search. The method also includes performing a multiple-criteria decision analysis to evaluate the design, identifying the supplier from multiple suppliers, and outputting an indication of the supplier for use in ordering of the structural part.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRIS E MACKES whose telephone number is (571)270-3554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-4:00 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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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.
/KRIS E MACKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights