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 .
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed on July 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that “Claims 1 and 10 are amended herein to clarify the recited automated test equipment architecture includes "one or more software-configurable physical disconnects." The automated test equipment architecture is a particular machine that is configured by "applying the selected model to configure physical hardware" of the automated test equipment architecture, "including the one or more software-configurable physical disconnects," to change the state of the test equipment architecture as necessary for a particular unit under test (UTT). Thus, to the extent the claims recite an abstract idea, the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to “The automated test equipment architecture is a particular machine that is configured by "applying the selected model to configure physical hardware" of the automated test equipment architecture, "including the one or more software-configurable physical disconnects," to change the state of the test equipment architecture as necessary for a particular unit under test (UTT)”, the ATE as claimed in light of the Specification is not a particular machine. Instead, it is recited at a high level of generality. The ATE as recited in the claim is a tool used to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the recited “disconnects” are tools used to perform the abstract idea.
Further, the claim does not recite details of how to accomplish, “change the state of the test equipment architecture as necessary for a particular disconnects”. The claim recites “applying the selected at least one model to configure physical hardware of the automated test equipment architecture including the one or more software-configurable physical disconnects thereby defining a virtual slice of the automated test equipment that provides one or more electrical signals that meet the predetermined test requirements at the one or more pins”, which amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim when viewed as a whole or in ordered combination fails to provide an improvement in virtualized ATE architect as recited in MPEP 2106.05(a).
35 USC 102 and 103
Applicants’ amendment and arguments are found persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been withdrawn.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: claim 1 recites “a method comprising: storing a plurality of models…receiving…and applying…” which is a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1: claim 1 recites an abstract idea as follows:
Claim 1 recites a judicial exception, a mental process that may be carried out in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper in simple situations, or by a monitoring system, or hardware processors, for more complicated situations (see limitations “receiving a plurality of parameters…selecting at least one model from a plurality of models…and applying…thereby defining a virtual slice of the automated test equipment architecture that provides one or more electrical signals that meet the predetermined test requirements at the one or more pins”).
At Step 2A, Prong 2, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. There is no particular machine recited.
The claim recites “pins”, “physical hardware”, and “automated test equipment architecture”, “disconnects” are not particular devices. They are field of use devices.
Limitation “applying the selected at least one model to configure physical hardware of the automated test equipment architecture thereby defining a virtual slice of the automated test equipment architecture that provides one or more electrical signals that meet the predetermined test requirements at the one or more pins” when viewed as individual or in combination, does not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, any particular machine, nor does it affect a real-world transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Instead, the claim appears to monopolize the abstract idea itself for any purpose or in any practical application where it might conceivably be used. It can cover anything that could be done in the field of automatic test equipment.
The “(provided) one or more electrical signals that meet the predetermined test requirements at the one or more pins” are data and insignificant and the use is unlimited.
the claim does not recite details of how to accomplish, “change the state of the test equipment architecture as necessary for a particular disconnects”. The claim recites “applying the selected at least one model to configure physical hardware of the automated test equipment architecture including the one or more software-configurable physical disconnects thereby defining a virtual slice of the automated test equipment that provides one or more electrical signals that meet the predetermined test requirements at the one or more pins”, which amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim when viewed as a whole or in ordered combination fails to provide an improvement in virtualized ATE architect as recited in MPEP 2106.05(a).
At Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, for reasons that are analogous to the discussion of additional elements at Prong 2.
Therefore, claim 1 is ineligible.
Claim 10 recites a computer readable medium which does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the medium claim to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via a computer processor. The medium claim is no different from the method claim 1 in substance; the method claim recites the abstract idea while the medium claim, recite generic components configured to implement the same abstract idea. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claim 2 adds a limitation which is data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claim 3 adds a limitation, “the computer is coupled to the virtualized automated test equipment architecture using a serial or parallel bus” which is not a particular device. It is a tool to perform the method.
Dependent claim 4 adds a limitation, “the computer is coupled to…using a wireless interface” which is not a particular device. It is a tool to perform the method.
Dependent claim 5 adds a limitation, “the computer is coupled to…over an ethernet connection” which is not a particular device. It is a tool to perform the method. It is merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claim 6 adds a limitation “generating a model from a pattern library” is data gathering and is data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claims 6-9 add limitations which are data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claim 11 adds a limitation which is data gathering merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claim 12 adds a limitation which is data gathering merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements. The “(generated) model” is data and insignificant. Its use is unlimited.
Dependent claims 13 and 14 add limitations which are data merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements.
Dependent claim 15 adds a limitation which is data gathering merely extending the abstract idea without adding any additional elements. The “(stored) generate model” is data and insignificant. Its use is unlimited.
Conclusion
Claims 1-15 are patentably distinguishable over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the combination wherein “selecting at least one model from the plurality of models…applying…one or more pins” in combination with other limitations in the claims as defined by Applicants.
Claims 2-9 depend from claim 1 and therefore are also patentably distinguishable over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 10, the closest prior art of record either alone or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the combination wherein “select at least one model from the plurality of models based on the received parameters; and apply the selected at least one model…one or more pins” in combination with other limitations in the claims as defined by Applicants.
Claims 11-15 depend from claim 1 and therefore are also patentably distinguishable over the prior art of record.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-2718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew M Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/PHUONG HUYNH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 October 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights