DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 9, 15 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and further overcoming the applicable Double Patenting and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections below.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Dependent claims 3, 9, 15 and 20 when considered as a whole including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims are allowable over the prior art. The prior art fails to explicitly teach the specific synchronization between independent windows that creates or interprets JSON objects to coordinate signal presentation, as explicitly recited in the claims. Specifically, the prior art fails to teach that when a drag behavior occurs, i.e. when the selected object is dragged: 1) create a drag configuration, wherein creating the drag configuration comprises obtaining signal database information associated with an identified object at a position that triggered the drag behavior, creating a drag configuration of JSON format, storing a handle of the signal observation window where the object is located into a window handle field of the drag configuration, and storing the signal database information of the object into a data content field of the drag configuration; and 2) when the drag behavior is stopped and the selected object is released at the target signal observation window, the target signal observation window analyzes the drag configuration to display corresponding information of the selected object.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-9, 11-13, 15-16 and 18-20 of copending Application No. 18/518,488 (hereinafter “reference application”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of the limitations recited in the claims of the instant application is not patently distinct from the scope of the limitations recited in the claims of the reference application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 of the instant application correspond to claim 15 of the reference application. For example, please see table below which shows that the bolded portion of claim 13 of the reference application correspond to the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application:
Instant Application
18/518,486
Reference Application
18/518,488
1. A signal tracking and observation method, comprising:
setting multiple signal observation windows, wherein each of the signal observation windows is configured to display a signal with a corresponding signal presentation attribute;
setting a signal database, selecting a to-be-track-observed signal from the signal database, and adding and displaying the to-be-track-observed signal in one of the signal observation windows, wherein a region displaying the to-be-track-observed signal in the signal observation window is a to-be-track-observed signal region; and
selecting a desired to-be-track-observed signal from the to-be-track-observed signal region to each of other signal observation windows to, with a corresponding signal presentation attribute, present the to-be-track-observed signal, wherein each signal observation window performs presentation independently.
13. A method, comprising:
obtaining signal data from a debugging device via a bus adapter;
after the signal data is obtained, setting multiple signal observation windows, wherein each of the signal observation windows is configured to display a signal with a corresponding signal presentation attribute;
setting a signal database, selecting a to-be-track-observed signal from the signal database, and adding and displaying the to-be-track-observed signal in one of the signal observation windows, wherein a region displaying the to-be-track-observed signal in the signal observation window is a to-be-track-observed signal region;
selecting a desired to-be-track-observed signal from the to-be-track-observed signal region to each of other signal observation windows to, with a corresponding signal presentation attribute, present the to-be-track-observed signal, wherein each signal observation window performs presentation independently;
wherein, when the desired to-be-track-observed signal is selected for presentation in another signal observation window, a drag configuration of JSON format is created, the drag configuration comprising a window handle field storing a handle of the signal observation window where the object is located and a data content field storing signal database information of the object, and wherein, when the drag behavior is stopped and the selected object is released, the target signal observation window analyzes the drag configuration to display the information of the selected object; and
displaying at least one signal observation window via a graphic interface.
Claims 2, 8 and 14 of the instant application correspond to claims 2, 9 and 16 of the reference application.
Claims 3, 9 and 15 of instant application correspond to claims 1-2, 8-9 and 15-16 of the reference application.
Claims 4, 10 and 16 of the instant application correspond to claims 4, 11 and 18 of the reference application.
Claims 5, 11 and 17 of the instant application correspond to claims 5, 12 and 19 of the reference application.
Claims 6, 12 and 18 of the instant application correspond to claims 6, 13 and 19 of the reference application.
Claims 7, 13 and 19 of the instant application correspond to claims 1 and 8 of the reference application.
Claim 20 of the instant application correspond to claim 2 of the reference application.
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 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In summary, claim 7 recites a “computer readable storage medium” storing computer readable instructions that perform various functions. In the Specification of the instant application, “computer readable storage medium” is defined as including “at least one type of memories” (see Specification at paragraph [0120]). Although the Specification lists examples of statutory embodiments (e.g., hard disk drive, SD card, etc.), the Specification does not expressly exclude nonstatutory subject matter (e.g. signal, carrier wave, etc.). Without explicitly reciting that the “computer readable storage medium” is non-transitory, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “computer readable storage medium” encompasses nonstatutory subject matter that is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101. Accordingly, claim 7 fails to recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 8-12 merely recite either additional functions performed by the instructions or additional descriptions of electronic data. Accordingly, claims 8-12 fail to recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.SC. 101.
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 4-5, 10-11 and 16-17 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 4 recites the limitation "the drag widget icon" in lines 5 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim provides antecedent basis for the “drag widget” but not the “drag widget icon”. The Examiner recommends that this limitation be changed to either “the drag widget” or “a drag widget icon”.
Claim 5 recites the limitations “the object” and “the target signal observation window” in lines 2 and 4 respectively. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Antecedent basis for these limitations are provided in claim 2. The Examiner recommends that claim 5 be changed from being dependent upon claim 1 to being dependent upon claim 2.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the drag widget icon" in lines 5 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim provides antecedent basis for a “drag widget” but not a “drag widget icon”. The Examiner recommends that this limitation be changed to either “the drag widget” or “a drag widget icon”.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “the object” and “the target signal observation window” in lines 4 and 6-7 respectively. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Antecedent basis for these limitations are provided in claim 8. The Examiner recommends that claim 11 be changed from being dependent upon claim 7 to being dependent upon claim 8.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the drag widget icon" in lines 5 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims provides antecedent basis for a “drag widget” but not a “drag widget icon”. The Examiner recommends that this limitation be changed to either “the drag widget” or “a drag widget icon”.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “the object” and “the target signal observation window” in lines 3 and 4-5 respectively. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Antecedent basis for these limitations are provided in claim 14. The Examiner recommends that claim 17 be changed from being dependent upon claim 13 to being dependent upon claim 14.
To expedite a complete examination of the instant application, the claims rejected under Double Patenting, 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 112 above are further rejected as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-8, 11-14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanwu Hang (“CANoe Basic Tutorial 03: Analysis Window-Graphic”, published on 08/06/2023 and hereinafter “Hang”; Note: the reference was cited in the IDS filed on 08/20/2024), and further in view of Cifra et al. U.S. Publication 2005/0039170 (hereinafter “Cifra”).
Referring to claim 1, Hang teaches a signal tracking and observation method, comprising:
setting multiple signal observation areas, wherein each of the signal observation areas is configured to display a signal with a corresponding signal presentation attribute (see pages 1-3: Figure 3-5 shows diagrams for multiple signals displayed in multiple charts in the graphic window; the signals correspond to system variables);
setting a signal database (see pages 1-3: the user can add the signals to the corresponding window using the symbol explorer display window and then drag them to the graphic window; signal database is set up in the hierarchical tree shown in Figure 3-1), selecting a to-be-track-observed signal from the signal database (see pages 1-3: the user can select a signal to add to the corresponding window), and adding and displaying the to-be-track-observed signal in one of the signal observation areas (see pages 1-3: the user can add the selected signals to the corresponding window; the user can analyze signals or system variables in the graphic window), wherein a region displaying the to-be-track-observed signal in the signal observation window is a to-be-track-observed signal region (see pages 1-3: signal observation windows); and
selecting a desired to-be-track-observed signal from the to-be-track-observed signal region to each of other signal observation areas to, with a corresponding signal presentation attribute, present the to-be-track-observed signal (see pages 1-4: the user can add the signals to the corresponding window using the symbol explorer window and then drag them to the graphic window), wherein each signal observation area performs presentation independently (see page 4: Figure 3-5 shows signals in separate diagrams; for example, each signal can be displayed in an independent chart).
However, Hang fails to explicitly teach setting multiple signal observation windows. Although Hang teaches a user interface that has multiple areas, each displaying a signal with a corresponding signal presentation attribute (Hang at page 4 and Figure 3-5: graphic window that displays each signal in a separate chart), Hang fails to explicitly teach that the multiple areas are multiple windows (i.e. that the separate charts are separate windows). Similar to Hang, Cifra also teaches a user interface that displays signals in multiple areas. In addition, Cifra teaches setting multiple signal observation windows that each display a selected signal (Cifra: paragraph [0274]). Because both Hang and Cifra teaches a user interface that displays signals in different independent regions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute one type of region for another (i.e. substitute the separate charts taught by Hang with the separate windows taught by Cifra), in order to achieve the predicable result of setting multiple regions that each display a signal, in this case, setting multiple signal observation windows.
Referring to claim 2, Hang, as modified by Cifra, teaches the signal tracking and observation method of claim 1, wherein,
the selecting of the desired to-be-track-observed signal from the to-be-track-observed signal region to each of other signal observation windows comprises:
dragging a selected object to a releasable region of a target signal observation window and releasing the selected object (Hang at pages 1-4: the user can add signals to the corresponding window using the symbol explorer display window and then drag/drop them to the graphic window); wherein,
the object is a text presentation corresponding to the desired to-be-track-observed signal (Hang at pages 1-2: as shown in Figure 3-1, the items in the explorer window are presented as text).
Referring to claim 5, Hang, as modified by Cifra, teaches the signal tracking and observation method of claim 1, further comprising:
modifying an observation mode of the object in the target signal observation window (Hang at pages 5-6: the graphic window menu bar shown in Figure 3-4 has many options to modify the mode of the object in the target signal observation window, i.e. show Y-Axis of the selected signal); and
the modifying of the observation mode of the object in the target signal observation window further comprises: changing a display attribute of the object (Hang at pages 7-9: the user can also manually adjust the scale of the signal curve by adjusting the length of the time axis and the display range of the external axis data; this adjustment is displayed using the graphic configuration window).
Referring to claim 6, Hang, as modified by Cifra, teaches the signal tracking and observation method of claim 1, wherein
the signal presentation attribute further comprises: at least one of a numerical presentation attribute, a dashboard presentation attribute, a histogram presentation attribute, a text presentation attribute, and a graphic curve presentation attribute (Hang at page 3: signal curve is displayed in the observation window as illustrated in Figure 3-2).
Claims 7-8 and 11-12 recite a computer readable storage medium embodiment comprising essentially the same limitations as those recited in the method embodiment of claims 1-2 and 5-6. Therefore, the limitations of claims 7-8 and 11-12 are rejected similarly to the rejection of the limitations of claims 1-2 and 5-6 above.
Claims 13-14 and 17-18 recite an apparatus embodiment comprising essentially the same limitations as those recited in the method embodiment of claims 1-2 and 5-6 above. Therefore, the limitations of claims 13-14 and 17-18 are rejected similarly to the rejection of the limitations of claims 1-2 and 5-6 above.
Claim 19 recites an electronic device embodiment comprising essentially the same limitations as those recited in the method embodiment of claim 1 above. Therefore, the limitations of claim 19 are rejected similarly to the rejection of the limitations of claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 4, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanwu Hang (“CANoe Basic Tutorial 03: Analysis Window-Graphic”, published on 08/06/2023 and hereinafter “Hang”; Note: the reference was cited in the IDS filed on 08/20/2024), and further in view of Cifra et al. U.S. Publication 2005/0039170 (hereinafter “Cifra”), as applied to claims 1, 7 and 13 above, and further in view of Cummins et al. U.S. Publication 2007/0016872 (hereinafter “Cummins”).
Referring to claims 4, 10 and 16, the combination of Hang and Cifra (hereinafter “Hang/Cifra”) teaches all of the limitations as applied claims 1, 7 and 13 above. In addition, Hang/Cifra teaches that the selected object is dragged by a drag widget to the releasable region of the target signal observation window (Hang at pages 1-2: the user drags/drops a selected signal from the symbol explorer window to the graphic window). However, Hang/Cifra fails to explicitly teach when the drag widget does not move out of the signal observation window where the object is located, the drag widget icon displays a drag disable icon; and when the drag widget moves out of the signal observation window where the object is located, the drag widget icon displays a drag icon. Similar to that of Hang/Cifra, Cummins also teaches performing a drag/drop operation. In addition, Cummings teaches when the drag widget does not move out of the signal observation window where the object is located, the drag widget icon displays a drag disable icon (providing preview information to the user during a drag operation of a selected object onto a target object in the graphical user interface; Figure 3 shows an example of a drag disable icon that is displayed when the drag operation cannot be completed) (Cummins: paragraphs [0052]-[0054]); and when the drag widget moves out of the signal observation window where the object is located, the drag widget icon displays a drag icon (Figures 4 and 9 show examples of drag icons that can be displayed to indicate that the selected icon will be moved to a different location) (Cummins: paragraphs [0055] and [0060]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the drag/drop operation on the user interface for observing signals taught by Hang/Cifra to include displaying visual feedback via a drag widget icon during pending drag/drop operations, as taught by Cummins. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide richer information to the user as to what is happening while drag/drop operations are being performed, thereby providing the user with an opportunity to determine whether the particular drag/drop operation is desirable before the drag/drop operation is completed (Cummins: paragraphs [0003] and [0005]).
The prior art made of record on form PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(c) to consider these references fully when responding to this action. The document cited therein teaches a similar interface that displays different signals in different windows.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TING ZHOU LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-4058. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 9AM – 1PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kieu Vu can be reached on (571) 27. 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.
/TING Z LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171