DETAILED ACTION
This action is filed in response to the application filed on 2/19/2024.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) form PTO-1149 filed on 2/19/2024, 6/21/2024, and 8/26/2024. These IDS have been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 12, the final limitation recites “create or modify, in the memory circuitry, the material testing flow.” Examiner notes the phrase “in the memory circuitry” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim recites receiving, “two or more smaller user created data portions,” and combining them into “one larger user created data portion.” Examiner notes the terms “smaller,” and “ larger” are subjective terms that render the scope of the claim indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of performing mental steps without significantly more. Claim 1, and similarly Claims 8 and 15 recites the following abstract concepts in BOLD of:
A material testing system, comprising: a material testing machine comprising a test sensor, a test actuator, and a test controller configured to control the test actuator to conduct a test method; and
a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising machine readable instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
execute a material testing workflow configured to guide a user through setup, execution, or analysis of the test method of the material testing machine,
in response to executing the material testing workflow, display, on a display screen, a first graphical user interface (GUI) associated with a first workflow state of the material testing workflow, the first GUI comprising a first plurality of input fields,
identify one or more first input fields, of the first plurality of input fields, that are associated with at least one input field mapping,
the at least one input field mapping specifying a parsing configuration, of a plurality of stored parsing configurations, that should be used with the one or more first input fields, the parsing configuration comprising one or more parsing rules according to which a piece of imported data can be separated into two or more data portions, the at least one input field mapping further specifying which of the two or more data portions parsed according to the one or more parsing rules should be used to populate the one or more first input fields, and
in response to receiving a piece of data imported from a data importation device: separate the piece of data into the two or more data portions according to the one or more parsing rules of the parsing configuration, and populate the one or more first input fields based on the at least one input field mapping.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category as Claim 1 and 8 recite systems and Claim 15 teaches a method.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers performing mathematics or mental steps. The steps of executing a material workflow configured to guide a user through the execution of a test method, and identifying one or more input fields, and separating the data into two or more portions can all be interpreted as a mental process that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that the claimed methods and system are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, they do not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. The additional elements of a processor, a test sensor, test actuator, and test controller are generic computer elements that do not tie the claims to a particular machine. Similarly there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claims that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state.
Under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of a processor, a non-transitory computer readable medium, a test sensor, test actuator, and test controller are generic computer elements and not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94.
The limitation pertaining to receiving pieces of imported data recites necessary data gathering and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
The limitation pertaining to displaying a first workflow state recites outputting data which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), displaying analysis/results is considered extra solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Printing or downloading generated menus, Ameranth, 842 F.3d at 1241-42, 120 USPQ2d at 1854-55”, see also MPEP 2106.05(h), As a whole the claim itself is analogous to the Electric Power Group decision in which it was determined that “ Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).”
The limitation teaching a parsing configuration further limits the abstract idea of identifying data by specifying the parameters of the identification criteria, which is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Finally, the last limitation teaches populating the input fields which is mere instructions to “apply it” or in other words, to implement the abstract idea on a computer which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f) “As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984.”
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea:
Claims 2,6,14,17, and 19 teach manipulating data which is considered extra solution activity and therefore not significantly more than the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 3-5, 10, 12, and 18 teach manipulating data and displaying data which both are considered extra solution activity and therefore not significantly more than the abstract ideas. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claims 7, 13, and 20 teach additional abstract ideas of verifying and defining states based on observing data which can be considered mental processes that do not integrate the abstract ideas of the independent claims.
Claims 9, 11, and 16 teach the types of data to be gathered and where it can be gathered from which is insignificant extra solution activity. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-9, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Shimizu (JP2004361123A) in further view of Gururaj (US20110113287 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Shimizu teaches a material testing system (e.g. see [0007] “A material testing machine according to an embodiment of the present invention will be described”), comprising:
a material testing machine comprising a test sensor (e.g. see [0037] “A wireless tag may be attached to the load cell (i.e. test sensor). Information read from the wireless tag of the load cell is also the jig information in this specification”), a test actuator, and a test controller configured to control the test actuator to conduct a test method (e.g. see [0016] “material testing machine includes a control device 20. As shown in FIG. 4, the control device 20 includes an arithmetic processing device 21 mainly composed of a CPU, a keyboard 22, a control panel 23 having a test start button 23a, and a monitor 24. The above-described reader / writers 16, 31U, 31L and the robot 14 are connected to the arithmetic processing unit 21. The test result is displayed on the monitor 24. The motor 25 is an electric motor for driving the screw rod, and its driving is controlled by the arithmetic processing unit 21”); and
a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising machine readable instructions which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: execute a material testing workflow configured to guide a user through setup, execution, or analysis of the test method of the material testing machine (e.g. see [0016] “The material testing machine includes a control device 20. As shown in FIG. 4, the control device 20 includes an arithmetic processing device 21 mainly composed of a CPU, a keyboard 22, a control panel 23 having a test start button 23a, and a monitor 24. The above-described reader / writers 16, 31U, 31L and the robot 14 are connected to the arithmetic processing unit 21. The test result is displayed on the monitor 24. The motor 25 is an electric motor for driving the screw rod, and its driving is controlled by the arithmetic processing unit 21. The test conditions are input by the operator from the keyboard 22 prior to the test, and are stored in the semiconductor memory of the wireless tag 12A from the arithmetic processing unit 21 via the reader / writer 16. Then, when executing the test, the test conditions are read from the wireless tag 12A”),
in response to executing the material testing workflow, display, on a display screen, a first graphical user interface (GUI) associated with a first workflow state of the material testing workflow, the first GUI comprising a first plurality of input fields (e.g. see [0013] “These pieces of recorded information are collectively called jig information, and based on the jig information, the suitability of the test conditions, the presentation of the optimal test method, and the suitability of the measuring instrument to be used are displayed on the display monitor 24”),
identify one or more first input fields, of the first plurality of input fields (e.g. see [0028-0029] “In step S13, the read jig information is displayed on the monitor 24. In step S14, the test condition corresponding to the identification number of the pallet 12 is read from the test condition database provided in the arithmetic processing unit 21, and the process proceeds to step S15. In step S15, the read test conditions are displayed on the monitor 24, and a list of grips suitable for the test conditions is also displayed as recommended grips”), that are associated with at least one input field mapping (e.g. see [0027] “In the storage area of the control device 20, a first storage area corresponding to the jig identification number and a second storage area corresponding to the pallet identification number are set in advance. The type of the gripper, the maximum test load, and the like are written in the first storage area, and the test conditions for each pallet are written in the second storage area. That is, the arithmetic processing unit 21 is provided with a jig database and a pallet test condition database for each identification number”),
populate the one or more first input fields based on the at least one input field mapping (e.g. see [0031] “As described above, in the material testing machine according to the second embodiment, the identification number of the grip attached to the tester is read from the wireless tag, and the grip information read from the database of the arithmetic processing unit 21 is monitored. 24. Further, the identification number of the pallet 12 is read from the wireless tag 12A, and the test condition and the recommended jig read from the database of the arithmetic processing unit 21 are displayed on the monitor 24. When the operator determines that the grasping tool simultaneously displayed on the monitor 24 does not exist in the recommended grasping tool list created from the test conditions, the operator suspends the test”).
Shimizu does not explicitly disclose the at least one input field mapping specifying a parsing configuration, of a plurality of stored parsing configurations, that should be used with the one or more first input fields, the parsing configuration comprising one or more parsing rules according to which a piece of imported data can be separated into two or more data portions, the at least one input field mapping further specifying which of the two or more data portions parsed according to the one or more parsing rules should be used to populate the one or more first input fields, and in response to receiving a piece of data imported from a data importation device: separate the piece of data into the two or more data portions according to the one or more parsing rules of the parsing configuration.
In the same field of endeavor, Gururaj teaches the at least one input field mapping specifying a parsing configuration, of a plurality of stored parsing configurations, that should be used with the one or more first input fields, the parsing configuration comprising one or more parsing rules according to which a piece of imported data can be separated into two or more data portions, the at least one input field mapping further specifying which of the two or more data portions parsed according to the one or more parsing rules should be used to populate the one or more first input fields (e.g. see [0022] “Parser 15 uses predetermined data patterns 315 to automatically search log files 12 (e.g. including the log file records of FIG. 5) to identify predetermined data patterns 315 and associated workflow tasks performed during a time period to create workflow report 306. Parser 15 parses through the log files 12, to identify data items used to generate a workflow report. The parser parses the log files stored in a centralized location or stored in one more distributed locations or locally by system 36, and the workflow report is generated. FIG. 6 illustrates a workflow report generated by parser 15 from log files 12 (e.g., including the records of FIG. 5). Parser 15 is configurable to provide results and generate a workflow report at periodic time intervals and is configurable to determine level of detail recorded for each user and system 36 action”), and
in response to receiving a piece of data imported from a data importation device: separate the piece of data into the two or more data portions according to the one or more parsing rules of the parsing configuration (e.g. see [0022] “The Workflow report comprises data indicating actions performed by the user and computerized processing system 36, (specified in pattern file 315) in order of their occurrence in log files 12 that reports use of system 36. A generated workflow report is stored in database 309 (such as an SQL Server or Access database). Alternatively, the workflow report may be stored in a .csv (comma separated values) format in a file 306, for example. In one embodiment, the workflow report contains data indicating, Time of occurrence of an action, Type of action, and Description of action. Web browser 303 presented via user interface 26 enables a user to access the workflow report.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the testing system of Shimizu with the parsing embodiment of Gururaj for the purpose of testing materials with the advantage of sorting and filtering data in order to distill datasets down to only the data useful for the determination.
Regarding Claim 2, Shimizu and Gururaj teach the limitations of Claim 1. Shimizu further discloses during execution of the material testing workflow, use data populating the one or more first input fields to execute the test method on the material testing machine or analyze a result of the test method executed on the material testing machine (e.g. see [0031] “As described above, in the material testing machine according to the second embodiment, the identification number of the grip attached to the tester is read from the wireless tag, and the grip information read from the database of the arithmetic processing unit 21 is monitored. 24. Further, the identification number of the pallet 12 is read from the wireless tag 12A, and the test condition and the recommended jig read from the database of the arithmetic processing unit 21 are displayed on the monitor 24. When the operator determines that the grasping tool simultaneously displayed on the monitor 24 does not exist in the recommended grasping tool list created from the test conditions, the operator suspends the test”).
Regarding Claim 6, Shimizu and Gururaj teach the limitations of claim 1. Shimizu further discloses receive, via one or more input devices of a user interface, two or more user created data portions (e.g. see [0006] “In this case, the control means has a database in which the identification numbers are associated with the test conditions, and is configured to search and output the test conditions from the database based on the received identification information,” and [0010] “As test conditions, test types such as tensile / compression / bending, test material, test piece dimensions and shape, test speed, maximum load, maximum displacement, data output format, and the like are recorded”);
combine the two or more user created data portions into one user created data portion using an inversion of the one or more parsing rules of the parsing configuration, and print, via a tag printer, a tag encoding the one user created data portion (e.g. see [0016] “The test conditions are input by the operator from the keyboard 22 prior to the test, and are stored in the semiconductor memory of the wireless tag 12A from the arithmetic processing unit 21 via the reader / writer 16”).
Regarding Claim 8, Shimizu teaches a material testing system (e.g. see [0007] “A material testing machine according to an embodiment of the present invention will be described”), comprising:
a data importation device (e.g. see [0012] “Data is written to and read from the semiconductor memory of the wireless tag 30 in a non-contact manner by using a reader / writer 31 by induced electromagnetic waves or radio waves. The reader / writer 31 is installed in a communicable area of the wireless tag”);
a material testing machine comprising a test sensor (e.g. see [0037] “A wireless tag may be attached to the load cell (i.e. test sensor). Information read from the wireless tag of the load cell is also the jig information in this specification”), a test actuator, and a test controller configured to control the test actuator to conduct a test method (e.g. see [0016] “material testing machine includes a control device 20. As shown in FIG. 4, the control device 20 includes an arithmetic processing device 21 mainly composed of a CPU, a keyboard 22, a control panel 23 having a test start button 23a, and a monitor 24. The above-described reader / writers 16, 31U, 31L and the robot 14 are connected to the arithmetic processing unit 21. The test result is displayed on the monitor 24. The motor 25 is an electric motor for driving the screw rod, and its driving is controlled by the arithmetic processing unit 21”); and
a user interface (e.g. see [FIG 4 element 24]); and a computing device (e.g. see [FIG. 4 element 20]) configured for communication with the user interface, the material testing machine, and the data importation device, the computing device comprising: processing circuitry configured to: execute a material testing workflow configured to guide a user through setup, execution, or analysis of the test method of the material testing machine (e.g. see [0016] “The material testing machine includes a control device 20. As shown in FIG. 4, the control device 20 includes an arithmetic processing device 21 mainly composed of a CPU, a keyboard 22, a control panel 23 having a test start button 23a, and a monitor 24. The above-described reader / writers 16, 31U, 31L and the robot 14 are connected to the arithmetic processing unit 21. The test result is displayed on the monitor 24. The motor 25 is an electric motor for driving the screw rod, and its driving is controlled by the arithmetic processing unit 21. The test conditions are input by the operator from the keyboard 22 prior to the test, and are stored in the semiconductor memory of the wireless tag 12A from the arithmetic processing unit 21 via the reader / writer 16. Then, when executing the test, the test conditions are read from the wireless tag 12A”),
in response to executing the material testing workflow, display, on a display screen of the user interface, a first graphical user interface (GUI) associated with a first workflow state of the material testing workflow, the first GUI comprising a first plurality of input fields (e.g. see [0013] “These pieces of recorded information are collectively called jig information, and based on the jig information, the suitability of the test conditions, the presentation of the optimal test method, and the suitability of the measuring instrument to be used are displayed on the display monitor 24”),
identify one or more first input fields, of the first plurality of input fields (e.g. see [0028-0029] “In step S13, the read jig information is displayed on the monitor 24. In step S14, the test condition corresponding to the identification number of the pallet 12 is read from the test condition database provided in the arithmetic processing unit 21, and the process proceeds to step S15. In step S15, the read test conditions are displayed on the monitor 24, and a list of grips suitable for the test conditions is also displayed as recommended grips”), that are associated with at least one input field mapping (e.g. see [0027] “In the storage area of the control device 20, a first storage area corresponding to the jig identification number and a second storage area corresponding to the pallet identification number are set in advance. The type of the gripper, the maximum test load, and the like are written in the first storage area, and the test conditions for each pallet are written in the second storage area. That is, the arithmetic processing unit 21 is provided with a jig database and a pallet test condition database for each identification number”),
populate the one or more first input fields based on the at least one input field mapping (e.g. see [0031] “As described above, in the material testing machine according to the second embodiment, the identification number of the grip attached to the tester is read from the wireless tag, and the grip information read from the database of the arithmetic processing unit 21 is monitored. 24. Further, the identification number of the pallet 12 is read from the wireless tag 12A, and the test condition and the recommended jig read from the database of the arithmetic processing unit 21 are displayed on the monitor 24. When the operator determines that the grasping tool simultaneously displayed on the monitor 24 does not exist in the recommended grasping tool list created from the test conditions, the operator suspends the test”).
Shimizu does not explicitly disclose the at least one input field mapping specifying a parsing configuration, of a plurality of stored parsing configurations, that should be used with the one or more first input fields, the parsing configuration comprising one or more parsing rules according to which a piece of imported data can be separated into two or more data portions, the at least one input field mapping further specifying which of the two or more data portions parsed according to the one or more parsing rules should be used to populate the one or more first input fields, and in response to receiving a piece of data imported from the data importation device: separate the piece of data into the two or more data portions according to the one or more parsing rules of the parsing configuration.
In the same field of endeavor, Gururaj teaches the at least one input field mapping specifying a parsing configuration, of a plurality of stored parsing configurations, that should be used with the one or more first input fields, the parsing configuration comprising one or more parsing rules according to which a piece of imported data can be separated into two or more data portions, the at least one input field mapping further specifying which of the two or more data portions parsed according to the one or more parsing rules should be used to populate the one or more first input fields (e.g. see [0022] “Parser 15 uses predetermined data patterns 315 to automatically search log files 12 (e.g. including the log file records of FIG. 5) to identify predetermined data patterns 315 and associated workflow tasks performed during a time period to create workflow report 306. Parser 15 parses through the log files 12, to identify data items used to generate a workflow report. The parser parses the log files stored in a centralized location or stored in one more distributed locations or locally by system 36, and the workflow report is generated. FIG. 6 illustrates a workflow report generated by parser 15 from log files 12 (e.g., including the records of FIG. 5). Parser 15 is configurable to provide results and generate a workflow report at periodic time intervals and is configurable to determine level of detail recorded for each user and system 36 action”), and
in response to receiving a piece of data imported from the data importation device: separate the piece of data into the two or more data portions according to the one or more parsing rules of the parsing configuration (e.g. see [0022] “The Workflow report comprises data indicating actions performed by the user and computerized processing system 36, (specified in pattern file 315) in order of their occurrence in log files 12 that reports use of system 36. A generated workflow report is stored in database 309 (such as an SQL Server or Access database). Alternatively, the workflow report may be stored in a .csv (comma separated values) format in a file 306, for example. In one embodiment, the workflow report contains data indicating, Time of occurrence of an action, Type of action, and Description of action. Web browser 303 presented via user interface 26 enables a user to access the workflow report.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the testing system of Shimizu with the parsing embodiment of Gururaj for the purpose of testing materials with the advantage of sorting and filtering data in order to distill datasets down to only the data useful for the determination.
Regarding Claim 9, Shimizu and Gururaj teach the limitations of Claim 8. Shimizu further discloses wherein the data importation device comprises a barcode reader, a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader, a near field communication (NFC) reader, a short range ultra-high radio frequency reader, a camera, or a measuring device configured to measure a dimension of a specimen (e.g. see [0012] “Data is written to and read from the semiconductor memory of the wireless tag 30 in a non-contact manner by using a reader / writer 31 by induced electromagnetic waves or radio waves. The reader / writer 31 is installed in a communicable area of the wireless tag”).
Regarding Claim 14, Shimizu and Gururaj teach the limitations of claim 8. Shimizu further discloses receive, via the one or more input devices, two or more user created data portions (e.g. see [0006] “In this case, the control means has a database in which the identification numbers are associated with the test conditions, and is configured to search and output the test conditions from the database based on the received identification information,” and [0010] “As test conditions, test types such as tensile / compression / bending, test material, test piece dimensions and shape, test speed, maximum load, maximum displacement, data output format, and the like are recorded”);
combine the two or more user created data portions into one user created data portion using an inversion of the one or more parsing rules of the parsing configuration, and print, via tag printer, a tag encoding the one user created data portion (e.g. see [0016] “The test conditions are input by the operator from the keyboard 22 prior to the test, and are stored in the semiconductor memory of the wireless tag 12A from the arithmetic processing unit 21 via the reader / writer 16”).
Regarding Claim 15, Shimizu A method, comprising: executing, via processing circuitry of a computing device, a material testing workflow configured to guide a user through setup, execution, and analysis of a test method of a material testing machine, the computing device being in communication with the material testing machine, (e.g. see [0016] “The material testing machine includes a control device 20. As shown in FIG. 4, the control device 20 includes an arithmetic processing device 21 mainly composed of a CPU, a keyboard 22, a control panel 23 having a test start button 23a, and a monitor 24. The above-described reader / writers 16, 31U, 31L and the robot 14 are connected to the arithmetic processing unit 21. The test result is displayed on the monitor 24”),
the material testing machine comprising a test sensor (e.g. see [0037] “A wireless tag may be attached to the load cell (i.e. test sensor). Information read from the wireless tag of the load cell is also the jig information in this specification”), a test actuator, and a test controller configured to control the test actuator to conduct a test method (e.g. see [0016] “material testing machine includes a control device 20. As shown in FIG. 4, the control device 20 includes an arithmetic processing device 21 mainly composed of a CPU, a keyboard 22, a control panel 23 having a test start button 23a, and a monitor 24. The above-described reader / writers 16, 31U, 31L and the robot 14 are connected to the arithmetic processing unit 21. The test result is displayed on the monitor 24. The motor 25 is an electric motor for driving the screw rod, and its driving is controlled by the arithmetic processing unit 21”);
in response to executing the material testing workflow, display, on a display screen, a first graphical user interface (GUI) associated with a first workflow state of the material testing workflow, the first GUI comprising a first plurality of input fields (e.g. see [0013] “These pieces of recorded information are collectively called jig information, and based on the jig information, the suitability of the test conditions, the presentation of the optimal test method, and the suitability of the measuring instrument to be used are displayed on the display monitor 24”), and being in communication with the computing device (e.g. see [0016]),
identifying, via the processing circuitry, one or more first input fields, of the first plurality of input fields (e.g. see [0028-0029] “In step S13, the read jig information is displayed on the monitor 24. In step S14, the test condition corresponding to the identification number of the pallet 12 is read from the test condition database provided in the arithmetic processing unit 21, and the process proceeds to step S15. In step S15, the read test conditions are displayed on the monitor 24, and a list of grips suitable for the test conditions is also displayed as recommended grips”), that are associated with at least one input field mapping (e.g. see [0027] “In the storage area of the control device 20, a first storage area corresponding to the jig identification number and a second storage area corresponding to the pallet identification number are set in advance. The type of the gripper, the maximum test load, and the like are written in the first storage area, and the test conditions for each pallet are written in the second storage area. That is, the arithmetic processing unit 21 is provided with a jig database and a pallet test condition database for each identification number”),
populating the one or more first input fields based on the at least one input field mapping (e.g. see [0031] “As described above, in the material testing machine according to the second embodiment, the identification number of the grip attached to the tester is read from the wireless tag, and the grip information read from the database of the arithmetic processing unit 21 is monitored. 24. Further, the identification number of the pallet 12 is read from the wireless tag 12A, and the test condition and the recommended jig read from the database of the arithmetic processing unit 21 are displayed on the monitor 24. When the operator determines that the grasping tool simultaneously displayed on the monitor 24 does not exist in the recommended grasping tool list created from the test conditions, the operator suspends the test”).
Shimizu does not explicitly disclose the at least one input field mapping specifying a parsing configuration, of a plurality of stored parsing configurations, that should be used with the one or more first input fields, the parsing configuration comprising one or more parsing rules according to which a piece of imported data can be separated into two or more data portions, the at least one input field mapping further specifying which of the two or more data portions parsed according to the one or more parsing rules should be used to populate the one or more first input fields, and in response to receiving, at the computing device, a piece of data imported from the data importation device in communication with the computing device: separating the piece of data into the two or more data portions according to the one or more parsing rules of the parsing configuration.
In the same field of endeavor, Gururaj teaches the at least one input field mapping specifying a parsing configuration, of a plurality of stored parsing configurations, that should be used with the one or more first input fields, the parsing configuration comprising one or more parsing rules according to which a piece of imported data can be separated into two or more data portions, the at least one input field mapping further specifying which of the two or more data portions parsed according to the one or more parsing rules should be used to populate the one or more first input fields (e.g. see [0022] “Parser 15 uses predetermined data patterns 315 to automatically search log files 12 (e.g. including the log file records of FIG. 5) to identify predetermined data patterns 315 and associated workflow tasks performed during a time period to create workflow report 306. Parser 15 parses through the log files 12, to identify data items used to generate a workflow report. The parser parses the log files stored in a centralized location or stored in one more distributed locations or locally by system 36, and the workflow report is generated. FIG. 6 illustrates a workflow report generated by parser 15 from log files 12 (e.g., including the records of FIG. 5). Parser 15 is configurable to provide results and generate a workflow report at periodic time intervals and is configurable to determine level of detail recorded for each user and system 36 action”), and
in response to receiving, at the computing device, a piece of data imported from the data importation device in communication with the computing device: separating the piece of data into the two or more data portions according to the one or more parsing rules of the parsing configuration (e.g. see [0022] “The Workflow report comprises data indicating actions performed by the user and computerized processing system 36, (specified in pattern file 315) in order of their occurrence in log files 12 that reports use of system 36. A generated workflow report is stored in database 309 (such as an SQL Server or Access database). Alternatively, the workflow report may be stored in a .csv (comma separated values) format in a file 306, for example. In one embodiment, the workflow report contains data indicating, Time of occurrence of an action, Type of action, and Description of action. Web browser 303 presented via user interface 26 enables a user to access the workflow report.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the testing system of Shimizu with the parsing embodiment of Gururaj for the purpose of testing materials with the advantage of sorting and filtering data in order to distill datasets down to only the data useful for the determination.
Regarding Claim 16, Shimizu and Gururaj teach the limitations of Claim 15. Shimizu further discloses wherein the data importation device comprises a barcode reader, a radio frequency identification (RFID) reader, a near field communication (NFC) reader, a short range ultra-high radio frequency reader, a camera, or a measuring device configured to measure a dimension of a specimen (e.g. see [0012] “Data is written to and read from the semiconductor memory of the wireless tag 30 in a non-contact manner by using a reader / writer 31 by induced electromagnetic waves or radio waves. The reader / writer 31 is installed in a communicable area of the wireless tag”).
Regarding Claim 17, Shimizu and Gururaj teach the limitations of Claim 15. Shimizu further discloses using data populating the one or more first input fields to execute the test method on the material testing machine or analyze a result of the test method executed on the material testing machine (e.g. see [0031] “As described above, in the material testing machine according to the second embodiment, the identification number of the grip attached to the tester is read from the wireless tag, and the grip information read from the database of the arithmetic processing unit 21 is monitored. 24. Further, the identification number of the pallet 12 is read from the wireless tag 12A, and the test condition and the recommended jig read from the database of the arithmetic processing unit 21 are displayed on the monitor 24. When the operator determines that the grasping tool simultaneously displayed on the monitor 24 does not exist in the recommended grasping tool list created from the test conditions, the operator suspends the test”).
Regarding Claim 19, Shimizu and Gururaj teach the limitations of claim 15. Shimizu further discloses receiving, at the computing device, via the one or more input devices, two or more smaller user created data portions (e.g. see [0006] “In this case, the control means has a database in which the identification numbers are associated with the test conditions, and is configured to search and output the test conditions from the database based on the received identification information,” and [0010] “As test conditions, test types such as tensile / compression / bending, test material, test piece dimensions and shape, test speed, maximum load, maximum displacement, data output format, and the like are recorded”);
combining, via the processing circuitry, the two or more smaller user created data portions into one larger user created data portion using an inversion of the one or more parsing rules of the parsing configuration; and printing, via a tag printer in communication with the communication device, a tag encoding the one larger user created data portion (e.g. see [0016] “The test conditions are input by the operator from the keyboard 22 prior to the test, and are stored in the semiconductor memory of the wireless tag 12A from the arithmetic processing unit 21 via the reader / writer 16”).
Claims 3-5, 10-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (JP2004361123A) in view of Gururaj (US20110113287 A1) and in further view of Kilje (US20190005111A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Shimizu and Gururaj teach the limitations of Claim 1. While Gururaj teaches customizable parsing configurations (e.g. see [0021-0022]), Shimizu as modified by Gururaj does not explicitly disclose in response to initiation of a parsing configuration setup process: provide, via the display screen, a second GUI through which a user can customize the parsing configuration, receive a first signal from one or more input devices of a user interface, the first signal being representative of a first user interaction with the second GUI, the first user interaction defining at least one parsing rule of the one or more parsing rules, and create or modify, in the non-transitory computer readable medium, based on the first user interaction, machine readable data representative of the parsing configuration and the one or more parsing rules.
In the same field of endeavor, Kilje teaches in response to initiation of a parsing configuration setup process: provide, via the display screen, a second GUI through which a user can customize the parsing configuration, receive a first signal from one or more input devices of a user interface, the first signal being representative of a first user interaction with the second GUI, the first user interaction defining at least one parsing rule of the one or more parsing rules, and create or modify, in the non-transitory computer readable medium, based on the first user interaction, machine readable data representative of the parsing configuration and the one or more parsing rules (e.g. see [0028] “user interface 114 may accept network management parameters, annotation analysis commands, and display on the GUI any type of system management interface. The system management interface may visualize, as just a few examples, components extracted/derived from the manuscripts, associations and relationships between components, logic, or any other information extracted from the manuscripts. In addition, the user interface 114 may display menus and other drill down functions to characterize the components, logic, etc. The user interface 114 may be responsive to user inputs to adjust or modify the information being displayed,” and [0058] “For example, a field a user wishes to analyze the rating calculation for may be entered into the user interface. The entered field may be searched for by the system within all the log entries of a complex application project. The system may find all the fields that participate in the rule definition, calculation, lookup into a table, request details, inheritance, etc. The participating fields may be displayed in a list, and the user may select participating fields in the list to identify additional fields that participate in the rule definition. The inheritance hierarchy may also be displayed as part of the drill down, such as by accessing the stored catalogue.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filling date to combine the user interface of Shimizu as modified by Gururaj with the user interface and parsing configuration of Kilje for the purpose of creating a testing workflow with the advantage of altering the data parser in order to select the data of most use to the user.
Regarding Claim 4, Shimizu, Gururaj, and Kilje teach the limitations of claim 3. Shimizu further discloses the parsing configuration setup process, receive sample data imported from the data importation device, display, on the display screen, a representation of the sample data in the second GUI (e.g. see [0017] “In step S21, the jig information stored in the semiconductor memory of the wireless tag 30 is read via the reader / writer 31, and displayed on the monitor 24”), the first user interaction with the second GUI comprising an interaction with the representation of the sample data displayed in the second GUI (e.g. see [0010] “In the first embodiment, the test condition of the material testing machine is recorded on the wireless tag 12A of the pallet 12, and the material testing machine performs a test according to the test condition. As test conditions, test types such as tensile / compression / bending, test material, test piece dimensions and shape, test speed, maximum load, maximum displacement, data output format, and the like are recorded,” and [0013] “These pieces of recorded information are collectively called jig information, and based on the jig information, the suitability of the test conditions, the presentation of the optimal test method, and the suitability of the measuring instrument to be used are displayed on the display monitor 24”).
Shimizu as modified by Gururaj does not explicitly disclose display, on the display screen, display on the display screen, an annotation of the representation of the sample data in the second GUI in response to the first user interaction, the annotation being descriptive of the at least one parsing rule.
In the same field of endeavor, Kilje teaches display, on the display screen, an annotation of the representation of the sample data in the second GUI in response to the first user interaction (e.g. see [0028] “the user interface 114 may display, for example, a graphical user interface. The user interface 114 may accept network management parameters, annotation analysis commands, and display on the GUI any type of system management interface,”), the annotation being descriptive of the at least one parsing rule (e.g. see [0029] “These processes may include receiving input data and/or parameters, performing operations on received input data and/or performing functions in response to received input parameters, and providing resulting output data and/or parameters. A user interface (UI), as used herein, comprises one or more display images, generated by a user interface processor and enabling user interaction with a processor or other device and associated data acquisition and processing functions”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the sample data and user interface of Shimizu with the annotations and parsing information of Kilje for the purpose of executing a material testing workflow with the advantage of displaying each step of the configuration process in order to allow the user to tailor the workflow to their specific needs.
Regarding Claim 5, Shimizu, Gururaj, and Kilje teach the limitations of claim 4. Shimizu further discloses in response to initiation of a material testing workflow setup process:
provide, via the display screen, a third GUI through which a user can setup the material testing workflow (e.g. see [0016] “The test conditions are input by the operator from the keyboard 22 prior to the test, and are stored in the semiconductor memory of the wireless tag 12A from the arithmetic processing unit 21 via the reader / writer 16. Then, when executing the test, the test conditions are read from the wireless tag 12A”),
receive a second signal from the one or more input devices, the second signal being representative of a second user interaction with the third GUI, the second user interaction defining the at least one input field mapping associated with the one or more first input fields of the material testing workflow, and create or modify, in the non-transitory computer readable medium, the material testing workflow and the at least one input field mapping based on the second user interaction (e.g. see [0036] “In the above, an example in which the wireless tag 30 is attached to the gripper body and the jig information and the test conditions are compared has been described. However, the present invention is not limited to this. For example, a wireless tag may be attached to the grip teeth. The information read from the gripping tooth wireless tag is also the jig information in this specification. The type of gripping tooth can be recorded on the wireless tag as jig information. If the material of the test piece to be used by the gripping teeth is different from the material of the test piece recognized from the test conditions, the test is prohibited and the monitor 24 is warned. It is preferable that the monitor 24 displays a grip tooth optimal for the test piece material recognized from the test conditions as a recommended grip tooth. Further, various kinds of information on the grip teeth may be displayed on the monitor 24”).
Regarding Claim 10, Shimizu and Gururaj teach the limitations of Claim 8. Shimizu further discloses receive sample data imported from the data importation device, display on the display screen a representation of the sample data in the second GUI (e.g. see [0017] “In step S21, the jig information stored in the semiconductor memory of the wireless tag 30 is read via the reader / writer 31, and displayed on the monitor 24”).
While Gururaj teaches customizable parsing configurations (e.g. see [0021-0022]), Shimizu as modified by Gururaj does not explicitly disclose in response to initiation of a parsing configuration setup process: provide, via the display screen, a second GUI through which a user can customize the parsing configuration, receive a first signal from one or more input devices of the user interface, the first signal being representative of a first user interaction with the representation of the sample data displayed in the second GUI, the first user interaction defining at least one parsing rule of the one or more parsing rules, and display, on the display screen, an annotation of the representation of the sample data in the second GUI in response to the first user interaction, the annotation being descriptive of the at least one parsing rule.
In the same field of endeavor, Kilje teaches in response to initiation of a parsing configuration setup process: provide, via the display screen, a second GUI through which a user can customize the parsing configuration (e.g. see [0028] “user interface 114 may accept network management parameters, annotation analysis commands, and display on the GUI any type of system management interface. The system management interface may visualize, as just a few examples, components extracted/derived from the manuscripts, associations and relationships between components, logic, or any other information extracted from the manuscripts. In addition, the user interface 114 may display menus and other drill down functions to characterize the components, logic, etc. The user interface 114 may be responsive to user inputs to adjust or modify the information being displayed,”),
receive a first signal from one or more input devices of the user interface, the first signal being representative of a first user interaction with the representation of the sample data displayed in the second GUI, the first user interaction defining at least one parsing rule of the one or more parsing rules (e.g. see [0058] “For example, a field a user wishes to analyze the rating calculation for may be entered into the user interface. The entered field may be searched for by the system within all the log entries of a complex application project. The system may find all the fields that participate in the rule definition, calculation, lookup into a table, request details, inheritance, etc. The participating fields may be displayed in a list, and the user may select participating fields in the list to identify additional fields that participate in the rule definition. The inheritance hierarchy may also be displayed as part of the drill down, such as by accessing the stored catalogue.”), and
display, on the display screen, an annotation of the representation of the sample data in the second GUI in response to the first user interaction (e.g. see [0028] “the user interface 114 may display, for example, a graphical user interface. The user interface 114 may accept network management parameters, annotation analysis commands, and display on the GUI any type of system management interface,”), the annotation being descriptive of the at least one parsing rule (e.g. see [0029] “These processes may include receiving input data and/or parameters, performing operations on received input data and/or performing functions in response to received input parameters, and providing resulting output data and/or parameters. A user interface (UI), as used herein, comprises one or more display images, generated by a user interface processor and enabling user interaction with a processor or other device and associated data acquisition and processing functions”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filling date to combine the user interface of Shimizu as modified by Gururaj with the user interface and parsing configuration of Kilje for the purpose of creating a testing workflow with the advantage of altering the data parser in order to select the data of most use to the user.
Regarding Claim 11, Shimizu, Gururaj, and Kilje teach the limitations of Claim 10. Shimizu does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one parsing rule comprises a start location and character length of a sub-string of the two or more data portions, a particular character that occurs before or after the sub-string, a particular character string that occurs before or after the sub-string, or a number of portions into which to separate the piece of imported data.
In the same field of endeavor, Gururaj teaches wherein the at least one parsing rule comprises a start location and character length of a sub-string of the two or more data portions, a particular character that occurs before or after the sub-string, a particular character string that occurs before or after the sub-string, or a number of portions into which to separate the piece of imported data (e.g. see [0021-0022] “Repository 17 includes stored predetermined data patterns 315 associated with workflow tasks performed in a workflow by a user and processing system 36 and that are used by parser 15. A predetermined data pattern 315 is a text file incorporating a list of features and keywords in the form of a keyword-label pair for use in a search. A line in data pattern 315 corresponds to a unique record to be used for text pattern search of log files 12. In one embodiment, the format of each line in the data pattern 315 comprises Log Label<TAB>Log Keyword. A Log Keyword specifies a pattern to be found in log files 12. Keywords may contain information (e.g. metadata) that is not presented to a user and keywords or patterns are associated with a user friendly Log Label that is part of a displayed structured output. [0022] Parser 15 uses predetermined data patterns 315 to automatically search log files 12 (e.g. including the log file records of FIG. 5) to identify predetermined data patterns 315 and associated workflow tasks performed during a time period to create workflow report 306”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the sample data of Shimizu with the parsing rules of Gururaj for the purpose of executing a testing workflow with the advantage of customizing the parser to extract only the data that is useful to a user.
Regarding Claim 12, Shimizu, Gururaj, and Kilje teach the limitations of Claim 10. Shimizu further discloses in response to initiation of a material testing workflow setup process: provide, via the display screen, a third GUI through which a user can setup the material testing workflow (e.g. see [0016] “The test conditions are input by the operator from the keyboard 22 prior to the test, and are stored in the semiconductor memory of the wireless tag 12A from the arithmetic processing unit 21 via the reader / writer 16. Then, when executing the test, the test conditions are read from the wireless tag 12A”),
receive a second signal from the one or more input devices, the second signal being representative of a second user interaction with the third GUI, the second user interaction defining the at least one input field mapping associated with the one or more first input fields of the material testing workflow, and create or modify, in the memory circuitry, the material testing workflow and the at least one input field mapping based on the second user interaction (e.g. see [0036] “In the above, an example in which the wireless tag 30 is attached to the gripper body and the jig information and the test conditions are compared has been described. However, the present invention is not limited to this. For example, a wireless tag may be attached to the grip teeth. The information read from the gripping tooth wireless tag is also the jig information in this specification. The type of gripping tooth can be recorded on the wireless tag as jig information. If the material of the test piece to be used by the gripping teeth is different from the material of the test piece recognized from the test conditions, the test is prohibited and the monitor 24 is warned. It is preferable that the monitor 24 displays a grip tooth optimal for the test piece material recognized from the test conditions as a recommended grip tooth. Further, various kinds of information on the grip teeth may be displayed on the monitor 24”).
Regarding Claim 13, Shimizu, Gururaj, and Kilje teach the limitations of Claim 12. Shimizu further discloses during the material testing workflow setup process, in response to receiving one or more third signals from the one or more input devices, define the first workflow state of the material testing workflow (e.g. see [0019-0020] “is a result of the comparison in step S23, when the jig information and the contents of the test condition match, the process proceeds to step S26. In step S26, a test is performed according to the contents of the test conditions. In step S27, the test is continued until the end of the test is determined… a test is performed under the same test conditions to collect data. If it is determined in step S27 that the test has been completed for the five test pieces TP, the test is terminated”) and
a second workflow state of the material testing workflow, the second workflow state being associated with a fourth GUI and a second plurality of input fields (e.g. see [0029-0030] “the test condition corresponding to the identification number of the pallet 12 is read from the test condition database provided in the arithmetic processing unit 21, and the process proceeds to step S15. In step S15, the read test conditions are displayed on the monitor 24, and a list of grips suitable for the test conditions is also displayed as recommended grips. Judging from this monitor screen, the operator inputs a test continuation instruction if the attached grip is in the recommended grip list. Thus, if step S16 is affirmed, the test is started in step 17, and if it is determined in step S18 that the test is finished, the test is finished. If there is no grip attached in the recommended grip list displayed in step S15, the operator instructs the test to be interrupted. In this case, step S16 is determined to be interrupted, and this processing ends”).
Regarding Claim 18, Shimizu and Gururaj teach the limitations of Claim 15. Shimizu further discloses receive sample data imported from the data importation device, displaying on the display screen a representation of the sample data in the second GUI (e.g. see [0017] “In step S21, the jig information stored in the semiconductor memory of the wireless tag 30 is read via the reader / writer 31, and displayed on the monitor 24”).
While Gururaj teaches customizable parsing configurations (e.g. see [0021-0022]), Shimizu as modified by Gururaj does not explicitly disclose in response to initiation of a parsing configuration setup process: providing, via the display screen, a second GUI through which a user can customize the parsing configuration, receiving, at the computing device, a first signal from one or more input devices of the user interface, the first signal being representative of a first user interaction with the representation of the sample data displayed in the second GUI, the first user interaction defining at least one parsing rule of the one or more parsing rules, and displaying, on the display screen, an annotation of the representation of the sample data in the second GUI in response to the first user interaction, the annotation being descriptive of the at least one parsing rule, and creating or modifying, in memory circuitry of the computing device, the parsing configuration and the one or more parsing rules based on the first user interaction..
In the same field of endeavor, Kilje teaches in response to initiation of a parsing configuration setup process: providing, via the display screen, a second GUI through which a user can customize the parsing configuration (e.g. see [0028] “user interface 114 may accept network management parameters, annotation analysis commands, and display on the GUI any type of system management interface. The system management interface may visualize, as just a few examples, components extracted/derived from the manuscripts, associations and relationships between components, logic, or any other information extracted from the manuscripts. In addition, the user interface 114 may display menus and other drill down functions to characterize the components, logic, etc. The user interface 114 may be responsive to user inputs to adjust or modify the information being displayed,”),
receiving, at the computing device, a first signal from one or more input devices of the user interface, the first signal being representative of a first user interaction with the representation of the sample data displayed in the second GUI, the first user interaction defining at least one parsing rule of the one or more parsing rules (e.g. see [0058] “For example, a field a user wishes to analyze the rating calculation for may be entered into the user interface. The entered field may be searched for by the system within all the log entries of a complex application project. The system may find all the fields that participate in the rule definition, calculation, lookup into a table, request details, inheritance, etc. The participating fields may be displayed in a list, and the user may select participating fields in the list to identify additional fields that participate in the rule definition. The inheritance hierarchy may also be displayed as part of the drill down, such as by accessing the stored catalogue.”), and
displaying, on the display screen, an annotation of the representation of the sample data in the second GUI in response to the first user interaction (e.g. see [0028] “the user interface 114 may display, for example, a graphical user interface. The user interface 114 may accept network management parameters, annotation analysis commands, and display on the GUI any type of system management interface,”), the annotation being descriptive of the at least one parsing rule (e.g. see [0029] “These processes may include receiving input data and/or parameters, performing operations on received input data and/or performing functions in response to received input parameters, and providing resulting output data and/or parameters. A user interface (UI), as used herein, comprises one or more display images, generated by a user interface processor and enabling user interaction with a processor or other device and associated data acquisition and processing functions”), and
creating or modifying, in memory circuitry of the computing device, the parsing configuration and the one or more parsing rules based on the first user interaction. (e.g. see [0028] “user interface 114 may accept network management parameters, annotation analysis commands, and display on the GUI any type of system management interface. The system management interface may visualize, as just a few examples, components extracted/derived from the manuscripts, associations and relationships between components, logic, or any other information extracted from the manuscripts. In addition, the user interface 114 may display menus and other drill down functions to characterize the components, logic, etc. The user interface 114 may be responsive to user inputs to adjust or modify the information being displayed,” and [0058] “For example, a field a user wishes to analyze the rating calculation for may be entered into the user interface. The entered field may be searched for by the system within all the log entries of a complex application project. The system may find all the fields that participate in the rule definition, calculation, lookup into a table, request details, inheritance, etc. The participating fields may be displayed in a list, and the user may select participating fields in the list to identify additional fields that participate in the rule definition. The inheritance hierarchy may also be displayed as part of the drill down, such as by accessing the stored catalogue.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filling date to combine the user interface of Shimizu as modified by Gururaj with the user interface and parsing configuration of Kilje for the purpose of creating a testing workflow with the advantage of altering the data parser in order to select the data of most use to the user.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu (JP2004361123A) in view of Gururaj (US20110113287 A1) and in further view of Pillai (US20100077260A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Shimizu and Gururaj teach the limitations of claim 1. Shimizu further discloses one or more first expected formatting criteria, and the non-transitory computer readable medium further comprises machine readable instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: in response to receiving the piece of data imported from the data importation device, verify that the piece of data complies with the one or more first expected formatting criteria (e.g. see [0019] “After the information of the gripping tool is displayed in step S21, the process proceeds to step S22. In step S22, the test conditions stored in the semiconductor memory of the wireless tag 12A of the pallet 12 are read via the reader / writer 16, displayed on the monitor 24, and the process proceeds to step S23. In step S23, the read jig information is compared with the contents of the test conditions. As a result of the comparison in step S23, when the jig information and the contents of the test condition match, the process proceeds to step S26. In step S26, a test is performed according to the contents of the test conditions”), and
more expected formatting criteria of the, output a notification via the user interface (e.g. see [0021] “As a result of the comparison in step S23, if the jig information does not match the content of the test condition, the process proceeds to step S24, and processing for inhibiting the test is performed. For example, the power supply circuit of the screw rod drive motor 25 is opened. Thereafter, in step S25, the fact that the test is prohibited is displayed on the monitor 24, and a warning is displayed on the monitor 24 that the jig information does not match the test condition”) or identify a second parsing configuration comprising second expected formatting criteria to which the piece of data complies.
While Shimizu teaches verifying that imported data complies with expected formatting, Shimizu does not explicitly disclose wherein the parsing configuration comprises a first parsing configuration, the first parsing configuration being associated with one or more first expected formatting criteria.
In the same field of endeavor, Gururaj teaches wherein the parsing configuration comprises a first parsing configuration (e.g. see [0021] “Repository 17 includes stored predetermined data patterns 315 associated with workflow tasks performed in a workflow by a user and processing system 36 and that are used by parser 15. A predetermined data pattern 315 is a text file incorporating a list of features and keywords in the form of a keyword-label pair for use in a search. A line in data pattern 315 corresponds to a unique record to be used for text pattern search of log files 12. In one embodiment, the format of each line in the data pattern 315 comprises Log Label<TAB>Log Keyword. A Log Keyword specifies a pattern to be found in log files 12. Keywords may contain information (e.g. metadata) that is not presented to a user and keywords or patterns are associated with a user friendly Log Label that is part of a displayed structured output”), the first parsing configuration being associated with one or more first expected formatting criteria (e.g. see [0022] “Parser 15 uses predetermined data patterns 315 to automatically search log files 12 (e.g. including the log file records of FIG. 5) to identify predetermined data patterns 315 and associated workflow tasks performed during a time period to create workflow report 306. Parser 15 parses through the log files 12, to identify data items used to generate a workflow report… Parser 15 is configurable to provide results and generate a workflow report at periodic time intervals and is configurable to determine level of detail recorded for each user and system 36 action”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the formatting requirements of Shimizu with the formatting requirements and parsing configuration of Gururaj for the purpose of executing a material testing system with the advantage of ensuring the data is properly formatted in order to successfully carry out the test.
Shimizu as modified by Gururaj does not explicitly disclose in response to successfully verifying that the piece of data complies with the one or more first expected formatting criteria of the first parsing configuration, separate the piece of data into the two or more data portions and populate the one or more first input fields.
In the same field of endeavor, Pillai teaches in response to successfully verifying that the piece of data complies with the one or more first expected formatting criteria of the first parsing configuration, separate the piece of data into the two or more data portions (e.g. see Pillai [0090-0091] “The Data Acquisition activity accumulates data for selected signals. The activity requires at least one trigger and one signal. The Trigger defines the method for acquiring data points… Trigger List Signal List Specifies the signals to be processed in the data acquisition activities.”) and populate the one or more first input fields (e.g. see [0069] “Cycle, point-by-point, and group data acquisition activities require variables to be mapped to the signals. Four types of data can be calculated for each signal that is selected for data acquisition. The data types are: Mean, Minimum, Maximum and Array. If a variable is mapped to signal data, the data is calculated during the test run for those cycles that are selected or defined in the properties for the data acquisition activity. The data values for each acquired cycle are available for use in the runtime display and are saved for post-test analysis”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the formatting requirements of Shimizu with the formatting requirements and parsing configuration of Pillai for the purpose of executing a material testing system with the advantage of ensuring the data is properly formatted in order to successfully carry out the test.
Regarding Claim 20, Shimizu and Gururaj teach the limitations of claim 15. Shimizu further discloses one or more first expected formatting criteria, and the non-transitory computer readable medium further comprises machine readable instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: in response to receiving the piece of data imported from the data importation device, verify that the piece of data complies with the one or more first expected formatting criteria (e.g. see [0019] “After the information of the gripping tool is displayed in step S21, the process proceeds to step S22. In step S22, the test conditions stored in the semiconductor memory of the wireless tag 12A of the pallet 12 are read via the reader / writer 16, displayed on the monitor 24, and the process proceeds to step S23. In step S23, the read jig information is compared with the contents of the test conditions. As a result of the comparison in step S23, when the jig information and the contents of the test condition match, the process proceeds to step S26. In step S26, a test is performed according to the contents of the test conditions”), and
more expected formatting criteria of the, output a notification via the user interface (e.g. see [0021] “As a result of the comparison in step S23, if the jig information does not match the content of the test condition, the process proceeds to step S24, and processing for inhibiting the test is performed. For example, the power supply circuit of the screw rod drive motor 25 is opened. Thereafter, in step S25, the fact that the test is prohibited is displayed on the monitor 24, and a warning is displayed on the monitor 24 that the jig information does not match the test condition”) or identify a second parsing configuration comprising second expected formatting criteria to which the piece of data complies.
While Shimizu teaches verifying that imported data complies with expected formatting, Shimizu does not explicitly disclose wherein the parsing configuration comprises a first parsing configuration, the first parsing configuration being associated with one or more first expected formatting criteria.
In the same field of endeavor, Gururaj teaches wherein the parsing configuration comprises a first parsing configuration (e.g. see [0021] “Repository 17 includes stored predetermined data patterns 315 associated with workflow tasks performed in a workflow by a user and processing system 36 and that are used by parser 15. A predetermined data pattern 315 is a text file incorporating a list of features and keywords in the form of a keyword-label pair for use in a search. A line in data pattern 315 corresponds to a unique record to be used for text pattern search of log files 12. In one embodiment, the format of each line in the data pattern 315 comprises Log Label<TAB>Log Keyword. A Log Keyword specifies a pattern to be found in log files 12. Keywords may contain information (e.g. metadata) that is not presented to a user and keywords or patterns are associated with a user friendly Log Label that is part of a displayed structured output”), the first parsing configuration being associated with one or more first expected formatting criteria (e.g. see [0022] “Parser 15 uses predetermined data patterns 315 to automatically search log files 12 (e.g. including the log file records of FIG. 5) to identify predetermined data patterns 315 and associated workflow tasks performed during a time period to create workflow report 306. Parser 15 parses through the log files 12, to identify data items used to generate a workflow report… Parser 15 is configurable to provide results and generate a workflow report at periodic time intervals and is configurable to determine level of detail recorded for each user and system 36 action”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the formatting requirements of Shimizu with the formatting requirements and parsing configuration of Gururaj for the purpose of executing a material testing system with the advantage of ensuring the data is properly formatted in order to successfully carry out the test.
Shimizu as modified by Gururaj does not explicitly disclose in response to successfully verifying that the piece of data complies with the one or more first expected formatting criteria of the first parsing configuration, separate the piece of data into the two or more data portions and populate the one or more first input fields.
In the same field of endeavor, Pillai teaches in response to successfully verifying that the piece of data complies with the one or more first expected formatting criteria of the first parsing configuration, separate the piece of data into the two or more data portions (e.g. see Pillai [0090-0091] “The Data Acquisition activity accumulates data for selected signals. The activity requires at least one trigger and one signal. The Trigger defines the method for acquiring data points… Trigger List Signal List Specifies the signals to be processed in the data acquisition activities.”) and populate the one or more first input fields (e.g. see [0069] “Cycle, point-by-point, and group data acquisition activities require variables to be mapped to the signals. Four types of data can be calculated for each signal that is selected for data acquisition. The data types are: Mean, Minimum, Maximum and Array. If a variable is mapped to signal data, the data is calculated during the test run for those cycles that are selected or defined in the properties for the data acquisition activity. The data values for each acquired cycle are available for use in the runtime display and are saved for post-test analysis”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to combine the formatting requirements of Shimizu with the formatting requirements and parsing configuration of Pillai for the purpose of executing a material testing system with the advantage of ensuring the data is properly formatted in order to successfully carry out the test.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NYLA GAVIA whose telephone number is (703)756-1592. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/NYLA GAVIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/Catherine T. Rastovski/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights