DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claims 1-20 are not found eligible under 35 U.S.C 101.
Claims 1, 4, 11, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salmela; Marko (US 20080270101 A1), in the view of Zhao; Weiming (US 20150169303 A1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salmela; Marko (US 20080270101 A1), in the view of Zhao; Weiming (US 20150169303 A1), further in the view of Challenger; James R. (US 7689947 B2)
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salmela; Marko (US 20080270101 A1), in the view of Zhao; Weiming (US 20150169303 A1) further in the view of Ikram; Shahid (US 9355206 B2)
Claims 5- 9 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salmela; Marko (US 20080270101 A1), in the view of Zhao; Weiming (US 20150169303 A1) further in the view of Shankar; Siddhartha (US 9600241 B2)
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salmela; Marko (US 20080270101 A1), in the view of Zhao; Weiming (US 20150169303 A1) further in the view Gupta; Rajeev (US 11086694 B2)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salmela; Marko (US 20080270101 A1), in the view of Zhao; Weiming (US 20150169303 A1), further in the view of Shankar; Siddhartha (US 9600241 B2), further in the view of Hu; Zhiqun (US 7391821 B2).
This action is non-final rejection.
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.
As per claim 20, the applicant has failed to provide basis for the terminology "computer readable storage medium". Without definition in the specification "computer readable storage medium" is meant to include a computer data signal embodied in a carrier wave. Since propagation media in the context of this disclosure covers signals and carrier waves, which are not a manufacture within the meaning of 101, and electrical connection and optical fibers, on which the program is still unavailable to the processor, The program is still unable to act as a computer component and have its functionality realized and is therefore rejected under 101 as failing to be limited to embodiments which fall within a statutory category of invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim invention recites a judicial exception, which is directed to judicial exception of an abstract idea, as
it has not been integrated into practical application, and the claim further does not recite
significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1: claims 1-10 are directed to a method, which is a process, so it is under a statutory category of the invention. Claims 11-19 are directed to a system, which is machine, so it is under a statutory category of invention. Claim 20 is not under a statutory category of the invention as it is stated above.
Step 2A: Prong 1: Yes, the claims recite abstract idea. Claims 1-20 recite abstract ideas, which falls under a mental process since a human mind can generate a transition table using user inputs. Abstract ideas are bolded as shown below.
Claims 1, 11,20: recites
generating an initial state transition table in response to receipt of the system traits, the initial state transition table being partially populated by the system traits; under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim limitation recites abstract idea under a mental process. A human mind can create a transition table and populate it using a pen and paper using the obtained data (system traits). a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
error-checking the populated state transition table using predetermined error-checking criteria, including searching the populated state transition table via error checking logic of the for an omitted critical trait of the modeled system; under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this claim limitation recites abstract idea under a mental process since a human mind can observe and analyze the state transition table and check if there are any omitted critical traits so a human mind can perform error checking of a transition table using a pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong 2: No
The above judicial exceptions do not recite additional elements that integrate
the exceptions into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not
have additional elements of a combination of additional elements that apply, rely on or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial
exception.
Claims recite gathering data and outputting information which is insignificant extra solution activity. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource V. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), and claims also recites data manipulation by “displaying” outputs - Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016); MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim limitations which recite data gatherings, and manipulation are listed below.
Claim 1, 11, and 20:
receiving system traits via a - (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).).
populating the initial state transition table, via the (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering, such as 'outputting data'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
communicating an alert to the user of the host computer in response to the omitted critical trait -(insignificant extra solution activity- WURC, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "I. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321)
Step 2B: No:
The claims do not cite additional elements which are significantly more than the
abstract idea. As outlined above the claims merely use a computer as a tool to gather and output information for the abstract idea of generating a transitional table. As of claim 11 and 20, they also recite additional elements of computer components (memory, processor), display screen, but as it is cited above using a computer as a tool is not significantly more and there is no improvement to the computer other than using computer components to store, process and display analyzed information.
As of claim 1,11, and 20, they also recited a WURC which is not significantly more than the claimed invention since “communicating an alert to the user of the host computer in response to the omitted critical trait” is -(insignificant extra solution activity- WURC, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); ).
Generally, the independent claims inherently recite abstract ideas based on the
above analysis and let’s see if there are any significant more claim limitations exist for the dependent claims.
Claim 2:
wherein receiving the system traits includes receiving User-initiated events, System-triggered events, and Timeout events of the modeled system – it further defines the type of input traits (gathered information), so no new additional element is recited which is significantly more.
Claims 3 and 13:
iteratively performing the method until the host computer does not detect the omitted critical trait; and – if further define abstract idea of error checking using a host computer as a tool to perform the process iteratively until a criterion met., so no new additional element is recited which is significantly more.
outputting the populated state transition table as a final state transition table once the host computer does not detect the omitted critical trait - (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering, such as 'outputting data'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Claim 13 have also additional claim limitations besides the above, which recites
Generating the initial state transition table, populating the initial state transition table, error-checking the populated state transition table. and communicating the alert to the user; - it further defines the abstract idea of generating a transitional table, and as it is analyzed above on claim 1, this claim limitation doesn’t recite any additional element which is significantly more.
Claims 4 and 14:
presenting a menu of possible states and events of the modeled system to the user via a display screen of the host computer; and - (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering, such as 'outputting data'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
determining the system traits via the host computer using touch or keyboard inputs - (insignificant extra-solution activity – WURC, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), it uses a computer to read entries or to select from the list is using a computer as a tool and no new additional element is recited which is significantly more.
In addition to the above limitations claim 14, recites record user entries or selections from the drop-down list in response to the touch or keyboard inputs - (insignificant extra-solution activity – WURC, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), it is a generic use of a computer to store user input.
Claim 5:
displaying the menu as a drop-down list, wherein receiving the system traits includes recording user entries or selections from the drop-down list- (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering, such as 'outputting data'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
Claims 6 and 15:
receiving, via the host computer, one or more containers of meaning in which two or more of the states are grouped together; and - (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).).
translating the containers of meaning into a state hierarchy – it further defines abstract idea, and this also can be done by a human mind, and there is not additional element which is significantly more is claimed.
Claims 7 and 16:
displaying an intuitive drag-and-drop graphic or editing tools to the user via a display screen of the host computer; and - (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering, such as 'outputting data'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).)
receiving the one of more containers of meaning as a user response to the drag-and-drop graphic or editing inputs from the editing tools - (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).).
Claims 8 and 17:
confirming, via the host computer, a validity of the state transitions per event type in each respective one of the containers of meaning; and – it further defines abstract idea of mental process since a human mind can observe the state transition and make a judgment about its validity. The additional element of a host computer is used as a tool to perform the abstract idea, so no new additional element is recited, which is significantly more.
communicating a validity confirmation status to the user in response to confirming the validity of the state transitions per event type -(insignificant extra solution activity- WURC, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) by at least "I. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321)
Claims 9 and 18:
receiving a user-defined compound event as a combination of the events; and- (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).).
updating the populated state transition table with the user-defined compound event – it further defines abstract idea of a mental process, since a human mind can update the transition table using the obtained information from the user and there is no new additional element is recited, which is significantly more.
Claims 10 and 19:
receiving a customized event query from the user via the host computer, the customized event query describing one or more hypothetical combinations of the events; - (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).).
determining results of the event query via the host computer; and updating the populated state transition table with the results – it further defines the abstract idea of mental process. Additional element of a host computer is used as a tool and there is no new additional element is recited, which is significantly more.
Claim 12:
receive the system traits as user-initiated events, automatically- occurring events, external events, and fault triggered events of the modeled system- (insignificant extra-solution activity – data gathering such as 'obtaining information'. See MPEP 2106.05(g).).
Generally, based on the above claim by claim analysis and claims as a whole, it does not recite any additional element which is significantly more than the claimed invention. The claim is merely a mental process of generating and populating a transition table using a computer and merely using a computer is not significantly more than abstract idea since there is no improvement in the computer recited.
Therefore claims 1-20 are not found eligible under 35 USC 101.
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, 4, 11, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salmela; Marko (US 20080270101 A1), in the view of Zhao; Weiming (US 20150169303 A1).
As of claim 1, Salmela teaches A method for generating a populated state transition table for a modeled system, comprising: ([0009], In an embodiment of the invention, state transition tables are automatically created, maintained, and seamlessly and dynamically integrated to the tool that is used for creating state machine models).
receiving system traits via a host computer from a user, wherein the system traits include states, state transitions, and events of the modeled system;([0016], The state machine receives a set of possible input events. Thus, a state machine cannot receive unknown input. The state machine comprises a set of new states that may result from the input. The state machine further comprises a set of possible actions or output events that result from a new state. When an input event causes the state machine to move from a state to another state, a state transition occurs. It is possible to define a state transition function that maps states and inputs to states …[0023], The input means may comprise a keyboard, a keypad, a touch-sensitive screen, a pointer or a mouse, for example. In addition, the input means may comprise a communication interface, with which the device may be connected to another device)
generating an initial state transition table in response to receipt of the system traits,( [0009] The state transition table may be automatically generated based on the meta-information available about possible events for each state).
auto-generate the populated state transition table; ([0009], state transition tables are automatically created, maintained, and seamlessly and dynamically integrated to the tool that is used for creating state machine models).
communicating an alert to the user of the host computer in response to the omitted critical trait ([0049] In an embodiment, various indicators are shown along with the state transitions. In the example of FIG. 2C, the display comprises indicators 220, 222 and 224 which may be used as error indicators. These indicators may give the user a visual notification that the element or definition in question is not semantically correct).
Salmela does not explicitly teach the initial state transition table being partially-populated by the system traits; populating the initial state transition table, via the host computer, in response to a set of user inputs from a user of the host computer, to thereby, error-checking the populated state transition table using predetermined error-checking criteria, including searching the populated state transition table via error checking logic of the host computer for an omitted critical trait of the modeled system.
While Zhao teaches the initial state transition table being partially-populated by the system traits;([0038] Transformation 403 provides an example of state merging: for FSM input `.` and looking at the third (input=`.`) row of state transition table 300, each of states "START", "INT", and "S1" transitions to state "FLOAT" on input `.` while each of the remaining states transitions to "Invalid". Thus, the "START", "INT", and "S1" states can be merged, as seen in the example code shown as transformation 403. Transformation 403 may provide the following advantage: transformation 403 may provide smaller code size compared to providing code for each of the unmerged states separately…[0026] FIG. 3 shows a state transition table 300 that may be derived from source code input 102 to provide an abstract or canonical representation of the finite state machine that would operate when source code 102 is executed on a processor. Header row 301 indicates a state of the finite state machine for each column), The transitional table 300 is populated with some of the states as invalid (partially populated).
populating the initial state transition table, via the host computer, in response to a set of user inputs from a user of the host computer, to thereby ( [0033] D) A process of populating a transition table may include providing a state variable entry (such as table entries 305) for each cell of the transition table based on the information identified in (A), (B), and (C)).
error-checking the populated state transition table using predetermined error-checking criteria, including searching the populated state transition table via error checking logic of the host computer for an omitted critical trait of the modeled system; and ([0033] D) A process of populating a transition table may include providing a state variable entry (such as table entries 305) for each cell of the transition table based on the information identified in (A), (B), and (C). The process of finite state machine recognition and abstraction 110 may check that there is no unknown cell (missing table entry) or overlapping cell (conflicting table entries)).
Salmela and Zhao is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, since they focus on generating of a transition table for a finite element machine. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to integrate Zhao’s teaching of populating and error checking of a transitional table into Salmela’s method of generating a transitional table using system traits.
The motivation would have been to improve performance of a finite state machine executing in hardware, for example, in terms of finding states and transitions of the finite state machine that occur more or most frequently, referred to as "hot spots", and generating optimized code tailored to execute the finite state machine more quickly, or using less instructions, for those states and transitions (Zhao, [0018]).
Claim 11 and 20 are also in the same scope to claim 1, with additional elements which Salmela teaches, a host computer having a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ("memory") and a processor, the memory including an instruction set that is executable by the processor; and a display screen in communication with the host computer, wherein execution of the instruction set by the processor ([0023], The device 100 comprises a controller 102, a display 104, and input means 106 operatively connected to each other. The controller may be realized with a processor, integrated circuits and associated software, for example. The input means may comprise a keyboard, a keypad, a touch-sensitive screen, a pointer or a mouse, for example. In addition, the input means may comprise a communication interface, with which the device may be connected to another device. The input means may be any device or solution providing the user of the device with an interface to the device 100. The device 100 may also comprise a memory 108 which may be used to store data. The memory may be realized with one or more memory circuits, disc drives or with detachable memory devices such as memory cards, memory sticks, or diskettes).
Therefore claims 11 and 20 are also rejected under the same rational as claim 1.
As of claim 4, the modified model of Salmela – Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Salmela also teaches : presenting a menu of possible states and events of the modeled system to the user via a display screen of the host computer; and ([0029] In step 304, possible triggering events are searched for. In an embodiment of the invention, the state transitions and destination states available for a component are displayed automatically on the display when the component obtains focus. In this case, when the component 200 obtains focus in step 302, it is checked whether the component has available outgoing state transitions and destination states. Three possible transitions are detected).
determining the system traits via the host computer using touch or keyboard inputs ([0006], The device is further configured to search for possible outgoing state transitions and destination states related to the state with which the at least one modelling component is associated, display the found outgoing state transitions and destination states, receive with the input means selections of the state transitions and destination states, and add with the processor the selections to the model describing the finite state machine… [0023) The input means may comprise a keyboard, a keypad, a touch-sensitive screen, a pointer or a mouse).
Claim 14 is also in the same scope as that of claim 4, with additional elements that the modified model teaches. The additional limitation of claim 14, is also taught by Salmela which is record user entries or selections from the drop-down list in response to the touch or keyboard inputs( [0023], The device 100 may also comprise a memory 108 which may be used to store data…[0031] The designer may select a displayed category from a list or by clicking a modelling component assigned to the focus state. In this embodiment of the invention, the user may simply select the transitions that are needed in the application under design by clicking the transition with a mouse, for…).
Therefore Claim 14 is also rejected under the same rational as claim 4.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salmela; Marko (US 20080270101 A1), in the view of Zhao; Weiming (US 20150169303 A1), further in the view of Challenger; James R. (US 7689947 B2)
As of claim 2, the modified model of Salmela – Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and Salmela also teaches, wherein receiving the system traits includes receiving User-initiated events, ([0016], When an input event causes the state machine to move from a state to another state, a state transition occurs. It is possible to define a state transition function that maps states and inputs to states) System-triggered events, ([0009], designing a state machine model, the tool is configured to find out available triggering events and propose transitions and destination states to be added to the state machine model on the basis of the events).
The modified model does not explicitly teach Timeout events of the modeled system.
While Challenger teaches Timeout events of the modeled system (Col. 44 line 38- 44, In one embodiment, an externally specifiable timing designation and runtime event mechanism allows for computing systems to signal transitions based on time events. Timings can be elapsed time, e.g., state.end. time- state. start.time, or absolute time relative to a time zone, e.g., 2005.12.31@11:59:59. When time expires, the corresponding state transition is automatically triggered).
Challenger is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches finite state machines and updates to the finite state machine based on used defined inputs. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Challenger’s teaching of timeout event of the model system into the modified model to generate a transition table based on received inputs from the user.
The motivation would have been states and transitions can be added, removed or modified in a running time of a system e.g., changes can be made "on the fly". In addition, the runtime engine utilized by embodiments of the present invention is a runtime interpreter and is not generated code, facilitating changes during runtime, i.e. flexibility, while at the same time enhancing human understandability (Challenger, Col. 2 line 35- 45).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salmela; Marko (US 20080270101 A1), in the view of Zhao; Weiming (US 20150169303 A1) further in the view of Ikram; Shahid (US 9355206 B2)
As of claim 3, the modified model of Salmela – Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but it does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 3.
While Ikram teaches iteratively performing the method until the host computer does not detect the omitted critical trait; and (Col. 4, line 46 -56 The specification generation engine 102 then iterates over all the commands and the state table to produce the next/new “State” or sequence. If the new “State” is not in the state table yet, the specification generation engine 102 adds the “State” to the state table. In some embodiments, the specification generation engine 102 recursively applies the commands to all of the new “States” generated during the process. The resulting table should include a plurality of sequences of states, wherein a state in each of the sequences can be reached from a prior state in the same sequence via one or more commands).
outputting the populated state transition table as a final state transition table once the host computer does not detect the omitted critical trait (Col. 4 line 56 -59, In some embodiments, when the entire state table is generated, the specification generation engine 102 generates and outputs the state table-based specifications in various formats).
Ikram is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches IC design protocol using transition tables including system traits. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date to integrate Ikram’s teaching of iteratively checking the completeness of the table and outputting the final transition table into the modified model to generate and display a transitional table using system traits.
The motivation would have been to improve readability and automatic generation of functional coverage for the IC design protocol, which includes but are not limited to, coverage points, protocol transitions, and/or transaction coverage using advantage of table-based high-level (e.g., transaction-level), wherein the state tables are readable and easily manageable (Ikram, Col. 2 line 52- 59).
Claim 13 is also in the same scope as claim 3, with additional elements, which the modified model teaches. The additional elements of claim 13 include: receiving the system traits, generating the initial state transition table, populating the initial state transition table, error-checking the populated state transition table. and communicating the alert to the user; all these limitations are taught by the modified model of Salmela- Zhao as it is shown above on claim 1 (see claim 1 above more) and iterative process is also taught by Ikram as stated above.
Therefore claim 13 is also rejected under the same rational as claim 3.
Claims 5- 9 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salmela; Marko (US 20080270101 A1), in the view of Zhao; Weiming (US 20150169303 A1) further in the view of Shankar; Siddhartha (US 9600241 B2)
As of claim 5, the modified model of Salmela – Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 4, but it does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 5.
While Shankar teaches displaying the menu as a drop-down list, (Col. 18 line 46- 50, Like cells in table 402, a cell 456 in table 452 includes both a condition field and a destination field. Exemplary table 452 shows four source states: S1, S2, S3, and S4. Many more source states are possible, but four are shown for convenience. Further, more (or less) than three cells 456 may be associated with each source state, but three cells 456 are shown for each source state for convenience), wherein receiving the system traits includes recording user entries or selections from the drop-down list (Col 25 line 14- 21, In one embodiment, interface logic 330 may allow the user to select (e.g., “click” on) the action label displayed in cell 906-2 shown in FIG. 9B. For example, after hovering the cursor arrow over the action label in cell 906-2 by moving a mouse, the user may press a button on the mouse as a “click.” In this case, the focus of display may move to the action field in cell 906-1 where the action expression is associated with the label).
Shankar is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches a transitional table for a state machine model. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Shankar’s teaching of displaying a menu of as a drop-down list and storing the user selection into the modified model to generate a transition table based on received inputs from the user.
The motivation would have been to create easily editable table representation for a finite state machine by organizing and displaying the information stored in unified state transition table as shown in table 502. FIG. 5D is a flowchart of a process 550 for organizing and displaying the information in a unified state transition table (Shankar, Col. 20, line 12- 20).
As of claim 6, the modified model of Salmela – Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but it does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 6.
While Shankar teaches receiving, via the host computer, one or more containers of meaning in which two or more of the states are grouped together; and(col. 21 line 24- 32, These two destination states (S3 and S1) may be grouped into a single column 608 of table 602, where column 608 includes condition CA at the top of the column. Likewise, as shown in FIG. 4A, cell 406-5 and cell 406-4 include a destination state (S2) that is associated with the identical condition CB. These destination state (S2) may be grouped into a single column 610 of table 602, where column 610 includes condition CB at the top of the column.
translating the containers of meaning into a state hierarchy (Col. 35 line 38- 44, In this example, states state1 and state2 may be considered “inner states” or “sub-states,” and state stateB′ and stateB″ may be considered “super states.” The hierarchy of state transition tables is shown in FIGS. 15D and 15E in which states stateB′ and stateB″ are state machine models at a lower hierarchy than the state machine model including states state0 and stateA).
Shankar is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches a transitional table for a state machine model. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Shankar’s teaching of grouping two or more states together and translating a group of states into a hierarchy of states, to the modified model to generate a transition table based on received inputs from the user.
The motivation would have been to create easily editable table representation for a finite state machine by organizing and displaying the information stored in unified state transition table as shown in table 502. FIG. 5D is a flowchart of a process 550 for organizing and displaying the information in a unified state transition table (Shankar, Col. 20, line 12- 20).
Claim 15 is also in the same scope as claim 6, therefore claim 15 is rejected under the same rational as claim 6.
As of claim 7, the modified model of Salmela – Zhao- Shankar teaches all the limitations of claim 6 and Salmela also teaches displaying an intuitive drag-and-drop graphic or editing tools to the user via a display screen of the host computer; and ([0030] In step 306, the detected available outgoing state transitions and destination states are displayed on the screen 104 of the device 100, as FIG. 2B illustrates…[0036], The designer can also view and edit the already included transitions and states normally. Thus, the user may easily modify the model) and Shankar also teaches receiving the one of more containers of meaning as a user response to the drag-and-drop graphic or editing inputs from the editing tool (Col. 20 line 17- 22, In one embodiment, condition fields in table 402 associated with identical destination states may be grouped (block 552). For example, as shown in FIG. 4A, cell 406-4, cell 406-3, and cell 406-5 all include conditions (CB, CC, and CB, respectively) for transitioning to the identical destination state S2…Col. 24 line 3- 14, The conditions displayed in row 874 may be selected automatically or by the user. In the situation where the cells are selected automatically (e.g., by interface logic 330), the selection may be based on the number of cells 806 in table 852 (see FIG. 8C) that specify the common condition. That is, the more cells 806 in table 852 (see FIG. 8C) \ that specify the condition, the more likely it is to appear in row 874. For conditions that are not specified in row 874, those conditions may be specified in cells 886. For example, in one embodiment, cells 806 in table 852 (see FIG. 8C) that do not have a common property with any other cell may be listed with cells 886).
Claim 16 is also in the same scope as claim 7, therefore claim 16 is rejected under the same rational as claim 7.
As of claim 8, the modified model of Salmela – Zhao- Shankar teaches all the limitations of claim 6, and Salmela also teaches confirming, via the host computer, a validity of the state transitions per event type in each respective one of the containers of meaning; and ([0009] This enables predictive building of state machines and automatic checking and verification of completeness. When designing a state machine model, the tool is configured to find out available triggering events and propose transitions and destination states to be added to the state machine model on the basis of the events. Automatic checking may be performed for inclusion of defined states and transitions … [0036] Each time it is detected that a state and modelling component obtains focus, it is checked whether the component provides trigger events for state transitions and destination states which are not yet included in the finite state machine).
communicating a validity confirmation status to the user in response to confirming the validity of the state transitions per event type ( [0036], Each time it is detected that a state and modelling component obtains focus, it is checked whether the component provides trigger events for state transitions and destination states which are not yet included in the finite state machine. The detected state transitions and destination states for unhandled trigger events are displayed on the display with a special visual indication as long as the modelling component has the focus. The designer can select any proposed state to be added to the state machine at any time).
Claim 17 is also in the same scope as claim 8, therefore claim 17 is rejected under the same rational as claim 8.
As of claim 9, the modified model of Salmela – Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but it does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 9.
While Shankar teaches receiving a user-defined compound event as a combination of the events; and (Col. 25 line 55 – 63, interface logic 330 may have received commands from a user (e.g., using a mouse) to move the cursor over the label “switchON”. In response, interface logic 330 may display the condition expression associated with the label (e.g., “inputSwitch>0”). In one embodiment, the user may press a button on the mouse (e.g., “click” the condition label) to change the focus to the condition field that associates the condition expression with the condition label (e.g., in cell 946-1) … Col. 3 line 13- 17, According to table 102, for example, if the state machine is currently in source state S1, then when condition C12 is satisfied, the state machine may transition to state S2. Conditions C11 through C22 may include Boolean conditions, for example) the user receive conditions (event) to edit the table, and the conditions may include a Boolean condition (C1 and C2) which is interpreted as a compound condition(event).
updating the populated state transition table with the user-defined compound event (Col. 20 line 47 – 54, That is, table 502 may serve as a user interface to receive changes, modifications, and updates to the state machine model stored in unified state transition table 402. Interface logic 330 may receive input from the user to edit one of the destination states displayed in row 506 (block 556), wherein an edited destination state is associated with two condition fields, with each condition field corresponding to a different source state).
Shankar is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches a transitional table for a state machine model. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Shankar’s teaching of receiving conditions from the user to edit the transition table with a compound event (condition of Boolean) into the modified model to generate a transition table based on received inputs from the user.
The motivation would have been to create easily editable table representation for a finite state machine by organizing and displaying the information stored in unified state transition table as shown in table 502. FIG. 5D is a flowchart of a process 550 for organizing and displaying the information in a unified state transition table (Shankar, Col. 20, line 12- 20).
Claim 18 is also in the same scope as claim 9, therefore claim 18 is rejected under the same rational as claim 9.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salmela; Marko (US 20080270101 A1), in the view of Zhao; Weiming (US 20150169303 A1) further in the view Gupta; Rajeev (US 11086694 B2)
As of claim 10, the modified model teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but it does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 10.
While Gupta teaches receiving a customized event query from the user via the host computer, the customized event query describing one or more hypothetical combinations of the events;(Col. 3 line 55- 60, The plurality of records of the database table is queried by a complex event processing engine. Moreover, each input event stream of the one or more input event streams includes a plurality of instances. Each instance of the plurality of instances is associated with a simple event of one or more simple events … Col. 10 line 60 -67, The event management system 108 sequentially receives the one or more input event streams from the one or more event sources 102. The one or more input event streams are associated with the plurality of states of the one or more finite state machines in the temporary memory 106. Each input event stream of the one or more input event streams includes the plurality of instances and each instance of the plurality of instances may be associated with occurrence of a simple event of the one or more simple event. Each simple event may be part of chain of associated events which are linked to the complex event). A plurality of events from streams from the one or more event sources event management system is received and each simple event may be part of chain of associated events which are linked to the complex event (hypothetical combinations of the events).
determining results of the event query via the host computer; and (Col. 10 line 50 – 6, the event management system 108 is configured to query each input event stream and each output event stream to derive events affecting the plurality of states of the finite state machine …the event management system 108 is configured to infer the one or more complex events from the occurrence of the one or more simple events).
updating the populated state transition table with the results (Col. 2 line 34- 36, The one or more states data of the plurality of states data is updated as records of the database table).
Gupta is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches complex event processing of event streams in a finite state machine. Therefore it would be obvious to try for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use customized event query to update the transition table based on Gupta ‘s teaching of receiving a plurality of event from one or more event source and a complex event(hypothetical combinations of the events) to update a database table, and integrate this into the modified model to generate a transition table using system traits.
The motivation would have been to improve the scalability of the finite state machine based system by indexing a plurality of records of the database table using each output event stream of the one or more output event streams includes the plurality of instances and the one or more states data and complex event processing engine produces the output event stream after execution of the one or more CEP queries on the sliding window of the one or more records of the database table (Gupta, Col. 3 line 17).
Claim 19 is also in the same scope as claim 10, therefore claim 19 is rejected under the same rational as claim 10.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salmela; Marko (US 20080270101 A1), in the view of Zhao; Weiming (US 20150169303 A1), further in the view of Shankar; Siddhartha (US 9600241 B2), further in the view of Hu; Zhiqun (US 7391821 B2).
As of claim 12, the modified model of Salmela- Zhao teaches all the limitations of claim 11, and Salmela teaches receive the system traits as user-initiated events, ([0016], When an input event causes the state machine to move from a state to another state, a state transition occurs. It is possible to define a state transition function that maps states and inputs to states).
The modified model does not explicitly teach receive the system traits automatically- occurring events, external events, and fault triggered events of the modeled system.
While Shankar teaches automatically- occurring events ( Col. 19 line 40 -43, The points in time may occur, for example, at periodic times, when the value of an expression changes, when an event occurs, or when a condition is satisfied).
Shankar is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches a transitional table for a state machine model. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Shankar’s teaching of receiving automatically occurring event into the modified model to generate a transition table based on received inputs from the user.
The motivation would have been to create easily editable table representation for a finite state machine by organizing and displaying the information stored in unified state transition table as shown in table 502. FIG. 5D is a flowchart of a process 550 for organizing and displaying the information in a unified state transition table (Shankar, Col. 20, line 12- 20).
The modified model of Salmela- Zhao- Shankar does not explicitly teach receiving of external events, and fault triggered events of the modeled system.
While Hu teaches external events, and fault triggered events of the modeled system (Col. 1 line 45- 46, 56- 61, The apparatus includes a plurality of ports that each receive an indication of an occurrence of an event that can cause a transition from one state to another… the events that may cause a transition may be external events or internal events. Such external events may be due to commands from front panel button pressing or from a remote serial communications bus or from another controller. Also, the events may be the result of critical faults that could change the system operational state).
Hu is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention since it teaches transition and event logging system for a finite state machine. Therefore, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate Hu’s teaching of receiving external and fault triggered events into the modified model to generate a transition table using input events.
The motivation would have been to reduce the developing time and cost and improve the quality, and help the user or operator of the finite state machine to monitor and diagnose the operation by automatically record state transition and event log and any operational state change in the system or transmitter, such as internal state transition procedure, any external events, such as operator's operation, and any critical faults, which cause the transmitter state changing (Hu, Col. 4-5, line 65-67, 1-10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
OUYANG QIAN (WO 2023060521 A1, Date Published, 2023-04-20) is similar to the claimed invention since it teaches generate a transition table based on a specification of the hardware device. The transition table comprises a plurality of entries. Each entry represents a change of the state of the hardware device in response to an event.
HAN; Xiao (US 20210263750 A1, Date Published, 2021-08-26), is similar to the claimed invention since it teaches a state transition table corresponding to the finite state machine can be generated based on the states, the transition relationship between the states, and the condition for transition between the states, for the electronic payment system to query the state transition table in executing the payment process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABRHAM A. TAMIRU whose telephone number is (571)272-6987. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571 272 4071. 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.
/ABRHAM ALEHEGN TAMIRU/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/AKASH SAXENA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188 Tuesday, August 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights