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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 6/30/2026, are accepted and appreciated by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by Applicants amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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) 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 27, 33, 36-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (US 2016/0098561 A1) in view of Duncan (US2015/0145548 A1).
With respect to Claim 15 Keller teaches A programmable device categorization system for categorizing a programmable device under test (DUT) that includes programmable resources, the programmable device categorization system comprising (See Abstract An apparatus for testing, inspecting or screening an electrically powered device for modified or unmodified hardware, firmware or software modifications): at least one computer including at least one hardware processor (See Fig 1); and storage to store instructions that when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the programmable device categorization system to: (See Para[0507]) load a sensor program into the programmable resources of the DUT, operate the sensor program in the DUT to generate sensor information including characteristics about the DUT (See Para[0135] Now in a particular reference to FIGS. 1 and 17A, a subset of the apparatus 10 is shown as apparatus 450 which includes an electromagnetic pattern sensor or a sensor 820 and controller represented by time domain and frequency domain processing modules, 450A and 450B respectively); process the sensor information from the DUT using a categorization model to generate categorization information for the DUT (See Fig 17); and output the categorization information (See Fig 17 Component 880 Sent to user). However Keller is silent to the language of load onto the DUT operate the sensor program loaded onto the DUT receive and store the sensor information from the DUT; Nevertheless Duncan teaches load onto the DUT (See Fig 6 Component 113) operate the sensor program loaded onto the DUT (See Fig 6 Component 117) receive and store the sensor information from the DUT (See Fig 6 Component 112); It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Keller and load, operate, receive and store such as that of Duncan. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Keller, to efficiently and accurately run a test.
With respect to Claim 18 Keller teaches The programmable device categorization system in claim 15, wherein the instructions that when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the programmable device categorization system to: load multiple sensor programs into the programmable resources of the DUT; (See Fig 17 and Para[0143]) operate each of the multiple sensor programs in the DUT to generate corresponding sensor information including characteristics of about the DUT; (See Fig 17 and Para[0143]) receive and store in the storage the corresponding sensor information from each of the multiple sensor programs; and for each of the multiple sensor programs, process the corresponding sensor information using a categorization model to generate and output categorization information for the DUT. (See Fig 17 and Para[0143]) However Keller is silent to the language of receive and store in the storage the corresponding sensor information from each of the multiple sensor programs; and Nevertheless Keller teaches in Para[0211] storing or sending the obtained information in step 880 It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to receive and store in the storage the corresponding sensor information from each of the multiple sensor programs; and because receiving and storing would allow for the data to manipulated and processed and would be no more than predicable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
With respect to Claim 19 Keller teaches The programmable device categorization system in claim 15, wherein the instructions that when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the programmable device categorization system to process the sensor information from the DUT using multiple categorization models to generate categorization information for the DUT. (See Fig 17 and Para[0143]) With respect to Claim 21 Keller teaches The programmable device categorization system in claim 15, wherein the programmable device categorization system is configured to categorize the DUT at any point in a supply chain of the DUT. (See Para[0237]) With respect to Claim 22 Keller teaches The programmable device categorization system in claim 15, wherein the programmable device categorization system is configured to categorize the DUT while another application is running on the DUT. (See Para[0034])
With respect to Claim 27 Keller teaches A non-transitory storage medium storing instructions, which when executed by one or more data processors, causes the one or more data processors to perform the following: (See Abstract An apparatus for testing, inspecting or screening an electrically powered device for modified or unmodified hardware, firmware or software modifications): load a sensor program into programmable resources of a programmable device under test (DUT); (See Para[0135] Now in a particular reference to FIGS. 1 and 17A, a subset of the apparatus 10 is shown as apparatus 450 which includes an electromagnetic pattern sensor or a sensor 820 and controller represented by time domain and frequency domain processing modules, 450A and 450B respectively); operate the sensor program the DUT to generate sensor information including characteristics about the DUT; (See Fig 17); process the sensor information from the DUT using a categorization model to generate categorization information for the DUT; and (See Fig 17); output the categorization information. (See Fig 17 Component 880 Sent to user). However Keller is silent to the language of load onto the DUT operate the sensor program loaded onto the DUT receive and store the sensor information from the DUT; Nevertheless Duncan teaches load onto the DUT (See Fig 6 Component 113) operate the sensor program loaded onto the DUT (See Fig 6 Component 117) receive and store the sensor information from the DUT (See Fig 6 Component 112); It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Keller and load, operate, receive and store such as that of Duncan. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Keller, to efficiently and accurately run a test.
With respect to Claim 33 A programmable device categorization method categorizing a programmable device under test (DUT) that includes programmable resources, the method comprising: (See Abstract An apparatus for testing, inspecting or screening an electrically powered device for modified or unmodified hardware, firmware or software modifications): loading a sensor program into programmable resources of a programmable device under test (DUT); (See Para[0135] Now in a particular reference to FIGS. 1 and 17A, a subset of the apparatus 10 is shown as apparatus 450 which includes an electromagnetic pattern sensor or a sensor 820 and controller represented by time domain and frequency domain processing modules, 450A and 450B respectively); operating the sensor program the DUT to generate sensor information including characteristics about the DUT; (See Fig 17); processing the sensor information from the DUT using a categorization model to generate categorization information for the DUT (See Fig 17);; and generating an output of the categorization information. (See Fig 17 Component 880 Sent to user). However Keller is silent to the language of load onto the DUT operate the sensor program loaded onto the DUT receive and store the sensor information from the DUT; Nevertheless Duncan teaches load onto the DUT (See Fig 6 Component 113) operate the sensor program loaded onto the DUT (See Fig 6 Component 117) receive and store the sensor information from the DUT (See Fig 6 Component 112); It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Keller and load, operate, receive and store such as that of Duncan. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Keller, to efficiently and accurately run a test. With respect to Claim 36 Keller teaches The programmable device categorization system in claim 15, wherein the output categorization information includes information indicating whether the DUT is repackaged, remanufactured, or inferior (See Para[0226]). With respect to Claim 37 Keller teaches The programmable device categorization system in claim 15, wherein the output categorization information includes information indicating whether the DUT is counterfeit, modified, or otherwise suspect (See Para[0226]). With respect to Claim 38 Keller teaches The programmable device categorization system in claim 15, wherein the output categorization information is useable to identify the DUT ((See Para[0226]) Examiner notes useable only requires ability to be used.). With respect to Claim 39 Keller teaches The non-transitory storage medium in claim 27, wherein the output categorization information includes information indicating whether the DUT is repackaged, remanufactured, or inferior. (See Para[0226]). With respect to Claim 40 Keller teaches The non-transitory storage medium in claim 27, wherein the output categorization information includes information indicating whether the DUT is counterfeit, modified, or otherwise suspect. (See Para[0226]). With respect to Claim 41 Keller teaches The non-transitory storage medium in claim 27, wherein the output categorization information is useable to identify the DUT. ((See Para[0226]) Examiner notes useable only requires ability to be used.). With respect to Claim 42 Keller teaches The method in claim 33, wherein the output categorization information includes information indicating whether the DUT is repackaged, remanufactured, or inferior. (See Para[0226]). With respect to Claim 43 Keller teaches The method in claim 33, wherein the output categorization information includes information indicating whether the DUT is counterfeit, modified, or otherwise suspect. (See Para[0226]). With respect to Claim 44 Keller teaches The method in claim 33, wherein the output categorization information is useable to identify the DUT. ((See Para[0226]) Examiner notes useable only requires ability to be used.).
Claim(s) 16, 28, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (US 2016/0098561 A1) in view of Duncan (US2015/0145548 A1) as applied to claims 15, 27, 33 respectively and further in view of Robertazzi (US2015/0247892 A1).
With respect to Claim 16 Keller is silent to the language of The programmable device categorization system in claim 15, wherein the output categorization information includes information indicating and an age of the DUT. Nevertheless Robertazzi teaches wherein the output categorization information includes information indicating and an age of the DUT (See Para[0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Keller wherein the output categorization information includes information indicating and an age of the DUT such as that of Robertazzi. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Keller, in order to help determine when the part has reached the end of its useful life. With respect to Claim 28 Keller is silent to the language of The non-transitory storage medium in claim 27, wherein the output categorization information includes information indicating and an age of the DUT. Nevertheless Robertazzi teaches wherein the output categorization information includes information indicating and an age of the DUT (See Para[0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Keller wherein the output categorization information includes information indicating and an age of the DUT such as that of Robertazzi. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Keller, in order to help determine when the part has reached the end of its useful life. With respect to Claim 34 Keller is silent to the language of The method in claim 33, wherein the output categorization information includes information indicating and an age of the DUT. Nevertheless Robertazzi teaches wherein the output categorization information includes information indicating and an age of the DUT (See Para[0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Keller wherein the output categorization information includes information indicating and an age of the DUT such as that of Robertazzi. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Keller, in order to help determine when the part has reached the end of its useful life.
Claim(s) 17, 29, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (US 2016/0098561 A1) in view of Duncan (US2015/0145548 A1) as applied to claims 15, 27, 33 respectively and further in view of Turner (US2017/0307679 A1).
With respect to Claim 17 Keller is silent to the language of The programmable device categorization system in claim 15, wherein the output categorization information is useable, to sort multiple DUTs, by one or more characteristics including lot number, manufacturing date, trace code, speed grade or operating frequency at which an error begins to occur. Nevertheless Turner teaches wherein the output categorization information is useable, to sort multiple DUTs, by one or more characteristics including lot number, manufacturing date, trace code, speed grade or operating frequency at which an error begins to occur. (See Para[0012] Examiner notes “useable” only requires the ability to be used) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Keller wherein the output categorization information is useable such as that of Turner. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Keller, because sorting would improve efficiency. With respect to Claim 29 Keller is silent to the language of The non-transitory storage medium in claim 27, wherein the output categorization information is useable, to sort multiple DUTs, by one or more characteristics including lot number, manufacturing date, trace code, speed grade or operating frequency at which an error begins to occur. Nevertheless Turner teaches wherein the output categorization information is useable, to sort multiple DUTs, by one or more characteristics including lot number, manufacturing date, trace code, speed grade or operating frequency at which an error begins to occur. (See Para[0012] Examiner notes “useable” only requires the ability to be used) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Keller wherein the output categorization information is useable such as that of Turner. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Keller, because sorting would improve efficiency. With respect to Claim 35 Keller is silent to the language of The method in claim 33, further comprising: wherein the output categorization information is useable, to sort multiple DUTs, by one or more characteristics including lot number, manufacturing date, trace code, speed grade or operating frequency at which an error begins to occur. Nevertheless Turner teaches wherein the output categorization information is useable, to sort multiple DUTs, by one or more characteristics including lot number, manufacturing date, trace code, speed grade or operating frequency at which an error begins to occur. (See Para[0012] Examiner notes “useable” only requires the ability to be used) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Keller wherein the output categorization information is useable such as that of Turner. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Keller, because sorting would improve efficiency.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (US 2016/0098561 A1) in view of Duncan (US2015/0145548 A1) as applied to claims 15, and further in view of Pulikottil (US 2023/0086626 A1).
With respect to Claim 20 Keller is silent to the language of The programmable device categorization system in claim 15, wherein the instructions that when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the programmable device categorization system to receive operator input regarding expectations for the DUT and process the operator input along with the sensor information from the DUT using one or more categorization models to generate categorization information for the DUT. Nevertheless Pulikottil teaches wherein the instructions that when executed by the at least one hardware processor, cause the programmable device categorization system to receive operator input regarding expectations for the DUT and process the operator input along with the sensor information from the DUT using one or more categorization models to generate categorization information for the DUT. (See Abstract) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Keller and receive operator input regarding expectations such as that of Pulikottil. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Keller because user input would allow the user to adjust and perform desired tests.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7050. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00-7:00.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
YOSHIHISA . ISHIZUKA
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/YOSHIHISA ISHIZUKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights