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 .
Election/Restrictions
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s elections without traverse of claims 15-22, 27-29, 33-35 in Group III.
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) 15-19, 21, 22, 27-29, 33-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (US 2016/0098561 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 receive and store in the storage the sensor information from the DUT; 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 sensor information from the DUT 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 16 Keller teaches The programmable device categorization system in claim 15, wherein the output categorization information includes information indicating one or more of the following: an integrity of the DUT, whether the DUT is a repackaged, remanufactured, counterfeit, inferior, suspect, or modified device, and an age of the DUT. (See Para[0226])
With respect to Claim 17 Keller teaches The programmable device categorization system in claim 15, wherein the output categorization information is useable to identify the DUT, to sort multiple DUTs, or both. (See Para[0226])
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 in 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 receive and store in the storage the sensor information from the DUT; 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 sensor information from the DUT 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 28 Keller teaches The non-transitory storage medium in claim 27, wherein the output categorization information includes information indicating one or more of the following: an integrity of the DUT, whether the DUT is a repackaged, remanufactured, counterfeit, inferior, suspect, or modified device, and an age of the DUT. (See Para[0226])
With respect to Claim 29 Keller teaches The non-transitory storage medium in claim 27, wherein the output categorization information is useable to identify the DUT, to sort multiple DUTs, or both. (See Para[0226])
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 in 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 receive and store in the storage the sensor information from the DUT; 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 sensor information from the DUT 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 34 Keller teaches The method in claim 33, wherein the output categorization information includes information indicating one or more of the following: an integrity of the DUT, whether the DUT is a repackaged, remanufactured, counterfeit, inferior, suspect, or modified device, and an age of the DUT. (See Para[0226])
With respect to Claim 35 Keller teaches The method in claim 33, further comprising: using the output categorization information to identify the DUT, to sort multiple DUTs, or both. (See Para[0226])
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keller (US 2016/0098561 A1) 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
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