DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 08/11/2023 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP 609 and has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. A subject matter eligibility analysis is set forth below. See MPEP 2106.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1, belongs to a statutory category namely a method.
Under Step 2A, prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The claim(s) 1 recite(s) concepts related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion for provisioning a matrix having a plurality of entries characterizing whether a product associated with a respective entry of the plurality of entries has passed or failed the second amount of testing associated with the respective entry; optimizing a cost function dependent on test variables, wherein each test of the second amount of testing is associated with one of the test variables, and the test variables characterize whether a corresponding test of the second amount of testing is relevant; defining constraints for the cost function by: defining a first constraint in that a result of matrix/vector multiplication must be greater than or equal to a vector having only ones, wherein the matrix of matrix/vector multiplication is from a matrix having entries that all have the value one, the plurality of entries of the provisioned matrix are subtracted and the vector of matrix/vector multiplication is a vector comprising the test variables, and defining a second constraint in that the test variables are binary; and “…an amount of testing whose test variables are characterized as relevant” (emphasis added).
The concepts discussed above can be considered to describe mental processes, namely concepts performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and/or mathematical concepts, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers (emphasis added). Although, the claim does not spell out any particular equation or formula being used, the lack of specific equations for individual steps merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible calculations in performing the steps. These steps recited by the claims, therefore amount to a series of mental or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is not performed by using any particular device and because the recitation of “provisioning a matrix having a plurality of entries…”, is mere gathering recited at high level of generality and the results of the algorithm are merely output/stored as part of insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. outputting an amount of testing whose test variables are characterized as relevant) and are not used in any particular matter as to integrate the abstract idea in a practical application.
Under Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer, used to apply the abstract idea and mere data gathering/output recited at a high level of generality and insignificant extra-solution activity that when further analyzed under Step 2B is found to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); and because the data of performing the algorithm must necessarily be “obtained” and the use of a general purpose computer to implement the abstract idea for performing the algorithm does not amount to significantly more than the recitation of the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-10 merely expand on the abstract idea by appending additional steps to the mathematical algorithm on their respective independent claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-10 merely expands on the abstract idea by reciting additional steps related to mathematical algorithms/concepts, and mental processes and concepts performed in the human mind e.g. observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion and mere characterization of the data acquired and applied for performing the abstract idea. Dependent claims 2-10, do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the rejected abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, these claims are found to be ineligible for the reasons described with respect to independent claim 1 from which they depend.
With respect to dependent claim 4, the claim further recites aspects of the abstract idea and introduces the additional element of “new test data is collected based on a modified amount of testing” additional information and repeating the “provisioning of the matrix, optimizing the cost function, and the defining the constraints” and setting a test variable of the necessary test however this merely amounts mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and generally linking the abstract idea to a field of use and to insignificant extra-solution activity.
With respect to dependent claim 8, the claim introduces the additional element of “an apparatus” which amounts to the use a general purpose computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the rejected abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, these claims are found to be ineligible for the reasons described with respect to independent claim 1 from which they depend.
With respect to dependent claim 9, the claim introduces the additional element of “a computer” which amounts to the use a general purpose computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the rejected abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, these claims are found to be ineligible for the reasons described with respect to independent claim 1 from which they depend.
With respect to dependent claim 10, the claim introduces the additional element of “a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium” to store a computer program which is used to implement the abstract idea and which which amounts to the use a general purpose computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements that integrate the rejected abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, these claims are found to be ineligible for the reasons described with respect to independent claim 1 from which they depend.
Therefore, for similar reasons as discussed above, the additional elements disclosed by dependent claims 4 and 8 fail to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Discussion of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record cited in form POTL-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bershteyn US Patent 5,414,716 (hereinafter Bershteyn).
Bershteyn disclose a system is provided for reducing testing time by decreasing the number of test vectors or patterns while maintaining high fault coverage through utilizing lists of undetected faults in an integrated circuit to determine the optimal weighting for a weighted random pattern generator that is used for testing the integrated circuit (a method for determining a reduced first amount of testing from a second amount of testing, see abstract; col. 4, ll. 49-66, col. 5); wherein test vectors are used in detection of faults and wherein weights are being are calculated in order to determine faults by determining probabilities of detecting the faults (abstract; see col. 4, ll. 43-48; col. 6, ll. 49-55; col. 10, ll. 21-39, wherein provisioning a matrix/vector having a plurality of entries characterizing whether a product associated with a respective entry of the plurality of entries has passed or failed the second amount of testing associated with the respective entry); wherein order to optimize the above systems such that the optimal weighting pattern is achieved, the weight set generator 18 produces a set of weights for a particular circuit under test which governs the probability of a 1 or 0 being on any one of the input lines to the primary inputs of the circuit. Thus the generator 18 produces a set of weights in accordance with the development of a list of undetected faults 30 for the circuit under test. It will be shown that generating a set of weights derived through utilization of undetected faults results in a significantly higher probability of fault detection and, with a significantly decreased number of patterns (see abstract, col. 4, ll. 49-67; col. 5, ll. 1-10; col. 7, ll. 24-35, optimizing a cost function dependent on test variables, wherein each test of the second amount of testing is associated with one of the test variables) and wherein a weight adjustment procedure performs reverse calculation to one defined by Equations 1 and 2 and an operation is performed determining depending on whether or not there are faults present, and wherein a change is performed so that values of W0 at its input and outputs satisfy equation 1 and wherein the change is propagated until it becomes irrelevant, by doing so it is looking for is determining an amount of testing is relevant or not (col. 11, ll30-53, and the test variables characterize whether a corresponding test of the second amount of testing is relevant) and generating test vectors suitable for the opposite circuit in order to reduce testing time by decreasing the number of test vectors (see abstract, col. 4, ll. 49 through col. 5, ll. 10, outputting an amount of the testing whose test variables are characterized as relevant).
Agrawal et al. US 5257268 A (hereinafter Agrawal).
Agrawal disclose “[a] method for developing a test sequence and for testing manufactured digital circuits. Test vectors are developed based on a simulation-based, directed-search approach. Specifically, from a given test vector, a next test vector is developed by altering the given test vector and determining the utility of the altered trial vector in propagating circuit faults to the primary outputs, based on a simulation of the circuit and a preselected cost function. The vector set is created through an iterative process of altering an accepted test vector to develop a next trial vector. The vector set is efficiently developed by employing one phase that treats the entire set of circuit faults as the target, followed by another phase that targets specific faults that have not been detected in the previous phase” (see abstract).
Bushnell US2024/0126968
Bushnell disclose a method for inserting testing structure into a circuit under test (CUT) according to an embodiment may comprise: locating X/Z generator sites in the CUT to form thereby a blocker candidates list; estimating a number of untestable faults for each X/Z generator; optimizing design for testability (DFT) hardware insertion using the estimate of the number of untestable faults due to X/Z generators as an optimization cost function; and inserting appropriate testing structure into one or more test point locations of the CUT (see abstract, para. 0026, 0080). Bushnell further discuss the reduction of test volume in determining faults and reduction of test cost (para. 0067, 0080).
Wallner et al. US2023/0133597
Wallner disclose method an systems for determining a solution to a binary optimization problem where cost function is minimized (see para. 0008, 0027, 0187).
However the closest prior art discussed above either in singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of "defining constraints for the cost function by: defining a first constraint in that a result of matrix/vector multiplication must be greater than or equal to a vector having only ones, wherein the matrix of matrix/vector multiplication is from a matrix having entries that all have the value one, the plurality of entries of the provisioned matrix are subtracted and the vector of matrix/vector multiplication is a vector comprising the test variables, and defining a second constraint in that the test variables are binary” without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YARITZA H PEREZ BERMUDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at (571) 272-6334. 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.
/YARITZA H. PEREZ BERMUDEZ/
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights