DETAILED ACTION
The Office Action is in response to Remarks filed 3/16/2026.
Claims 1, 5-15, and 19-20 are currently amended.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 5-15, and 19-20.
The rejection of claims 8-14 under 35 U.S.C. 101 are withdrawn in view of the applicant’s amendments to claims 8-14.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 15-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over US 20210307940 A1 hereinafter "Sensinger" in view of US 20230297223 A1 hereinafter
"Ferrante".
With respect to claim 1, Sensinger teaches
An association method of panel controls for calibration signals, comprising: creating
a mapping system variable for each calibration signal; (Sensinger [0032], "In
general, a wide range of mappings can be employed to facilitate the control of a controllable
device via a human machine interface [An association method of panel controls] and in some
cases, multiple mappings may be available (e.g. selectable) for controlling a machine based on
input from a human. A mapping may be prescribed or defined such that the mapping is
dependent on parameters that affect how the input signals are converted into control signals [for
calibration signals, comprising: creating a corresponding mapping system variable for each
calibration signal].") [Examiner’s Note: A mapping is an association between the parameter (a mapping system variable) and a control signal (calibration signal)]
Sensinger teaches the mapping system variable but does not explicitly teach: selecting the mapping system property corresponding to a calibration signal to be displayed and/or modified, and associating the selected mapping system property with at least one panel control such that a value of the mapping system property is displayed and/or modified on the panel control;
when a calibration signal changes, changing the value of the mapping system property corresponding to the calibration signal; and when a value of the mapping system variable changes, changing the values displayed on all the panel controls associated with the mapping system property accordingly.
However, in an analogous art Ferrante teaches selecting the mapping system property corresponding to a calibration signal to be displayed and/or modified, and associating the selected mapping system property with at least one panel control such that a value of the mapping system property is displayed and/or modified on the panel control; (Ferrante [0022], "The calibrator described herein displays an indication of an electrical quantity output over a terminal together with multiple properties of the electrical quantity that are directly settable by user interaction [selecting the mapping system property corresponding to a calibration signal to be displayed and/or modified]. A technique is provided to improve user experience and signify to the user the identity of displayed information that is directly settable or editable by the user. The calibrator may display identifications that uniquely identify editable GUI elements on any display screen presented to the user. The identifications may point the user to GUI elements that are editable by the user, for example, through a touchscreen feature of the display. The identifications may be outlines representing boundaries of the editable GUI elements, whereby user selection of a display area within an outline (for example, by applying a touch to the touchscreen display) enables the user to modify a value, quantity, or feature represented by a GUI element [associating the mapping system property with at least one panel control such that a value of the mapping system property is displayed and/or modified on the panel control].") and
when a calibration signal changes, changing the value of the mapping system property corresponding to the calibration signal; (Ferrante [0053], "The user may directly modify any of the identified fields by selecting a field and entering a corresponding setting. When the user enters the setting, the calibrator 100 adjust the electrical quantity in accordance with the setting [when a calibration signal changes, changing the value of the mapping system property corresponding to the calibration signal;]. In this manner, the calibrator 100 provides an
enhanced user interface (UI) that simplifies user operation of the calibrator 100 by allowing
direct modification of functionality of the calibrator without requiring the user to navigate
multiple, complicated menu structures, while also visually indicating the proper terminals of the
calibrator to use in the current calibrator configuration.") and
when a value of the mapping system property changes, changing the values displayed on all the panel controls associated with the mapping system property accordingly. (Ferrante [0058-59], "At 804, a display of the calibrator 100 presents a graphical indication associated with an electrical quantity of the electrical signal. The graphical indication may be an outline surrounding the electrical quantity. Additionally or alternately, the graphical indication may be an underlining of the electrical quantity or other graphical indication. Presenting the electrical quantity may including presenting a numeric value of the electrical quantity (e.g., in a textual format) as well as units of the electrical quantity. At 806, a controller of the calibrator 100 synchronizes a color of the graphical indication with a color emitted by the light indicator. Synchronizing the colors may include causing the display to display the graphical indication having the same color as the light emitted by the light indicator. ") [Examiner’s Note: Ferrante teaches the selection, update, and synchronization of an GUI element that corresponds to the changing electrical property. The GUI element is associated with the mapping system variable described in Sensinger.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Ferrante into
the teachings of Sensinger. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method to
map an electrical signal to an associated variable, as in Sensinger, for calibration and monitoring
from a user interface, as in Ferrante. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
to combine these teachings for the purpose of displaying the signal property with a GUI element
to adjust the electrical quantity in response to receiving a modified signal property (Ferrante
[0004]).
With respect to claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Sensinger further teaches: wherein the selected mapping system variable is associated
with at least one read-write-type panel control for modification and at least one monitor-
type panel control for displaying. (Sensinger [0058], "The example human-machine interface
300 includes one or more sensors 305 for sensing signals from a user for the control of the
machine (or for providing input to the machine). Nonlimiting examples of such sensors include input devices such as pressure sensors, electrical contact sensors, torque sensors, force sensors, position sensors, current sensors, velocity sensors, and myoelectric sensors. The example human-machine interface 300 also includes one or more input devices 310 for receiving input from a user for selecting the user-tunable weights. Nonlimiting examples of such input devices include joysticks, tuning knobs or sliders, and touchscreen displays (e.g. displays of a mobile computing device).")
With respect to claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated.
Sensinger does not teach: wherein a value displayed on one of the read-write-type
panel controls is modified on the read-write-type panel control to trigger the change of the
calibration signal.
However, in an analogous art Ferrante teaches wherein a value displayed on one of the
read-write-type panel controls is modified on the read-write-type panel control to trigger
the change of the calibration signal. (Ferrante [0045], "The signal property GUI elements
122a, 122b are provided to the user to configure or change signal properties of the first and
second electrical quantities, respectively. The signal property GUI elements 122a, 122b
respectively graphically illustrate a phase angle of the AC voltage and AC current output by the
calibrator 100 and permit user adjustment of the phase angles. The first and second signal type
GUI elements 124a, 124b are provided to the user to configure or change the signal types of the
first and second electrical quantities, respectively. The signal property GUI elements 122a, 122b
graphically illustrate a sinusoid and indicate to the user that the AC voltage and AC current
output by the calibrator 100 are both sinusoidal signals. The signal type GUI elements 124a,
124b permit the user to change the signal type from among: a sinusoidal wave, a square wave, triangular wave with a specific duty cycle, triangular wave, spike signal, truncated sinusoidal wave or truncated triangular wave, among others.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Ferrante into
the teachings of Sensinger. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method to
map an electrical signal to an associated variable, as in Sensinger, for calibration and monitoring
from a user interface, as in Ferrante. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
to combine these teachings for the purpose of displaying the signal property with a GUI element
to adjust the electrical quantity in response to receiving a modified signal property (Ferrante
[0004]).
With respect to claim 20, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Sensinger further teaches an electronic device, comprising a processor, a display
communicating with the processor to present a panel setting interface and a readable
storage medium; wherein the readable storage medium is configured to store an instruction
program; the processor is configured to execute the instruction program to perform the
method of claim 1; (Sensinger [0060], "As shown in the example embodiment illustrated in
FIG. 2, control and processing circuitry 200 may include a processor 210, a memory 215, a
system bus 205, a data acquisition and control interface 220 for acquiring sensor data and user
input and for sending control commands to the machine 400, a power source 225, and a plurality
of optional additional devices or components such as storage device 230, communications
interface 235, display 240, and one or more input/output devices 245") and
Sensinger does not explicitly teach: the display is configured to display at least one
panel control and a value displayed on the panel control through the panel setting
interface.
However, in an analogous art Ferrante teaches the display is configured to display at
least one panel control and a value displayed on the panel control through the panel setting
interface. (Ferrante [0022], "The calibrator may display identifications that uniquely identify
editable GUI elements on any display screen presented to the user. The identifications may point
the user to GUI elements that are editable by the user, for example, through a touchscreen feature
of the display. The identifications may be outlines representing boundaries of the editable GUI
elements, whereby user selection of a display area within an outline (for example, by applying a
touch to the touchscreen display) enables the user to modify a value, quantity, or feature
represented by a GUI element. The calibrator may display the identifications of the editable GUI
elements in response to user selection of an area of the display that does not include an editable
GUI element. For example, if the user selects an area of the display on which information is not
displayed, the calibrator may respond by displaying the identifications to point the user to GUI
elements (and areas of the display covering the elements) that are in fact responsive to user input
and directly editable from the display. The user may, accordingly, modify values, quantities, or
features represented by the GUI elements by interacting with the displayed GUI elements.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Ferrante into
the teachings of Sensinger. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method to
map an electrical signal to an associated variable, as in Sensinger, for calibration and monitoring
from a user interface, as in Ferrante. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
to combine these teachings for the purpose of displaying the signal property with a GUI element
to adjust the electrical quantity in response to receiving a modified signal property (Ferrante
[0004]).
Claims 8-10 are directed to a computer readable storage medium, storing a computer
readable instruction, wherein, the computer readable instruction is executed by at least one
processor corresponding with the method limitations as disclosed in claims 1-3 respectively.
Thus, claims 8-10 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 1-3.
Claims 15-17 are directed to an electronic device corresponding to the method limitations
as disclosed in claims 1-3 respectively. Thus, claims 15-17 are rejected for the same reasons set
forth in claims 1-3.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Sensinger in view of Ferrante, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, and further in view
of US 20200272701 A1 hereinafter "Robertson".
With respect to claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
The combination of Sensinger and Ferrante does not teach: wherein the change of the
calibration signal is triggered by a running environment of a debugging device.
However, in an analogous art Robertson teaches wherein the change of the calibration
signal is triggered by a running environment of a debugging device. (Robertson [0043],
"More specifically, Figure two shows a test environment 200 containing a DUT 202 that is
connected to the test environment 200 through interfaces 204, which may also be referred to
herein as hooks 204, which allow the test environment 200 to programmatically wiggle (i.e.
change the voltage/input signal on and/or observe the changing voltage/output signal of) various
pins, whether virtual (i.e. simulated) or physical, of the DUT 202. Using the interfaces 204 in
this way is designed to simulate an object connected to the DUT 202.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Robertson
into the teachings of Sensinger in view of Ferrante. This combination of teachings would have
resulted in a method to map an electrical signal to an associated variable, as in Sensinger, for
calibration and monitoring from a user interface, as in Ferrante, wherein the user interface can be
a simulation in which the environment will trigger calibration signal changes, as in Robertson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the
purpose of loading settings of a device under test (DUT) to develop the settings that will allow
simulation, emulation, and verification (Robertson [0017-19]).
Claim 11 is directed to a computer readable storage medium, storing a computer readable
instruction, wherein, the computer readable instruction is executed by at least one processor
corresponding with the method limitations as disclosed in claim 4. Thus, claim 11 is rejected for
the same reasons set forth in claim 4.
Claim 18 is directed to an electronic device corresponding to the method limitations as
disclosed in claim 4. Thus, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 4.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Sensinger in view of Ferrante, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 respectively, and further in view
of US 20170255345 A1 hereinafter "Veeramani".
With respect to claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
The combination of Sensinger and Ferrante does not teach associating each mapping
system variable with one notification list, wherein each entry in the notification list is
linked to a corresponding panel control; and
the changing of the values displayed on all the panel controls associated with the
mapping system variable further comprises:
when the value of the mapping system variable changes, notifying an engine to call
the notification list and send a change notification to each entry in the notification list, such that the corresponding panel control updates the displayed value based on the change notification.
However, in an analogous art Veeramani teaches associating the mapping system
variable with one notification list, wherein each entry in the notification list is linked to a
corresponding panel control; (Veeramani [0056], "Referring now to FIG. 6, in use, the
destination computing device 102 may execute a method 600 for managing interactions between
a user and an event notification list (see, e.g., the GUI list element 700 of FIG. 7) displayed in an
event notification interface (e.g., the event notification interface 124 of FIG. 1), such as may be
populated by the method 500 of FIG. 5. As described previously, the event notification list may
include information relating to the event (see, e.g., the event information 702 of FIG. 7) as well
as any GUI control elements (see, e.g., the GUI control elements 704 of FIG. 7) associated with
the event. As also described previously, the GUI control elements can be monitored, such that a
user-based interaction (e.g., a selection via a detected finger-press, mouse click, etc.) may trigger
a responsive action associated with the with the selected GUI control element.") and
the changing of the values displayed on all the panel controls associated with the
mapping system variable further comprises: when the value of the mapping system variable changes, notifying an engine to call the notification list (Veeramani [0043-46], "Additionally, in some embodiments, one or more of the event notifications may include display information and/or one or more actionable responses. The display information may include data usable to display one or more GUI control elements (e.g., buttons, drop-down menus, checkboxes, etc.) in a portion of the user interface 122 in which the event notifications are displayed (e.g., visually displayed next to the corresponding event information), such as a type of GUI control element to display, one or more colors (e.g., based on a state of the GUI control element, a priority of the event, a type of event, etc.) of the GUI control element, text to overlay on the GUI control element, a font (e.g., a font face, a font size, a font style, a font color, etc.) of the text, etc. The actionable responses may include any information that identifies an action to be taken upon selection of the identified GUI control element [when the value of the mapping system variable changes] In other words, the event notification interface management module 362 is configured to manage the display of received event notifications, and information relating thereto, in an event notification list (see, e.g., the GUI list element 700 of FIG. 7) in the event notification interface 124. Accordingly, information relating to the received event notifications can be displayed in the event notification list for review by a user of the destination computing device 102 (see, e.g., the event information 702 of FIG. 7) [notifying an engine to call the notification list].") and
send a change notification to the each entry in the notification list, (Veeramani [0073], "Example 10 includes the subject matter of any of Examples 1-9, and wherein to output the received event notifications to the interface of the display of the destination computing device comprises to output the received event notifications to an event notification list in an event notification portion of the interface [send a change notification to the each entry in the notification list].") such that the corresponding panel control updates the displayed value based on the change notification. (Veeramani [0058], "As described previously, the one or more actionable responses received with the event notification may include information usable to identify a GUI control element to be displayed, as well as an event response (i.e., an action) associated with, or otherwise mapped to, that particular event notification which is to be triggered/initiated upon selection of the corresponding GUI control element. For example, in block 608, the destination computing device 102 may perform a local action corresponding to the event notification list GUI control element, such as by making a change to an output setting of the interface portion corresponding to the source computing device from which the event notification was received, opening a file, generating an email, etc.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Veeramani
into the teachings of Sensinger in view of Ferrante. This combination of teachings would have
resulted in a method to map an electrical signal to an associated variable, as in Sensinger, for
calibration and monitoring from a user interface, as in Ferrante, and associating a notification list
with the interaction of user interface elements, as in Veeramani. One of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of providing an event
notification interface that displays notifications received from source computing devices
(Veeramani [0027]).
Claim 12 is directed to a computer readable storage medium, storing a computer readable
instruction, wherein, the computer readable instruction is executed by at least one processor
corresponding with the method limitations as disclosed in claim 5. Thus, claim 12 is rejected for
the same reasons set forth in claim 5.
Claim 19 is directed to an electronic device corresponding to the method limitations as
disclosed in claim 5. Thus, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claims 5.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sensinger
in view of Ferrante, as applied to claims 3 and 10 respectively, and further in view of US
20030095141 A1 hereinafter "Shah".
With respect to claim 6, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated.
The combination of Sensinger and Ferrante does not teach: wherein the modifying of
the value displayed on one of the read-write-type panel controls on the read-write-type
panel control to trigger the change of the calibration signal further comprises:
associating an assignment function to one asynchronous function, wherein the
assignment function is a write function of the mapping system variable associated with the
panel control of a to-be-modified displayed value;
when the value displayed on the panel control is modified, distributing, by the
asynchronous function, a write command and a read command, and then returning
immediately, wherein call of the asynchronous function is completed.
However, in an analogous art Shah teaches wherein the modifying of the value
displayed on one of the read-write-type panel controls on the read-write-type panel control
to trigger the change of the calibration signal further comprises:
associating an assignment function to one asynchronous function, wherein the
assignment function is a write function of the mapping system variable associated with the
panel control of a to-be-modified displayed value; (Shah [0454-455], "One portion of the
asynchronous data flow icon may be a reader portion and the other portion may be a writer
portion. The user may then distribute the reader and writer portions with different devices or
different programs, e.g., using the association techniques described above [associating an
assignment function to one asynchronous function, wherein the assignment function is a write
function] Therefore, with simple graphical tools, the present system helps a user select and
manage a system, such as a measurement system (e.g., a data acquisition system) throughout its
complete lifecycle. The tools described herein allow the user to select and order complete
systems, including sensors, signal conditioning, data acquisition, industrial computers and
software, (including machine vision, motion control, etc.). [of the mapping system variable
associated with the panel control of a to-be-modified displayed value]") and
when the value displayed on the panel control is modified, distributing, by the
asynchronous function, a write command and a read command, and then returning
immediately, wherein the call of the asynchronous function is completed. (Shah [0250],
"After programs have been deployed to the various devices as desired, the application may be
executed, as described with respect to FIG. 13b During execution, a portion of the application
may execute on the main computer system 82, or another device, and the application may invoke
various programs on various devices in the distributed system [when the value displayed on the
panel control is modified, distributing, by the asynchronous function, a write command and a
read command]. For example, the application on the main computer system 82 execution may
invoke a first program that has been deployed on a remote device. The first program may execute
on the device and then either invoke other devices or return control to the application on the
main computer system 82 [then returning immediately, wherein the call of the asynchronous
function is completed].") (Shah [0364], "For example, the first program node may be operable to
invoke execution of the first program, read and/or write values from/to the first program [when
the value displayed on the panel control is modified, distributing, by the asynchronous function,
a write command and a read command], get/set attributes of the first program, transmit/receive
events to the first program, programmatically modify the first program, programmatically deploy
the first program, or perform other functions associated with the first program.")
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Shah into the
teachings of Sensinger in view of Ferrante. This combination of teachings would have resulted in
a method to map an electrical signal to an associated variable, as in Sensinger, for calibration and
monitoring from a user interface, as in Ferrante, while using an asynchronous programs for
operation on data values, as in Shah. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated
to combine these teachings for the purpose of using a data binding between a GUI element and
data point to monitor and adjust the data point value or the associated parameter in live time
(Shah [0431]).
Claim 13 is directed to a computer readable storage medium, storing a computer readable
instruction, wherein, the computer readable instruction is executed by at least one processor
corresponding with the method limitations as disclosed in claim 6. Thus, claim 13 is rejected for
the same reasons set forth in claim 6
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sensinger
in view of Ferrante in view of Shah, as applied to claims 6 and 13 respectively, and further in
view of US 20100275074 A1 hereinafter "Nicolaidis".
With respect to claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated.
The combination of Sensinger, Ferrante, and Shah does not explicitly teach: wherein
when the write command and the read command are successfully executed at a same
time, a last-stored value of the mapping system variable is refreshed into the to-be-modified
displayed value.
However, in an analogous art Nicolaidis teaches wherein when the write command and
the read command are successfully executed at a same time, a last-stored value of the
mapping system variable is refreshed into the to-be-modified displayed value. (Nicolaidis
[0198-203], "It can reject any test procedure which satisfies one or more of the following
restrictions: a) Two write operations are performed on the same address via both ports. b) A read
and a write operation are performed on the same address of a memory device which does not
support this simultaneous operation. [wherein when the write command and the read command
are successfully executed at a same time] The preceding write data value is equal to the simultaneous write operation on a second port, when the memory device supports a simultaneous
read and write capability. Depending on the specification for the memory device, the read data
value can return either the previous data value, or the data value from the write operation [a last-
stored value of the mapping system variable is refreshed into a to-be-modified displayed value].
If the memory device does not support a simultaneous read and write capability, two possible
cases need to be considered.") [Examiner's Note: A simultaneous read/write operation on a
singular address of memory can produce unreliable data or memory access. By reading or
returning a previous data value, the invention allows a display of the previously to-be-modified
data value]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Nicolaidis
into the teachings of Sensinger in view of Ferrante in view of Shah. This combination of teachings would have resulted in a method to map an electrical signal to an associated variable, as in Sensinger, for calibration and monitoring from a user interface, as in Ferrante, while using an asynchronous programs for operation on data values, as in Shah, and ascertaining the value of the last modified value in the case of a simultaneous read and write, as in Nicolaidis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these teachings for the purpose of computing an expected or deterministic data value from a read operation in the situation wherein two port operations of a memory operation are performed simultaneously (Nicolaidis [0131-132]).
Claim 14 is directed to a computer readable storage medium, storing a computer readable
instruction, wherein, the computer readable instruction is executed by at least one processor corresponding with the method limitations as disclosed in claim 7. Thus, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Argues:
Sensinger does not teach "creating a mapping system variable for each calibration signal" The Examiner cites Sensinger [0032] for "a wide range of mappings" and mapping parameters. (See Office Action, page 6). Sensinger's disclosure is directed to a mapping relationship that converts user input to control signals (e.g., a "mapping relation" between input and output) (Sensinger [0034]-[0035]), not to creating and maintaining a distinct "mapping system variable" per calibration signal. The cited portions of Sensinger discuss abstract "mappings" and "parameters", but do not disclose a data-structure layer of "mapping system variables" let alone one variable per calibration signal. Accordingly, the asserted reading of Sensinger on the claim's "mapping system variable" limitation is unsupported.
Examiner’s Response:
With respect to the applicant’s argument that “Sensinger does not teach ‘creating a mapping system variable for each calibration signal,’” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sensinger teaches the creation of a mapping parameter wherein each mapping correlates with how the mapping parameter is converted or corresponds to a control signal. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, Sensinger describes a system that teaches upon “a mapping system variable for each calibration signal”. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1, 15, and 20 remain proper and are thus maintained.
Applicant Argues:
Ferrante does disclose editable GUI elements and that a user can modify fields to adjust an electrical quantity (Ferrante [0022], [0053]), but Ferrante does not disclose the claim's intermediate "mapping system variable" construct, nor does it disclose that when the value of such a variable changes, the system changes the values displayed on all panel controls associated with that variable.
The Examiner cites Ferrante [0058] for "changing the values displayed on all the panel controls ... accordingly." (See Office Action, page 8). However, Ferrante [0058] describes presenting a graphical indication and presenting a numeric value with units; it does not teach (i) multiple panel controls bound to a common variable, nor (ii) propagation of an updated value across all such controls.
Thus, even if Ferrante teaches editable GUI fields, Ferrante does not disclose the claimed multi-control synchronization tied to a "mapping system variable".
Examiner’s Response:
With respect to the applicant’s argument that “However, Ferrante [0058] describes presenting a graphical indication and presenting a numeric value with units; it does not teach (i) multiple panel controls bound to a common variable, nor (ii) propagation of an updated value across all such controls.
Thus, even if Ferrante teaches editable GUI fields, Ferrante does not disclose the claimed multi-control synchronization tied to a "mapping system variable," Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Sensinger reference teaches the “mapping system variable” Ferrante describes a graphical indication. The additional limitation of “multiple panel controls bound to a common variable, nor (ii) propagation of an updated value across all such controls” is not included in the claims. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the update of the graphical quantity is displayed through the graphical indication. The graphical indication can include various panel/controls to update the variable accordingly (Ferrante [0022]). Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1, 15, and 20 remain proper and are thus maintained.
Applicant Argues:
Here, the Examiner generally asserts a motivation to combine Sensinger and Ferrante for displaying a signal property with a GUI element and adjusting an electrical quantity (citing Ferrante [0004]) (See Office Action, page 8), but it does not articulate a concrete proposed modification showing how the combined system would implement the claim-required intermediate "mapping system variable" per calibration signal and the claim-required rule that, when the value of the mapping system variable changes, the values displayed on all panel controls associated with that mapping system variable are changed accordingly.
Additionally, MPEP § 2142 emphasizes that "the claimed invention 'as a whole"' must be evaluated and that "impermissible hindsight must be avoided". The present rejection effectively relies on hindsight by using Applicants' claim as a roadmap to select broad disclosures about "mappings" (Sensinger) and "editable GUI elements" (Ferrante) without demonstrating-through an articulated technical analysis-how those disclosures would be combined and configured to achieve the claim's particular variable-binding and multi-control synchronization architecture.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1, 15, and 20 remain proper and are thus maintained.
Applicant Argues:
Further, MPEP § 2142 states that "rejections on obviousness cannot be sustained with mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning". The asserted rationale that the combination would provide "calibration and monitoring from a user interface" (See Office Action, page 8) is not an articulated, limitation- specific rationale explaining why a skilled artisan would have implemented the missing claim- required "mapping system variable" layer and the claimed multi-control update propagation rule, and where those features are taught or suggested in the applied references.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner has provided a clear articulation of the reasons why the claimed invention would have been obvious. When a rejection depends on a combination of prior art references, there must be some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references. See In re Geiger, 815 F.2d 686, 688, 2 USPQ2d 1276, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Therefore, the Examiner’s rejections of the claims on obviousness grounds are not based on mere conclusory statements because the teaching-suggestion-motivation (TSM) test asks not merely what the references disclose, but whether a person of ordinary skill in the art, possessed with the understandings and knowledge reflected in the prior art, and motivated by the general problem facing the inventor, would have been led to make the combination recited in the claims. See Cross Med. Prods., 424 F.3d at 1321-24. From this it may be determined whether the overall disclosures, teachings, and suggestions of the prior art, and the level of skill in the art—i.e., the understandings and knowledge of persons having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention—support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See Princeton Biochemicals, 411 F.3d at 1338 (pointing to evidence supplying detailed analysis of the prior art and the reasons one of ordinary skill would have possessed the knowledge and motivation to combine).
Applicant Argues:
Finally, MPEP § 2141 cautions that "distilling an invention down to the 'gist' or 'thrust' disregards the requirement of analyzing the subject matter 'as a whole."'. Here, the rejection reduces claim 1 to a high-level "mapping + GUI editing" concept, while not accounting for (and not showing in the applied art) the claimed intermediate "mapping system variable" construct and the claimed propagation of updated values to all panel controls associated with that mapping system variable. Under the MPEP's guidance, such a "gist" approach is insufficient to establish obviousness of the claim as a whole.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner did not disregard the consideration of the claimed invention as a whole. Specifically, the Examiner did not improperly limit the focus of the obviousness analysis to a particular limitation of Claim 1 and reduce Claim 1 to a high-level "mapping + GUI editing" concept as averred by the Applicant. As pointed out in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of Claim 1 hereabove, the combination of Sensinger and Ferrante teaches or suggests the claimed "mapping system variable" and changing the values to all panel controls associated with the mapping system variable. Therefore, the Examiner did not fail to consider the claimed invention as a whole. Due to the obviousness of the claimed invention as taught or suggested by the prior art combination, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Applicant Argues:
Inventor identified a problem others did not
Neither Sensinger nor Ferrante, as applied by the Examiner, evidences recognition of the technical/UI problem solved by claim 1: how to maintain consistent, automatic synchronization of a single underlying calibration signal across multiple panel controls via an intermediate variable binding layer (the "mapping system variable"), including fan-out updates to all associated controls when the variable changes.
The Examiner relies on Sensinger for general "mappings" dependent on parameters for converting input signals into control signals (Sensinger [0032]) and for listing generic input devices. This disclosure is directed to mapping user input for machine control, not to solving multi- control synchronization in a panel-setting UI environment.
The Examiner relies on Ferrante for editable GUI elements/fields and adjusting an electrical quantity based on user-entered settings (Ferrante [0022], [0053]) and for presentation of an electrical quantity on a display (Ferrante [0058]). Ferrante's disclosure is about enabling editing of displayed quantities, but it does not describe an intermediate "mapping system variable" per calibration signal that is bound to multiple panel controls and automatically drives updates to all associated controls when that variable changes.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to applicant's argument that “Neither Sensinger nor Ferrante, as applied by the Examiner, evidences recognition of the technical/UI problem solved by claim 1: how to maintain consistent, automatic synchronization of a single underlying calibration signal across multiple panel controls via an intermediate variable binding layer (the "mapping system variable"), including fan-out updates to all associated controls when the variable changes,” Examiner asserts that the applicant discloses additional limitations that are not described in the claims. Therefore, the current broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims remain proper and the rejection is maintained. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1, 15, and 20 remain proper and are thus maintained.
Applicant Argues:
Proposed combination would change Sensinger's principle of operation and require substantial reconstruction"
To reach claim 1 from Sensinger, the rejection requires importing from Ferrante not merely "display/edit GUI fields", but a different architectural layer: creating and maintaining a distinct "mapping system variable" corresponding to each calibration signal, associating that variable with panel controls, and enforcing the claimed update propagation rule such that, when the mapping system variable changes, the values on all associated panel controls are changed accordingly.
That requirement is not a simple substitution of one known element for another; it would require substantial reconstruction of Sensinger's disclosed mapping framework into a variable- binding/synchronization system-adding (at least) (i) per-signal intermediate variables, (ii) a binding/association mechanism between a variable and multiple panel controls, and (iii) logic to propagate changes across all associated controls. Implementing these structural/functional mechanisms would materially alter how Sensinger operates (i.e., from "convert input-to-control via a mapping" to "maintain a data-binding layer that synchronizes multiple UI controls to a calibration signal via an intermediate variable"), thereby changing Sensinger's principle of operation rather than merely optimizing or extending it.
Examiner’s Response:
With respect to the applicant’s argument that “Implementing these structural/functional mechanisms would materially alter how Sensinger operates (i.e., from "convert input-to-control via a mapping" to "maintain a data-binding layer that synchronizes multiple UI controls to a calibration signal via an intermediate variable"), thereby changing Sensinger's principle of operation rather than merely optimizing or extending it,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ferrante into the teachings of Sensinger to teach a method of creating a mapping variable, as in Sensinger, wherein the mapping variable can be selected, adjusted/calibrated, and displayed in association with GUI or panel input, as in Ferrante. Thus, the combination of references does not improperly modify the operation of Sensinger and there is no required substantial reconstruction of Sensinger to teach the claimed invention.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1, 15, and 20 remain proper and are thus maintained.
Applicant Argues:
The Examiner cites Sensinger [0058] (listing "sensors" and "input devices" such as joysticks, knobs/sliders, touchscreens) for this limitation. (See Office Action, pages 8-9). Sensinger [0058] does not disclose two distinct panel-control types (read-write vs monitor) bound to the same selected variable, nor does it disclose the claimed association of a selected mapping system variable with both such types. Accordingly, claim 2 (and corresponding claims 9 and 16) remains nonobvious at least because the cited art does not teach this limitation
Examiner’s Response:
With respect to the applicant’s argument that “Sensinger [0058] does not disclose two distinct panel-control types (read-write vs monitor) bound to the same selected variable, nor does it disclose the claimed association of a selected mapping system variable with both such types,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. A mapping and corresponding mapping parameter is dependent upon the input as described in Sensinger [0032]. The sensors allows an interface for the user to provide inputs which corresponds to the mapping parameters that results in a control signal. Sensinger describes that the apparatus will also include displays which further teaches required limitation of displaying a parameter/variable/signal/output.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 2 and 19 remain proper and are thus maintained.
Applicant Argues:
The Examiner relies on Ferrante [0045] for user adjustment of signal properties. (See Office Action, page 9). Ferrante [0045] is directed to calibrator GUI elements permitting adjustment of phase angles and signal types. Ferrante does not disclose the claim's required "mapping system variable" intermediary and the specific trigger relationship recited in claim 3 (and corresponding claims 10 and 17) in the context of Applicants' mapping system variable/panel-control binding architecture. Accordingly, claim 3 (and corresponding claims 10 and 17) remains nonobvious at least because the cited art does not disclose the claimed variable-binding and triggering mechanism, and also because the underlying independent claim 1 (and corresponding independent claims 8 and 15) is not shown obvious for the reasons above.
Examiner’s Response:
With respect the applicant’s argument “the cited art does not disclose the claimed variable-binding and triggering mechanism”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ferrante teaches modification of the interface which is further controlled and displayed through GUI elements and further allowing the user to calibrate or adjust signal types and signal properties. Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, Ferrante teaches the method of variable-binding and triggering mechanism. Thus, the rejection of claims 3, 10, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are proper and are therefore maintained.
Applicant Argues:
The Examiner adds Robertson and cites Robertson [0043] (test environment with "hooks"
that "wiggle" pins) for this limitation. (See Office Action, pages 12-13).
Robertson [0043] describes a hardware verification test environment and its interfaces for
manipulating DUT pins. This disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed panel-control
association framework or the "mapping system variable" layer, nor does it clearly correspond to
the claimed "running environment of a debugging device" that triggers calibration signal changes
within Applicants' mapping-variable/panel-control synchronization scheme
Examiner’s Response:
With respect to the applicant’s argument that “This disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed panel-control association framework or the "mapping system variable" layer, nor does it clearly correspond to the claimed "running environment of a debugging device" that triggers calibration signal changes within Applicants' mapping-variable/panel-control synchronization scheme,” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Robertson describes a device under test (DUT) which is a debugging device wherein the hooks can physically enact programmatic changes in the output signal for testing and monitoring purposes thereby teaching “the running environment of a debugging device”. Thus, the rejection of claims 4, 11, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are proper and are therefore maintained.
Applicant Argues:
Veeramani is directed to managing event notifications in an interface and displaying an "event notification list" with GUI elements, and responding to user selection actions (Veeramani [0046], [0056], [0058]). This is fundamentally different from a per-variable "notification list" used as an internal observer/binding mechanism to propagate a changed variable value to every linked panel control when the variable changes. The cited portions of Veeramani discuss outputting received event notifications and associated GUI control elements and initiating actions upon selection
Examiner’s Response:
With respect to the applicant’s argument that “Veeramani is directed to managing event notifications in an interface and displaying an "event notification list" with GUI elements, and responding to user selection actions (Veeramani [0046], [0056], [0058]). This is fundamentally different from a per-variable "notification list" used as an internal observer/binding mechanism to propagate a changed variable value to every linked panel control when the variable changes,” Examiner asserts that the recited claim limitation does not require a per-variable "notification list". As currently recited, each of the mapping system variable can be associated with one notification list not a corresponding notification list. Thus, there is no requirement for the notification list to be bound specifically for each individual variable. Thus, the rejection of claims 5, 12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are proper and are therefore maintained.
Applicant Argues:
Shah's cited passages relate to (i) an "asynchronous data flow icon" with reader/writer
portions (Shah [0454]) and (ii) distributed program invocation and generic read/write interactions
(Shah [0250], [0364]). These passages do not disclose the specific claimed sequence: on panel-
control modification, an asynchronous function distributes both a write command and a read
command, returns immediately, and completes the call-specifically as part of a mapping-system-
variable write function bound to the panel control.
Therefore, claim 6 (and corresponding claim 13) is not obvious over the cited combination(s),
and in any event the underlying independent claim 1 (and corresponding independent claim 8) is
not established obvious.
Examiner’s Response:
With regards to the applicant’s argument that “These passages do not disclose the specific claimed sequence: on panel-control modification, an asynchronous function distributes both a write command and a read command, returns immediately, and completes the call-specifically as part of a mapping-system variable write function bound to the panel control,” Examiner asserts that Shah teaches a graphical element that allows the user to interface with the system to asynchronously read and write programs and/or devices. Thus, the rejection of claims 6 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are proper and are therefore maintained.
Applicant Argues:
Accordingly, Nicolaidis does not teach or suggest claim 7's required refresh of the last-stored mapping system variable value into the to-be-modified displayed value, and claim 7 (and
corresponding claim 14) is not obvious.
Applicants further note an inconsistency in the Office Action's concluding combination
statement for claim 7, which references incorporation into "Sensinger in view of Ferrante in view
of Veeramani", despite claim 7 being presented as depending from claim 6 which is rejected over
Sensinger + Ferrante + Shah (with Nicolaidis added for claim 7). (See Office Action, page 21).
This inconsistency further underscores that the asserted rationale does not properly establish
obviousness of the claimed subject matter.
Examiner’s Response:
With respect to applicant’s argument of “required refresh of the last-stored mapping system variable value into the to-be-modified displayed value”, Examiner asserts that when a read and write to a port is executed at a same time, Nicolaidis teaches that the memory can return the previous data value, which means the previous data value is refreshed into a to-be-modified-display value. Furthermore, the 2nd action non-final is generated in order to resolve the inconsistency/typo which mistakenly states the incorporation of Veeramani into the teachings of Sensinger in view of Ferrante. The correct rejection of record describes a motivation, for one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the teachings of Sensinger in view of Ferrante in view of Shah and further in view of Nicolaidis.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Banks (US 20070240074 A1) teaches a setting control may be mapped to an edge of a user interface to facilitate control of various settings and access thereto. The mapping may be implemented based on a number of setting values associated with the setting control and a size of a specified edge of the user interface. Additionally, multiple edges of a user interface may be mapped to a variety of setting controls. The edge-mapped setting controls may also be automatically reconfigured according to user preferences and interaction with the interface. Indicators are also generated to provide visual indications about the setting controls and/or a current setting. The appearance of indicators may be altered to convey a variety of information such as the current setting of a control or the type of setting control.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS VIET TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5PM.
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, Wei Mui can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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.
/T.V.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2191
/WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights