DETAILED ACTION
This non-final rejection is responsive to the claims filed 17 July 2023. Claims 1-18 are pending. Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent claims.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1
Step 1
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-6 are directed to a program analysis assistance apparatus, claims 7-12 are directed to a program analysis assistance method, and claim 13-19 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the for statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Step 2A, Prong One
identify, from a device control program, signal values output by registers; and (This step amounts to determining values from a program which is practically implementable in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. This, it is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., judgment).)
identify, from the identified signal values, signal lines that are connected to the registers. (This step amounts to determining relationships from a program which is practically implementable in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. This, it is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., judgment).)
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
at least one memory storing instructions (The memory is understood to be generic computer equipment. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (The processor is understood to be generic computer equipment. See MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claim recites a processor and a memory which are generic computer components.
Regarding Claim 2
Step 2A, Prong One
extract, from the device control program, instructions and comments in which the registers are used as operands, and identifies the signal values output by the registers based on the extracted instructions, and (This step amounts to determining values from a program which is practically implementable in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. This, it is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., judgment).)
identify the signal lines to which the registers are connected by matching the extracted comments and the identified signal values against rules defining relationships between signal lines, signal values, and keywords. (This step amounts to determining relationships from a program which is practically implementable in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. This, it is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., judgment).)
Step 2A Prong 2:
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception.
Regarding Claim 3
Step 2A, Prong One
if a plurality of signal lines have been identified in relation to one of the registers as a result of the matching, calculate, for each of the plurality of signal lines, a probability of the signal line being connected to the one of the registers, and identifies a signal line for which the calculated probability is high as the signal line to which the register is connected. (This step amounts to determining probability values based on the determined relationships, which is practically implementable in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. The determination of probabilities is focused on a mathematical concept. This, it is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., judgment).)
Step 2A Prong 2:
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception.
Regarding Claim 4
Step 2A, Prong One
identify the signal values output by the registers by matching the extracted instructions against rules in which, for each instruction, an associated signal value is defined in advance. (This step amounts to determining values from a program which is practically implementable in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. This, it is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., judgment).)
Step 2A Prong 2:
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception.
Regarding Claim 5
Step 2A, Prong One
extract registers and devices associated therewith from the control program, extract the instructions and the comments relating to the registers extracted by the device identifying means, wherein the rules define relationships between devices, signal lines, signal values, and keywords, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: match, against the rules, the devices extracted by the device identifying means, the comments extracted by the instruction analyzing means, and the signal values identified by the instruction analyzing means. (This step amounts to determining values from a program and determining relationships, which is practically implementable in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. This, it is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., judgment).)
Step 2A Prong 2:
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception.
Regarding Claim 6
Step 2A, Prong One
wherein the device control program is a source program written in a programming language. (This step amounts to determining values from a program written in a specific language, which is practically implementable in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper as a physical aid. This, it is understood to be a recitation of a mental process (i.e., judgment).)
Step 2A Prong 2:
The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception.
Similar analysis applies to claims 7-18. Moreover, the computer described in claims 13-18 is understood to be a generic computer equipment. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. The claims recite a computer which are generic computer 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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ota (US 2018/0348728 A1) hereinafter known as Ota.
Regarding independent claim 1, Ota teaches:
A program analysis assistance apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and (Ota: Fig. 2 and ¶[0069] and ¶[0074]; Ota teaches a process analysis apparatus with a memory. The process analysis apparatus performs an analysis on a PLC.)
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: identify, from a device control program, signal values output by registers; and (Ota: Figs. 1, 4, 5, and 9-12 and ¶[0115]-¶[0119]; Ota teaches analyzing a control program and extracting variables and operands for the mechanisms (servo motors, etc...). Fig. 2 and ¶[0074] further teaches a processor. Fig. 5 and ¶[0075] teaches using the foregoing to perform the process analysis.)
identify, from the identified signal values, signal lines that are connected to the registers. (Ota: Figs. 1 and 9-12 and ¶[0115]-¶[0119]; Ota teaches analyzing a control program, extracting variables and operands, and determining the relationship between nodes (mechanisms).)
An embodiment of Ota does not explicitly teach but another embodiment teaches:
... by registers ... (Ota: Fig. 3 and ¶[0085]; Ota teaches input/output interfaces, which are interpreted as registers.)
Ota is in the same field of endeavor as the present invention, as it is directed to PLC program analysis. It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to combine a PLC program analysis which extracts variables and relationships of mechanisms from a control program with further extracting the variables from the PLC input/output interfaces. An embodiment of Ota already teaches the extracting variables for mechanisms from a control program for running on a PLC. Ota further provides the additional functionality of using the PLC input/output interface. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these teachings because the combination would allow extracting the PLC variables.
Regarding claim 2, Ota further teaches the program analysis assistance apparatus according to claim 1.
Ota further teaches:
extract, from the device control program, instructions and comments in which the registers are used as operands, and identifies the signal values output by the registers based on the extracted instructions, and (Ota: Figs. 1 and 9-12 and ¶[0115]-¶[0119]; Ota teaches analyzing a control program and extracting variables and operands for the mechanisms based on instructions. Further, The claims and the instant specification do not provide an explicit definition of instructions and comments. Accordingly, Fig. 10 and ¶[0118] teaches utilizing various elements of the syntax, i.e. operators and operands, which may be interpreted as instructions and comments.)
identify the signal lines to which the registers are connected by matching the extracted comments and the identified signal values against rules defining relationships between signal lines, signal values, and keywords. (Ota: Figs. 1 and 9-12 and ¶[0115]-¶[0119]; Ota teaches analyzing a control program, extracting variables and operands, and determining the relationship between nodes (mechanisms).)
Regarding claim 3, Ota further teaches the program analysis assistance apparatus according to claim 2.
Ota further teaches:
if a plurality of signal lines have been identified in relation to one of the registers as a result of the matching, calculate, for each of the plurality of signal lines, a probability of the signal line being connected to the one of the registers, and identifies a signal line for which the calculated probability is high as the signal line to which the register is connected. (Ota: ¶[0090]; Ota teaches analyzing the order relationship of the plurality of mechanisms by analyzing the control program. Figs. 10-12 and ¶[0122]-¶[0127] further teach calculating the probability of different variables and identifying an order that occurs in the order relationship between mechanisms with a probability that is lower than a threshold value.)
Regarding claim 4, Ota further teaches the program analysis assistance apparatus according to claim 2.
Ota further teaches:
identify the signal values output by the registers by matching the extracted instructions against rules in which, for each instruction, an associated signal value is defined in advance. (Ota: ¶[0116]; Ota teaches a known syntax analysis method (top down or bottom up) for constructing a syntax tree.)
Regarding claim 5, Ota further teaches the program analysis assistance apparatus according to claim 2.
Ota further teaches:
extract registers and devices associated therewith from the control program, extract the instructions and the comments relating to the registers extracted by the device identifying means, wherein the rules define relationships between devices, signal lines, signal values, and keywords, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: match, against the rules, the devices extracted by the device identifying means, the comments extracted by the instruction analyzing means, and the signal values identified by the instruction analyzing means. (Ota: Figs. 1, 4, 5, and 9-12 and ¶[0115]-¶[0119]; Ota teaches analyzing a control program, extracting variables and operands, and determining the relationship between nodes (mechanisms).)
Regarding claim 6, Ota further teaches the program analysis assistance apparatus according to claim 5.
Ota further teaches:
wherein the device control program is a source program written in a programming language. (Ota: ¶[0015] and ¶[0024] Ota teaches the control program may be written in a variety of languages.)
Regarding claims 7-18, these claims recite a method and a non-transitory computer readable medium that performs the function of the program analysis assistance apparatus of claims 1-6; therefore, the same rationale for rejection applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX OLSHANNIKOV whose telephone number is (571)270-0667. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALEKSEY OLSHANNIKOV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights