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 .
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.
Claim 6, 13, and 20 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the digital display device" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the digital display device" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the digital display device" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a method, claims 8-14 are directed to using a electronic device to perform the method, and claims 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory storage medium. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 1:
A method for testing stability, applied in a controller communicated with a server switch, the method comprising:
controlling, in response to a testing start operation instruction triggered by a user, a relay of a testing circuit of the server switch to perform a power-off operation and a power-on operation;
sending a testing instruction to the server switch after completing the power-off operation and the power-on operation by the relay; and
receiving, in response to the testing instruction, testing data returned by the server switch, executing a testing task according to the testing data, and obtaining a testing result.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“controlling, in response to a testing start operation instruction triggered by a user, a relay of a testing circuit of the server switch to perform a power-off operation and a power-on operation” is directed to math because relays are essentially implementations of Boolean logic. As switching devices, relays exhibit simple “on” and “off” behavior with no intermediate states, which aligns perfectly with binary mathematical systems. Complex relay logic can be represented by Boolean equations. When performing power-off/power-on operation for testing, mathematics is used to model device durability and lifetime.
“sending a testing instruction to the server switch after completing the power-off operation and the power-on operation by the relay” is directed to mental step of analyzing test data.
“receiving, in response to the testing instruction, testing data returned by the server switch, executing a testing task according to the testing data, and obtaining a testing result” is directed to a mental step of outputting the testing result.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of “controlling, in response to a testing start operation instruction triggered by a user, a relay of a testing circuit of the server switch to perform a power-off operation and a power-on operation” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“A method for testing stability, applied in a controller communicated with a server switch, the method comprising” recited in the preamble does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“controlling, in response to a testing start operation instruction triggered by a user, a relay of a testing circuit of the server switch to perform a power-off operation and a power-on operation” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“sending a testing instruction to the server switch after completing the power-off operation and the power-on operation by the relay” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“receiving, in response to the testing instruction, testing data returned by the server switch, executing a testing task according to the testing data, and obtaining a testing result” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim is merely selecting data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. 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).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“A method for testing stability, applied in a controller communicated with a server switch, the method comprising” recited in the preamble does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“controlling, in response to a testing start operation instruction triggered by a user, a relay of a testing circuit of the server switch to perform a power-off operation and a power-on operation” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“sending a testing instruction to the server switch after completing the power-off operation and the power-on operation by the relay” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“receiving, in response to the testing instruction, testing data returned by the server switch, executing a testing task according to the testing data, and obtaining a testing result” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 8 is similar to claim 1 but recites an electronic device comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory storage medium, coupled to the processor, that stores a plurality of instructions, which cause the processor to perform the steps as in claim 1. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”).
On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 8 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 8.
Claim 15 cites a non-transitory storage medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by at least one processor of an electronic device, causes the least one processor to execute instructions of a method for testing stability. This amounts to nothing more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, which fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Additionally, using instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer “is not ‘enough’ to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. Therefore, the rejection of claim 15 for the same reason discussed above with regard to the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, “wherein executing the testing task according to the testing data, and obtaining the testing result, further comprising: comparing the testing data with preset data; determining, in response that the testing data is consistent with the preset data, a working status of the server switch as a normal working status and calculating a cumulative testing cycles; determining, in response that the cumulative testing cycles is greater than or equal to a preset times threshold, that the testing task is completed, and obtaining a first testing result; controlling, in response that the cumulative testing cycles is less than the preset times threshold, the relay in the test circuit of the server switch to perform the power-off operation and the power-on operation; and determining, in response that the testing data is inconsistent with the preset data, that the working status of the server switch is an abnormal working status and ending the testing task, and obtaining a second testing result, the second testing result comprising at least the testing data of the server switch” is directed to math.
Regarding claim 3, 10, and 17, “detecting a communication connection status between the controller and the server switch; sending, in response that the communication connection status is a normal connection status, the testing instruction to the server switch; and re-detecting, in response that the communication connection status is an abnormal connection status, the communication connection status between the controller and the server switch” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, “initializing, in response to the testing start operation instruction, the server switch by sending an initialization instruction to the server switch; and receiving response data returned by the server switch and storing the response data in a preset storage” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, “determining, in response that the testing data is consistent with the preset data, a remaining testing cycles according to the cumulative testing cycles and the preset times threshold, and sending the remaining testing cycles to a digital display device; and controlling the digital display device to display the remaining testing cycles” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, “determining, in response that the testing data is inconsistent with the preset data, the testing data that is inconsistent with the preset data as abnormal data, and sending the abnormal data to the digital display device; and controlling the digital display device to display the abnormal data” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 7, “turning on, in response that the testing data is inconsistent with the preset data, a light to indicate the abnormal data” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. It does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Hence the claims 1-20 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (CN 105866604 B).
Regarding claim 1, 8, and 15, Zhang et al. disclose an electronic device, computer and method for testing stability, applied in a controller communicated with a server switch, the method comprising: controlling, in response to a testing start operation instruction triggered by a user, a relay of a testing circuit of the server switch to perform a power-off operation and a power-on operation (abstract: The invention through the switch machine control system controls the tested apparatus to complete power-on and power-off operation and effectively improves the test efficiency of the switch machine of the tested device);
sending a testing instruction to the server switch after completing the power-off operation and the power-on operation by the relay (page 2: An automatic switch machine test system, comprising a relay group and a switch machine control system; the switch control system for closed by controlling the level state of the digital port, and disconnection of the control the relay group, to realize the electrifying and power-off of the tested device, and when the tested device is in a powered on state, to said tested device sends instruction to control the tested device starts to work, at the same time, monitoring the state information of the detected device in the working process, when the torque information output in the working process of the tested equipment satisfies the pre-set torque condition. controlling the tested device is switched off); and
receiving, in response to the testing instruction, testing data returned by the server switch, executing a testing task according to the testing data, and obtaining a testing result (page 5: In step 103, after the said tested device starts to work, the switch control system through CAN bus receiving and monitoring the current state of the detected device information, finding the abnormal test, the current state information comprises the abnormal condition of the motor controller whether to respond the program requirement of the torque request (e.g., 5Nm) and IGBT tube working mode request and a motor controller internal failure information and the like, the test process comprises a high pressure end of over-voltage, under-voltage, motor over-temperature conditions such as torque information while monitoring the measured device output in the working process of whether meets the preset torque condition, judging that the tested device actual output torque T is greater than or equal to 5Nm. page 6: step 206, testing the data of the counting switch machine, the test data comprises the tested equipment in the working process of the fault information and the measured device current of the switch machine test times, ).
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Zhang et al. disclose detecting a communication connection status between the controller and the server switch; sending, in response that the communication connection status is a normal connection status, the testing instruction to the server switch (page 2: when the tested device is in a powered on state, to said tested device sends instruction to control the tested device starts to work, at the same time, monitoring the state information of the detected device in the working process, when the torque information output in the working process of the tested equipment satisfies the pre-set torque condition. controlling the tested device is switched off); and re-detecting, in response that the communication connection status is an abnormal connection status, the communication connection status between the controller and the server switch (page 5: In step 103, after the said tested device starts to work, the switch control system through CAN bus receiving and monitoring the current state of the detected device information, finding the abnormal test, the current state information comprises the abnormal condition of the motor controller whether to respond the program requirement of the torque request (e.g., 5Nm) and IGBT tube working mode request and a motor controller internal failure information and the like, the test process comprises a high pressure end of over-voltage, under-voltage, motor over-temperature conditions such as torque information while monitoring the measured device output in the working process of whether meets the preset torque condition, judging that the tested device actual output torque T is greater than or equal to 5Nm. page 6: step 206, testing the data of the counting switch machine, the test data comprises the tested equipment in the working process of the fault information and the measured device current of the switch machine test times).
Regarding claim 4, 11, and 18, Zhang et al. disclose initializing, in response to the testing start operation instruction, the server switch by sending an initialization instruction to the server switch; and receiving response data returned by the server switch and storing the response data in a preset storage (page 5: in the step 102, when the tested device is powered on is successful, controlling the tested device starts to work, specifically comprising: when the tested device in low pressure and high pressure electrified successfully, switch machine control system sends the work order to the tested device through the CAN line, the work instruction includes the command detected equipment preparation work CAN message sent by the starting control system and small torque request CAN message so as to control the tested device starts to work and to output the corresponding torque, the motor rotate so as to detect the tested device internal components in the starting process of the motor current-resistant performance. In step 103, after the said tested device starts to work, the switch control system through CAN bus receiving and monitoring the current state of the detected device information, finding the abnormal test, the current state information comprises the abnormal condition of the motor controller whether to respond the program requirement of the torque request (e.g., 5Nm) and IGBT tube working mode request and a motor controller internal failure information and the like, the test process comprises a high pressure end of over-voltage, under-voltage, motor over-temperature conditions such as torque information while monitoring the measured device output in the working process of whether meets the preset torque condition, judging that the tested device actual output torque T is greater than or equal to 5Nm).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857