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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “one or more processing units” in claim 10. The “one or more processing units” is a generic placeholder coupled to functional language “one or more processing units to access/identify/perform…” and does not recite sufficient structure to perform the recited function. Claim 19 has similar limitations.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 10 recite:
accessing one or more logical interfaces indicating one or more dependencies of one or more functionalities associated with a plurality of components;
based on the one or more logical interfaces, recursively determining one or more physical interfaces of the plurality of components; and
using the one or more physical interfaces to perform an operation using the plurality of components.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes.
Claim 1 is a process.
Claim 10 is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘determining’ limitation in #2 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitation “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person analyzing, evaluating, or determining one or more physical interfaces based on one or more logical interfaces, including comparison or judgement.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘accessing’ limitation in #1 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. The limitation “accessing” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘performing’ limitation in #3 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is an additional element as “apply it” that is mere instructions to apply an exception. The limitation “performing” in the context of this claim encompasses merely performing an operation using the plurality of components. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Additionally, one or more of the claims recite the following additional elements:
One or more processing units (Claim 10)
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components for obtaining or gathering data and comprising mere instructions to apply the exception which is evidently seen in MPEP 2106.05(g)&(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 2 and 13 merely further describe the plurality of components of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. The claims do not include additional elements that integrate into practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 4 and 18 merely further describe the logical interfaces of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. The claims do not include additional elements that integrate into practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 5 and 12 merely further describe the physical interfaces of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. The claims do not include additional elements that integrate into practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 6 and 16 merely further describe the operation of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. The claims do not include additional elements that integrate into practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 7 and 15 merely further describe the plurality of components of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. The claims do not include additional elements that integrate into practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 8 and 17 merely further describe the logical interfaces of Claims 1 and 10 respectively. The claims do not include additional elements that integrate into practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 merely further describes the physical interfaces of Claim 1. The claim does not include additional elements that integrate into practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 14 merely further describes the first level of architecture of Claim 13. The claim does not include additional elements that integrate into practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, Claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-18 are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claims 3 and 11 recite:
wherein recursively determining the one or more physical interfaces further comprises:
identifying one or more inter-dependent functionalities associated with a plurality of child components of the plurality of components; and
identifying the one or more physical interfaces based on the one or more inter-dependent functionalities associated with the plurality of child components of the plurality of components.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes.
Claim 3 is a process.
Claim 11 is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘identifying’ limitation in #4 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitation “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses a person analyzing, evaluating, determining or identifying one or more inter-dependent functionalities associated with a plurality of child components, including comparison or judgement.
The ‘identifying’ limitation in #5 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitation “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses a person analyzing, evaluating, determining or identifying one or more physical interfaces based on one or more inter-dependent functionalities, including comparison or judgement.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components for obtaining or gathering data and comprising mere instructions to apply the exception which is evidently seen in MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, Claims 3 and 11 are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claim 19 recites:
A processor comprising: one or more processing units to perform operations comprising:
determining one or more physical events associated with a plurality of components based on a logical interface specification associated with the plurality of components; and
using the one or more physical events to identify one or more procedures associated with the plurality of components.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes.
Claim 19 is a machine.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘determining’ limitation in #6 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitation “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses a person analyzing, evaluating, or determining one or more physical events based on a logical interface specification, including comparison or judgement.
The ‘identifying’ limitation in #7 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. The limitation “identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses a person analyzing, evaluating, determining or identifying one or more procedures using the one or more physical events, including comparison or judgement.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
Additionally, one or more of the claims recite the following additional elements:
One or more processing units (Claim 19)
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply the exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components for obtaining or gathering data and comprising mere instructions to apply the exception which is evidently seen in MPEP 2106.05(f). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 20 merely further describes the processor of Claim 19. The claim does not include additional elements that integrate into practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, Claims 19-20 are directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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) 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by McCoy et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 8345686 B2), hereinafter “McCoy.”
With regards to Claim 19, McCoy teaches:
A processor comprising:
one or more processing units to perform operations comprising: determining one or more physical events associated with a plurality of components based on a logical interface specification associated with the plurality of components (Col. 6, lines 30-32, Col. 7, lines 1-8, Col. 11, lines 52-57 and 62-63, Col. 73, lines 31-36, “… a household appliance 12 having an internal communication network 14 interconnecting a plurality of components 16… The components 16 can comprise one or more devices. Thus, the term "device" as used in the application can refer to a component or to a device. The devices can be any electronic, electro-thermal, and electromechanical elements which collectively form the component or which are attached to a component with a controller via electrical circuitry (e.g., wiring harness), a physical part which can execute logic, and a physical part which has memory… performing diagnostic tests, which can be accomplished by actuating each output sequentially to verify the expected results (examples: heater on--observed temperature increase, fill valve on--observe water level rise, ice crush motor--observe rotation of crushing apparatus)… performing component 16 unit testing and automated regression testing… Optionally, the service module 232 can download customized testing scripts based on the diagnostic data to run tests on the appliance 12 to further diagnose or eliminate the problem or failure. Reconnection of the service module 232 to the appliance 12 to execute the testing scripts is represented by step 4 in FIG. 21.” The testing scripts executing diagnostic or component unit tests such as observing a temperature increase when the heater is turned on correlates to determining one or more physical events associated with a plurality of components. The observed temperature increase occurring due to component unit testing correlates to determining one or more physical events associated with a plurality of components based on a logical interface specification associated with the plurality of components); and
using the one or more physical events to identify one or more procedures associated with the plurality of components (Fig. 21, Col. 11, lines 52-57 and 62-63, Col. 73, lines 27-36, “performing diagnostic tests, which can be accomplished by actuating each output sequentially to verify the expected results (examples: heater on--observed temperature increase, fill valve on--observe water level rise, ice crush motor--observe rotation of crushing apparatus)… performing component 16 unit testing and automated regression testing… The remote client processes the diagnostic data to identify an appliance problem or failure and potentially prevent a service call or, if the problem or failure requires a service call, to optimize the effectiveness and efficiency of the service call. Optionally, the service module 232 can download customized testing scripts based on the diagnostic data to run tests on the appliance 12 to further diagnose or eliminate the problem or failure. Reconnection of the service module 232 to the appliance 12 to execute the testing scripts is represented by step 4 in FIG. 21.” The remote client running test scripts on the components of the appliance to verify expected results such as an observed temperature increase correlates to the one or more physical events. The remote client actuating the output to verify the expected results of the test scripts to further diagnose or eliminate the problem corelates to using the one or more physical events to identify one or more procedures associated with the plurality of components).
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) 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palladino et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 20240155024 A1), hereinafter “Palladino” in view of McCoy.
With regards to Claim 1, Palladino teaches:
A method comprising: accessing one or more logical interfaces indicating one or more dependencies of one or more functionalities associated with a plurality of components (Fig. 11 and 13, paragraphs 146-148, “A service group 1302 is a group of services 1304 that together perform an identifiable application purpose or business flow… Using a control plane 1306 with an associated service discovery 1308 feature, packets are be monitored as they filter through the overall application (ex: whole website) … The trace is enabled via the shared execution path of the data plane proxies. Along each step 1310 between services 1304, the control plane 1304 measures latency and discover services. The trace may operate on live traffic corresponding to end users 1312, or alternatively using test traffic… As output, the control plane generates a dependency graph of the given service group 1302 business flow and reports via a GUI. Using the dependency graph, a backend operator is provided insight into bottlenecks in the service group 1302. For example, in a given service group 1302, a set of services 1304 may run on multiple servers that are operated by different companies (e.g., AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, etc.).” The control plane, which controls multiple data plane proxies as seen in Fig. 11, correlates to one or more logical interfaces and the services of the service group correlate to a plurality of components. Therefore, the control plane generating a dependency graph of the service group business flow correlates to accessing one or more logical interfaces indicating one or more dependencies of one or more functionalities associated with a plurality of components.
based on the one or more logical interfaces, recursively determining one or more interfaces of the plurality of components (Fig. 11, paragraphs 144-145 and 147-148, “In some embodiments, a set of APIs 1222 may operate together as a service group. A service group may have an additional documentation repository that refers to the functions/operations of methods within the service group at a higher level than a granular description of each API… Thus, documentation 1224 that results may include a description of an execution path and multiple stages of input before reaching some designated output… Along each step 1310 between services 1304, the control plane 1304 measures latency and discover services… As output, the control plane generates a dependency graph of the given service group 1302 business flow and reports via a GUI. Using the dependency graph, a backend operator is provided insight into bottlenecks in the service group 1302. For example, in a given service group 1302, a set of services 1304 may run on multiple servers that are operated by different companies (e.g., AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, etc.).” The control plane which controls multiple data plane proxies as seen in Fig. 11 and generates a dependency graph correlates to one or more logical interfaces and the services or APIs of the service group correlate to a plurality of components. The dependency graph which runs through each step between services being used to identify bottlenecks in the service group correlates to recursively determining one or more interfaces of the plurality of components based on the logical interface);
Palladino does not explicitly teach that the interface is a physical interface. However, physical interfaces are a popular type of interface associated or identified with APIs as evidenced by McCoy (Col. 5, lines 56-60, Col. 6, lines 57-60 and Col. 57, lines 60-65, “Those components with the SA or a variant of the SA compliant with the SA (compliance determined by the ability to send, receive, and process packets) form a node on the network that can communicate with the other nodes… Further, the term "client" is used to refer a component on which all or a portion of the SA resides and which fully or partially enables the functionality of the component. The component can be either an internal or external component… In a distributed services model, this method uses discovery protocol as the means for the client to find the target objects. The client is responsible for the independent interaction with each target object. In other words, the client will discover the software architecture 10 node(s) and then will interrogate each as to what API(s) are supported by each node.” The physical components having an associated software architecture to form a node on the network correlates to a physical interface. Discovering which APIs are supported by each node, which comprise physical components, correlates to physical interfaces being identified or associated with APIs)
Palladino does not explicitly teach:
And using the one or more physical interfaces to perform an operation using the plurality of components.
However, McCoy teaches:
And using the one or more physical interfaces to perform an operation using the plurality of components (Fig. 1 and 21, Col. 6, lines 30-32, Col. 7, lines 1-8, Col. 11, lines 52-57, Col. 73, lines 31-36, “… a household appliance 12 having an internal communication network 14 interconnecting a plurality of components 16… The components 16 can comprise one or more devices. Thus, the term "device" as used in the application can refer to a component or to a device. The devices can be any electronic, electro-thermal, and electromechanical elements which collectively form the component or which are attached to a component with a controller via electrical circuitry (e.g., wiring harness), a physical part which can execute logic, and a physical part which has memory… performing diagnostic tests, which can be accomplished by actuating each output sequentially to verify the expected results (examples: heater on--observed temperature increase, fill valve on--observe water level rise, ice crush motor--observe rotation of crushing apparatus)… Optionally, the service module 232 can download customized testing scripts based on the diagnostic data to run tests on the appliance 12 to further diagnose or eliminate the problem or failure. Reconnection of the service module 232 to the appliance 12 to execute the testing scripts is represented by step 4 in FIG. 21.” The service module running testing scripts on the appliance with multiple components, such as ensuring the crushing apparatus rotates when the ice crush motor is on, correlates to the physical interface performing an operation. The components comprising multiple devices that can be are attached to a component with a controller or a physical part which can execute logic such as a testing script correlates to the physical interface performing an operation using the plurality of components).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Palladino with and using the one or more physical interfaces to perform an operation using the plurality of components as taught by McCoy because physical interfaces can perform diagnostic operations to identify an appliance problem or failure and prevent the need for a service call. Additionally, if the problem does still require a service call, running diagnostic tests to further diagnose or eliminate the problem an optimize the effectiveness and efficiency of the service call (McCoy: Col. 73, lines 27-36).
With regards to Claim 10, the method of Claim 1 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 10, and Claim 10 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 1.
With regards to Claim 2, Palladino in view of McCoy teaches the method of Claim 1 above. McCoy further teaches:
wherein the plurality of components correspond to a first level of an architecture (Fig. 3, Col. 10, lines 45-55, “Software Operating Layer 1 of FIG. 3 represents appliance specific software components 16B which interface the network messages received by software architecture 10 to the Application Control Logic resulting in the Application Control Logic to take some action. When the appliance is in a Development State (switch labeled A in FIG. 3), an additional Software Operating Layer 2 (comprised of API 5 (low level API) and API 7 (the memory/Port API) and their implementations and Alternate Logic) enable the network messages of API 5 and API 7 to change the state of the physical memory of 16A and the devices.” The software operating layer representing appliance specific software components correlates to the plurality of components corresponding to a first level of architecture) and the one or more physical interfaces are associated with a second plurality of components corresponding to a second level of the architecture (Fig. 3, Col. 10, lines 31-44, “In addition, FIG. 3 provides a schematic illustration of two modes of operation enabled by the software architecture 10 which control the access to and the level of intervention between the network messages exposed by the software architecture 10 and the internal RAM and EE and other forms of non-volatile memory of 16A as well as the Output Device Layer, which is a low level software operating layer 16B residing within 16A and providing direct control of the devices electrically connect to the component. The Output Device Layer 16B having direct control of the devices do so by having direct access to the micro-processor port address memory, which, in turn, maps to the physical pins of the micro-processor which, in turn, are connected through various electronic apparatus to the electro-mechanical devices.” The output device layer having direct control of the devices and being connected to the electro-mechanical devices correlates to the physical interfaces being associated with a second plurality of components corresponding to a second level of architecture).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Palladino with wherein the plurality of components correspond to a first level of an architecture and the one or more physical interfaces are associated with a second plurality of components corresponding to a second level of the architecture as taught by McCoy because multiple operating layers allows new software modifications to any component to have the capability to support any implementation or configuration. This allows for capabilities such as adding new functional componentry to an appliance without modification to the pre-existing functional componentry (McCoy: Col. 11, lines 22-38).
With regards to Claim 13, the method of Claim 2 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 13, and Claim 13 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 2.
With regards to Claim 3, Palladino in view of McCoy teaches the method of Claim 1 above. Palladino further teaches:
wherein recursively determining the one or more physical interfaces further comprises:
identifying one or more inter-dependent functionalities associated with a plurality of child components of the plurality of components (Paragraphs 144-145 and 147-148, “In some embodiments, a set of APIs 1222 may operate together as a service group. A service group may have an additional documentation repository that refers to the functions/operations of methods within the service group at a higher level than a granular description of each API… Thus, documentation 1224 that results may include a description of an execution path and multiple stages of input before reaching some designated output… Along each step 1310 between services 1304, the control plane 1304 measures latency and discover services. The trace may operate on live traffic corresponding to end users 1312, or alternatively using test traffic… As output, the control plane generates a dependency graph of the given service group 1302 business flow and reports via a GUI. Using the dependency graph, a backend operator is provided insight into bottlenecks in the service group 1302. For example, in a given service group 1302, a set of services 1304 may run on multiple servers that are operated by different companies (e.g., AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, etc.). The latency between these servers may slow down the service group 1302 as a whole.” The service group consisting of multiple APIs that each have functions or operations of methods correlates to a plurality of child components of a plurality of components. A dependency graph being constructed for a service group which runs through each step between services correlates to identifying one or more inter-dependent functionalities associated with a plurality of child components of the plurality of components); and
identifying the one or more interfaces based on the one or more inter-dependent functionalities associated with the plurality of child components of the plurality of components (Paragraph 148, “As output, the control plane generates a dependency graph of the given service group 1302 business flow and reports via a GUI. Using the dependency graph, a backend operator is provided insight into bottlenecks in the service group 1302. For example, in a given service group 1302, a set of services 1304 may run on multiple servers that are operated by different companies (e.g., AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, etc.). The latency between these servers may slow down the service group 1302 as a whole.” The dependency graph being used to identify bottleneck services in a service group correlates to identifying one or more interfaces based on the inter-dependent functionalities associated with the plurality of child components of the plurality of components)
With regards to Claim 11, the method of Claim 3 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 11, and Claim 11 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 3.
With regards to Claim 4, Palladino in view of McCoy teaches the method of Claim 1 above. Palladino further teaches:
wherein the one or more logical interfaces are defined in one or more documents comprising one or more requirements of the one or more functionalities associated with the plurality of components (Fig. 12, Paragraphs 143-145, “Once received by the control plane 1206, auto-documentation unit 1213 of the control plane 1206 parses the proxied requests/responses and extracts current data similarly as described by other auto-documentation embodiments. The auto-documentation plugin is configured to generate auto-documentation in response to a transaction that includes the request and the response… In some embodiments, a set of APIs 1222 may operate together as a service group. A service group may have an additional documentation repository that refers to the functions/operations of methods within the service group at a higher level than a granular description of each API… Thus, documentation 1224 that results may include a description of an execution path and multiple stages of input before reaching some designated output.” The auto-documentation unit of the control plane generating documentation of a service group correlates to the one or more logical interfaces being defined in one or more documents. The documentation including a description of an execution path and multiple stages of input before reaching an output correlates to one or more requirements of the one or more functionalities associated with the plurality of components).
With regards to Claim 18, the method of Claim 4 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 18, and Claim 18 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 4.
With regards to Claim 5, Palladino in view of McCoy teaches the method of Claim 1 above. McCoy further teaches:
wherein the one or more physical interfaces concretize the one or more logical interfaces (Fig. 3, Col. 10, lines 31-44, “The lower layer protocol functions as both a physical and link layer between the higher layer associated with the software architecture 10 and the components in the appliance. In this way, the software architecture 10 uses the lower layer protocol to communicate with a first software operating layer 17 that implements the control logic of the controller 16 relative to client 22, as well as using a second software layer 19 to bypass the control logic and directly control the devices associated with the control 16. The devices in FIG. 3 are the physical elements that represent the functionality of the control component 16. FIG. 3 illustrates the control architecture 10 from a software/protocol stack perspective. In addition, FIG. 3 provides a schematic illustration of two modes of operation enabled by the software architecture 10 which control the access to and the level of intervention between the network messages exposed by the software architecture 10 and the internal RAM and EE and other forms of non-volatile memory of 16A as well as the Output Device Layer, which is a low level software operating layer 16B residing within 16A and providing direct control of the devices electrically connect to the component. The Output Device Layer 16B having direct control of the devices do so by having direct access to the micro-processor port address memory, which, in turn, maps to the physical pins of the micro-processor which, in turn, are connected through various electronic apparatus to the electro-mechanical devices.” The lower layer protocol linking the first and second software layers to control the physical devices through the output device layer that is connected to the devices correlates to the one or more physical interfaces concretizing the one or more logical interfaces).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Palladino with wherein the one or more physical interfaces concretize the one or more logical interfaces as taught by McCoy because multiple operating layers allows new software modifications to any component to have the capability to support any implementation or configuration. This allows for capabilities such as adding new functional componentry to an appliance without modification to the pre-existing functional componentry (McCoy: Col. 11, lines 22-38).
With regards to Claim 12, the method of Claim 5 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 12, and Claim 12 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 5.
With regards to Claim 6, Palladino in view of McCoy teaches the method of Claim 1 above. McCoy further teaches:
wherein the operation is a verification operation that verifies that the one or more functionalities associated with the plurality of components is satisfied (Fig. 21, Col. 11, lines 52-57 and 62-63, Col. 73, lines 27-36, “performing diagnostic tests, which can be accomplished by actuating each output sequentially to verify the expected results (examples: heater on--observed temperature increase, fill valve on--observe water level rise, ice crush motor--observe rotation of crushing apparatus)… performing component 16 unit testing and automated regression testing… The remote client processes the diagnostic data to identify an appliance problem or failure and potentially prevent a service call or, if the problem or failure requires a service call, to optimize the effectiveness and efficiency of the service call. Optionally, the service module 232 can download customized testing scripts based on the diagnostic data to run tests on the appliance 12 to further diagnose or eliminate the problem or failure. Reconnection of the service module 232 to the appliance 12 to execute the testing scripts is represented by step 4 in FIG. 21.” The remote client running test scripts on the components of the appliance to verify expected results such as an observed temperature increase correlates to the operation. The remote client actuating the output to verify the expected results of the test scripts correlates to the operation being a verification operation that verifies that the one or more functionalities associated with the plurality of components is satisfied).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Palladino with wherein the operation is a verification operation that verifies that the one or more functionalities associated with the plurality of components is satisfied as taught by McCoy because physical interfaces can perform diagnostic operations to identify an appliance problem or failure and prevent the need for a service call. Additionally, if the problem does still require a service call, running diagnostic tests to further diagnose or eliminate the problem an optimize the effectiveness and efficiency of the service call (McCoy: Col. 73, lines 27-36).
With regards to Claim 16, the method of Claim 6 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 16, and Claim 16 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 6.
With regards to Claim 7, Palladino in view of McCoy teaches the method of Claim 1 above. Palladino further teaches:
wherein the plurality of components include one or more of hardware, software, hardware parts, or software units (Paragraph 146, “FIG. 13 is a block diagram illustrating service groups 1302 and features associated with identification thereof. A service group 1302 is a group of services 1304 that together perform an identifiable application purpose or business flow. For example, a set of microservices are responsible for an airline's ticketing portion of their website. Other examples may include “customer experience,” “sign up,” “login,” “payment processing”, etc.” The service groups including multiple services correlates to the plurality of components including one or more software units).
With regards to Claim 15, the method of Claim 7 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 15, and Claim 15 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 7.
With regards to Claim 8, Palladino in view of McCoy teaches the method of Claim 1 above. Palladino further teaches:
wherein the one or more logical interfaces comprise at least one event indicating one or more preconditions, outcomes, or concurrencies with the plurality of components (Paragraphs 146-147, “Using a control plane 1306 with an associated service discovery 1308 feature, packets are be monitored as they filter through the overall application (ex: whole website). Given a starting point of a given service group 1302, the control plane 1306 may run a trace on packets having a known ID and follow where those packets (with the known ID) go in the microservice architecture as tracked by data plane proxies. In that way, the system can then automatically populate a service group 1302 using the trace. The trace is enabled via the shared execution path of the data plane proxies. Along each step 1310 between services 1304, the control plane 1304 measures latency and discover services.” The control plane measuring latency and discover services after each step between different services correlates to the one or more logical interfaces comprising at least one event indicating one or more outcomes with the plurality of components).
With regards to Claim 17, the method of Claim 8 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 17, and Claim 17 is therefore rejected using the same rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 8.
With regards to Claim 9, Palladino in view of McCoy teaches the method of Claim 1 above. McCoy further teaches:
wherein the one or more physical interfaces comprise one or more procedures to be performed by the plurality of components (Fig. 21, Col. 11, lines 52-57, Col. 73, lines 31-50, “performing diagnostic tests, which can be accomplished by actuating each output sequentially to verify the expected results (examples: heater on--observed temperature increase, fill valve on--observe water level rise, ice crush motor--observe rotation of crushing apparatus)… Optionally, the service module 232 can download customized testing scripts based on the diagnostic data to run tests on the appliance 12 to further diagnose or eliminate the problem or failure. Reconnection of the service module 232 to the appliance 12 to execute the testing scripts is represented by step 4 in FIG. 21. An exemplary architecture for the service module 232 is illustrated schematically in FIG. 21A. The service module 232 comprises a pair of communication buses, such as external serial buses. According to the illustrated embodiment, the service module comprises a USB 236 at one end for connection to the personal computer and an RS-232 (EIA-232) bus 238 at an opposite end for connection to the appliance 12 and particularly to the software architecture 10 residing on various nodes of the appliance internal network 14. The service module 232 further comprises memory 240, such as flash memory, for storing the diagnostic data, the testing scripts, and other data. The flash memory 240 communicates with a service logic 242 that controls the operation of the service module 232.” The service module comprising external communication buses to connect to the appliance and nodes of the appliance internal network correlates to a physical interface. The service module further comprising memory to store diagnostic data and testing scripts to be executed on the appliance correlates to one or more physical interfaces comprising one or more procedures to be performed by the plurality of components).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Palladino with wherein the one or more physical interfaces comprise one or more procedures to be performed by the plurality of components as taught by McCoy because physical interfaces can perform diagnostic operations to identify an appliance problem or failure and prevent the need for a service call. Additionally, if the problem does still require a service call, running diagnostic tests to further diagnose or eliminate the problem an optimize the effectiveness and efficiency of the service call (McCoy: Col. 73, lines 27-36).
With regards to Claim 14, Palladino in view of McCoy teaches the system of Claim 13 above. McCoy further teaches:
wherein the first level of the architecture is associated with a requirement definition that indicates one or more expectations of the plurality of elements corresponding to the second plurality of elements (Fig. 3 and 7, Col. 10, lines 45-55 and Col. 20, lines 24-30, 33-39, 44-46, and 50-53, “Software Operating Layer 1 of FIG. 3 represents appliance specific software components 16B which interface the network messages received by software architecture 10 to the Application Control Logic resulting in the Application Control Logic to take some action. When the appliance is in a Development State (switch labeled A in FIG. 3), an additional Software Operating Layer 2 (comprised of API 5 (low level API) and API 7 (the memory/Port API) and their implementations and Alternate Logic) enable the network messages of API 5 and API 7 to change the state of the physical memory of 16A and the devices… The Low Level API (API ID=5) exposes via the network 14, capability allowing the client to control (actuate) the output devices which are electrically connected to the containing component 16 and to provide read and/or write access to the numeric value which represents the current state and potentially the state history of the electrically connected input device… In the preferred embodiment, the Low Level API as well as the Memory-Port API are available only in the `Development State` of FIG. 3 of the software architecture 10 of the appliance 12. `Development State` can only be entered from the appliance 12 `Idle State` of the exemplary Appliance state diagram of FIG. 7... The messages for initiating `development state` can be found in the message definition specification for the Low Level API. (See API 5, Op Code 2)… In development state, production oriented business rules such as validation are by-passed giving the client 16 complete control of the electronic sub-system.” The software operating layer 2 comprising low level APIs 5 and 7 correlates to the first level of architecture. The low level APIs only being available in the development state which can be entered using the message definition specification for the low level API and allowing clients to bypass production oriented business rules to control the electrically connected devices correlates to the first level of the architecture being associated with a requirement definition that indicates one or more expectations of the plurality of elements corresponding to the second plurality of elements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Palladino with wherein the first level of the architecture is associated with a requirement definition that indicates one or more expectations of the plurality of elements corresponding to the second plurality of elements as taught by McCoy because the low level API can be used to implement non-standard operation of the appliance so that the appliance can be operated outside of the predetermined operating cycles. These additional cycles of operation enabled include development, error detection, and diagnostic cycles (McCoy: Col. 20, lines 34-67 and Col. 21, lines 1-2).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCoy in view of Palladino.
With regards to Claim 20, McCoy teaches the system of Claim 19 above. McCoy does not explicitly teach:
wherein the processor is comprised in at least one of:a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;
a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;
a first system for performing simulation operations;
a second system for performing deep learning operations;
a third system implemented using an edge device;
a fourth system implemented using a robot;
a fifth system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs);
a sixth system implemented at least partially in a data center;
a seventh system for performing digital twin operations;
an eighth system for performing light transport simulation;
a nineth system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets;
a tenth system for performing conversational Artificial Intelligence operations;
an eleventh system for generating synthetic data;
a twelfth system for implementing a web-hosted service for detecting program workload inefficiencies;
an application as an application programming interface ("API");
a thirteenth system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources;
a fourteenth system for presenting one or more of virtual reality content, augmented reality content, or mixed reality content; or a fifteenth system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs).
However, Palladino teaches:
wherein the processor is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;
a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;
a first system for performing simulation operations;
a second system for performing deep learning operations;
a third system implemented using an edge device;
a fourth system implemented using a robot;
a fifth system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs);
a sixth system implemented at least partially in a data center;
a seventh system for performing digital twin operations;
an eighth system for performing light transport simulation;
a nineth system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets;
a tenth system for performing conversational Artificial Intelligence operations;
an eleventh system for generating synthetic data;
a twelfth system for implementing a web-hosted service for detecting program workload inefficiencies;
an application as an application programming interface ("API");
a thirteenth system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources (Paragraph 185, “In some implementations, such as, for example, potentially in the case of a cloud-based language model, a remote language model is hosted by a computer system that includes a plurality of cooperating (e.g., cooperating via a network) computer systems that are in, for example, a distributed arrangement. Notably, a remote language model employs a plurality of processors (e.g., hardware processors such as, for example, processors of cooperating computer systems).” The computer system hosting a remote language model such as a cloud-based language model which employs a plurality of processors correlates to the processor being comprised in a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources);
a fourteenth system for presenting one or more of virtual reality content, augmented reality content, or mixed reality content; or a fifteenth system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine McCoy with wherein the processor is comprised in at least one of a thirteenth system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources as taught by Palladino because remote language models, which rely on cloud computing resources, can be accessed through a software interface which can provide output in a required time frame such as real-time or near real-time. These language models contain hundreds of thousands of learned parameters to perform a variety of tasks or virtual assistance (Palladino: paragraphs 181 and 185).
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Martinez et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 20100287274 A1); teaching a method of streaming data from multiple physical interfaces connected to each other by multiple networks. A plurality of bondable virtual interfaces for splitting the data stream into multiple data sub-streams or combining multiple data sub-streams between the physical interfaces. Traffic monitors are also utilized to gather performance characteristics of each of the multiple physical interfaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SELINA HU whose telephone number is (571)272-5428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:30.
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, Chat Do can be reached at (571) 272-3721. 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.
SELINA HU
Examiner
Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193