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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 03/11/2024.
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Examiner’s Note
Please note that Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirely as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a first acquisitioner that acquires first time information…
a second acquisitioner that acquires second time information …
a determinator that determines a value of a parameter…
a setter that sets the value of the parameter… in claim 1.
an information outputter that outputs information… in claim 4.
a first acquisitioner that acquires first time information…
a second acquisitioner that acquires second time information…
a determinator that determines a value of a parameter…
a setter that sets the value of the parameter… in claim 5,
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
(1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or
(2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1, this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a apparatus claim under Step 1.
1. An information processing apparatus comprising:
a first acquisitioner that acquires first time information related to time in which a first apparatus executes a predetermined process;
a second acquisitioner that acquires second time information related to time in which a second apparatus executes the predetermined process, the second apparatus executing a test of software operating on the first apparatus and having a processing speed higher than that of the first apparatus;
a determinator that determines a value of a parameter related to execution of a process in the second apparatus so as to reduce a difference between the first apparatus and the second apparatus based on the first time information and the second time information; and
a setter that sets the value of the parameter determined by the determinator in the second apparatus.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “a determinator that determines a value of a parameter related to execution of a process … so as to reduce a difference … based on the first time information and the second time information; and a setter that sets the value of the parameter determined by the determinator” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. For example, determines a value of a parameter related to execution of a process in the second apparatus so as to reduce a difference between the first apparatus and the second apparatus based on the first time information and the second time information (i.e., evaluation judgment); and a setter that sets the value of the parameter determined by the determinator in the second apparatus (i.e., applying the judgment). These steps describe the concept of measuring and comparing execution time between two systems and adjusting parameters to align their performances, which can be performed mentally or with pen and paper (e.g., timing processes manually, calculating differences, and deciding on an adjustment value). Therefore, these limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2A, the additional elements “An information processing apparatus,” “a first apparatus,” and “a second apparatus” are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to generic computer components performing their basic functions which merely using generic computing equipment to execute the software tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For the additional elements “a first acquisitioner that acquires first time information related to time,” “a second acquisitioner that acquires second time information related to time” and “a test of software operating on the first apparatus and having a processing speed higher than that of the first apparatus” do nothing more than to add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely storing/gathering data for testing the performance comparison and adjustment without reciting a particular technological solution to technological problems. See MPEP § 2106.05 (a-c), (e-h).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “An information processing apparatus,” “a first apparatus,” and “a second apparatus” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer and/or computer components to carry out the exception, thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept. See MPEP 2105.06(f). For the additional elements “a first acquisitioner that acquires first time information related to time,” “a second acquisitioner that acquires second time information related to time” and “a test of software operating on the first apparatus and having a processing speed higher than that of the first apparatus” the courts have recognized storing and retrieving information in memory and performing repetitive calculation as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).II.iv and 2106.05(d).II.ii. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
2. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the parameter is a parameter to adjust CPU allocation to a process of testing the software.
The limitations for this claim further recite an additional mental process under prong 1.
3. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the software is a virtual ECU (Electronic Control Unit), wherein the first apparatus is a automotive apparatus on which the virtual ECU operates, and wherein the second apparatus is a server on which the virtual ECU operates.
The limitation for this claim further recite additional elements which amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and/or mere computer components to carry out the exception under prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
4. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
an information outputter that outputs information indicating the difference between the first apparatus and the second apparatus based on the first time information and the second time information.
The limitations for this claim further recite is an additional insignificant extra solution activity under prong 2.
Claim 5, this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a system claim under Step 1.
5. An information processing system comprising:
a first acquisitioner that acquires first time information related to time in which a first apparatus executes a predetermined process;
a second acquisitioner that acquires second time information related to time in which a second apparatus executes the predetermined process, the second apparatus executing a test of software operating on the first apparatus and having a processing speed higher than that of the first apparatus;
a determinator that determines a value of a parameter related to execution of a process in the second apparatus so as to reduce a difference between the first time information and the second time information; and
a setter that sets the value of the parameter determined by the determinator in the second apparatus.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations “a determinator that determines a value of a parameter related to execution of a process … so as to reduce a difference between the first time information and the second time information; and a setter that sets the value of the parameter determined by the determinator” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. For example, determines a value of a parameter related to execution of a process in the second apparatus so as to reduce a difference between the first apparatus and the second apparatus based on the first time information and the second time information (i.e., evaluation judgment); and a setter that sets the value of the parameter determined by the determinator in the second apparatus (i.e., applying the judgment). These steps describe the concept of measuring and comparing execution time between two systems and adjusting parameters to align their performances, which can be performed mentally or with pen and paper (e.g., timing processes manually, calculating differences, and deciding on an adjustment value). Therefore, these limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2A, the additional elements “An information processing system,” “a first apparatus,” and “a second apparatus” are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to generic computer components performing their basic functions which merely using generic computing equipment to execute the software tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For the additional elements “a first acquisitioner that acquires first time information related to time,” “a second acquisitioner that acquires second time information related to time” and “test of software operating on the first apparatus and having a processing speed higher than that of the first apparatus” do nothing more than to add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely storing/gathering data for testing the performance comparison and adjustment without reciting a particular technological solution to technological problems. See MPEP § 2106.05 (a-c), (e-h).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “An information processing system,” “a first apparatus,” and “a second apparatus” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer and/or computer components to carry out the exception, thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept. See MPEP 2105.06(f). For the additional elements “a first acquisitioner that acquires first time information related to time,” “a second acquisitioner that acquires second time information related to time” and “test of software operating on the first apparatus and having a processing speed higher than that of the first apparatus” the courts have recognized storing and retrieving information in memory and performing repetitive calculation as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).II.iv and 2106.05(d).II.ii. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 6, this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a method claim under Step 1.
6. A computer-implemented information processing method comprising:
acquiring first time information related to time in which a first apparatus executes a predetermined process;
acquiring second time information related to time in which a second apparatus executes the predetermined process, the second apparatus executing a test of software operating on the first apparatus and having a processing speed higher than that of the first apparatus;
determining a value of a parameter related to execution of a process in the second apparatus so as to reduce a difference between the first time information and the second time information; and
setting the value of the parameter determined in the second apparatus.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations “determining a value of a parameter related to execution of a process … so as to reduce a difference between the first time information and the second time information; and setting the value of the parameter determined in the second apparatus” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. For example, determines a value of a parameter related to execution of a process in the second apparatus so as to reduce a difference between the first time information and the second time information (i.e., evaluation judgment); and setting the value of the parameter determined in the second apparatus (i.e., applying the judgment). These steps describe the concept of measuring and comparing execution time between two systems and adjusting parameters to align their performances, which can be performed mentally or with pen and paper (e.g., timing processes manually, calculating differences, and deciding on an adjustment value). Therefore, these limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2A, the additional elements “a first apparatus,” and “a second apparatus” are recited at a high-level of generality and amounts to generic computer components performing their basic functions which merely using generic computing equipment to execute the software tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). For the additional elements “acquiring first time information related to time,” “acquiring second time information related to time” and “a test of software operating on the first apparatus and having a processing speed higher than that of the first apparatus” do nothing more than to add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely storing/gathering data for testing the performance comparison and adjustment without reciting a particular technological solution to technological problems. See MPEP § 2106.05 (a-c), (e-h).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a first apparatus,” and “a second apparatus” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer and/or computer components to carry out the exception, thus, cannot amount to an inventive concept. See MPEP 2105.06(f). For the additional elements “acquiring first time information related to time,” “acquiring second time information related to time” and “a test of software operating on the first apparatus and having a processing speed higher than that of the first apparatus” the courts have recognized storing and retrieving information in memory and performing repetitive calculation as a well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or an insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).II.iv and 2106.05(d).II.ii. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 20210248288 to Murashima et al.
Per claim 1:
Murashima discloses:
1. An information processing apparatus comprising:
a first acquisitioner that acquires first time information related to time in which a first apparatus executes a predetermined process (here Murashima discloses a second performance measurement function on the second computer (ECU, first apparatus) that obtains a second processing timing (first time information process) is executed, see Fig. 1, element 101 and Paragraphs [0051-0054] “the hard disk drive 104 of the PC that realizes the PC environment stores, as data files Fi for various data used at the time of operation in the PC simulation environment… a delay parameter file Fi3 in which a delay parameter determined by comparing the contents of both measurement results is stored… the delay injection function Sw11 in the ECU application software Sw1 in the hard disk drive 104 of the PC is to execute delay processing for adjusting the execution timing in the PC simulation environment to be closer to the execution timing in the actual ECU… perform timing adjustment while executing the delay processing at a predetermined position at the time of execution”);
a second acquisitioner that acquires second time information related to time in which a second apparatus executes the predetermined process (here Murashima discloses first performance measurement function on the first computer (i.e., PC, second apparatus) that obtains a first processing timing (i.e., second time information) when the first computer executes the application software (i.e., predetermined process), see Paragraph [0052] “ECU application software Sw4 includes a performance measurement function Sw41… actual ECU environment stores, as a data file Fi for various data used at the time of operation in the actual ECU environment, an ECU measurement result file Fi4 in which an ECU measurement result is stored”), the second apparatus executing a test of software operating on the first apparatus and having a processing speed higher than that of the first apparatus (here Murashima discloses first computer (i.e., second apparatus) executes the application software for simulation/testing, with the PC having higher processing speed than the ECU (i.e., first apparatus), see fig. 8 and Paragraph [0045, 0101] “adjusting an execution timing in a personal computer (PC) simulation environment to be closer to an execution timing in an actual electronic control unit (ECU) is executed… the processing speed of the ECU may be higher than the processing speed of the PC”);
a determinator that determines a value of a parameter related to execution of a process in the second apparatus so as to reduce a difference between the first apparatus and the second apparatus based on the first time information and the second time information (here Murashima discloses a timing adjustment function (i.e., determinator) that performs timing adjustment (determine parameter values, e.g., delay amount) of the execution time in the first computer (i.e., second apparatus) based on the time difference between the fiers and second processing timings (to reduce differences), see Paragraph [0084, 0101] “an execution timing in the actual ECU, an execution timing in the PC simulator when timing adjustment is not performed, and an execution timing in the PC simulator when the timing adjustment is performed… adjust the time required for the processing of the Main function in the PC to be the same as the processing time of AtE1 in the ECU… time reduction processing is executed as the time adjustment processing”); and
a setter that sets the value of the parameter determined by the determinator in the second apparatus (here Murashima discloses applying delay adjustment (i.e., setting the parameter value) in the PC software (i.e., second apparatus), see Paragraph [0045, 0050] “a delay amount for adjusting the execution timing in the PC simulation environment to be close to the execution timing in the actual ECU is determined for each PC… the ECU application software Sw1 includes a delay injection function Sw11… performance comparison software Sw2 includes a measurement result comparison/delay parameter setting unit Sw21 and a comparison result display unit Sw22”).
Per claim 3:
Murashima discloses:
3. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the software is a virtual ECU (Electronic Control Unit) (Paragraph [0060] “ECU source code 111 includes ECU application software 121”),
wherein the first apparatus is a automotive apparatus on which the virtual ECU operates (Paragraph [0079] “the ECU is a so-called control computer used by being incorporated in a vehicle”), and
wherein the second apparatus is a server on which the virtual ECU operates (Paragraph [0144] “FIG. 16, first, execution time measurement is performed in Processing Step S141 in the actual ECU”).
Per claim 4:
Murashima discloses:
4. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
an information outputter that outputs information indicating the difference between the first apparatus and the second apparatus based on the first time information and the second time information (here Murashima discloses outputting measurement results and time difference for analysis, see Fig. 13, element Fi2, display 107 and Paragraph [0129, 0132] “measurement result comparison/delay parameter… a result thereof is stored in the delay parameter file Fi3… stored in the PC measurement result file Fi2… automatically performed by the measurement result comparison/delay parameter setting unit Sw21, or a comparison result may be displayed on the display 107 via the comparison result display unit SW22, and a specific content of the timing adjustment may be determined according to the judgment of the developer and reflected”).
Claims 5 is/are the system claim corresponding to apparatus/system claim 1 and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claim as noted above.
Claims 6 is/are the method claim corresponding to apparatus/system claim 1 and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claim as noted above.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 20210248288 to Murashima et al. in view of USPN 20180329943 to Li et al.
Per claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further, Murashima does not explicitly disclose wherein the parameter is a parameter to adjust CPU allocation to a process of testing the software.
However, Li discloses in an analogous computer system wherein the parameter is a parameter to adjust CPU allocation to (Paragraph [0087] “ask-level parameters may include one or more parameters for adjusting buffer usage and/or resource allocation”) a process of testing the software (Paragraph [0085] “task-level parameters may be determined using a similar job or a test job”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the method of wherein the parameter is a parameter to adjust CPU allocation to a process of testing the software as taught by Li into the method of simulation device having a function of adjusting an execution timing, a simulation method, and an ECU device as taught by Murashima. The modification would be obvious because of one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add/incorporate the features of wherein the parameter is a parameter to adjust CPU allocation to a process of testing the software to provide an efficient technique for allocating CPU as indicated in the parameters for testing so as to have the workload running as expected without any unexpected halts as suggested by Li (paragraph [0001-0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Related cited arts:
Bucur, Stefan, et al. "Parallel symbolic execution for automated real-world software testing." Proceedings of the sixth conference on Computer systems. 2011. pp. 183-189.
Gemlau, Kai-Björn, et al. "System-level logical execution time: Augmenting the logical execution time paradigm for distributed real-time automotive software." ACM Transactions on Cyber-Physical Systems 5.2 (2021): pp. 1-27.
Esen, Hasan, et al. "Control as a service (CaaS) cloud-based software architecture for automotive control applications." Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on the Swarm at the Edge of the Cloud. 2015. pp.13-18.
US20140156735 discloses a distributed processing method is provided for execution in a system formed from first and second information processing apparatus. The first information processing apparatus requests the second information processing apparatus to execute a processing operation off-loaded from the first information processing apparatus, while the first information processing apparatus is capable of executing the processing operation. It is then determined whether the amount of elapsed time since the request exceeds a threshold before an execution result of the processing operation is obtained from the second information processing apparatus. When the elapsed time is determined to have exceeded the threshold, the first information processing apparatus starts to locally execute the processing operation. The first information processing apparatus uses its local execution result or the execution result obtained from the second information processing apparatus, whichever comes earlier.
US12487900 discloses in some examples, a system monitors for a memory fault associated with execution of software. Based at least on receiving an indication of a possible memory fault, the system scans a first area of the memory based on a data structure that indicates that the first area of the memory stores a portion of parameters of the software that affect an accuracy of the software if there is a memory fault in the first area of the memory. Based at least on the scanning indicating that there is a memory fault in the first area of the memory, the system remaps the portion of parameters of the software from the first area to a second area of the memory that is determined to be free.
US20170075327 discloses to use a sensor element for a plurality of purposes. A sensor control apparatus connected to at least one sensor element, includes a storage unit configured to store a plurality of programs, in each of which a series of processes including making a predetermined setting for the sensor element, processing a measurement result based on that setting, and transmitting the processing result to an external apparatus is implemented, and execution definition information in which mutually different execution time periods are defined for the plurality of programs, and a control unit configured to receive predetermined maintenance information from the external apparatus and perform a process based on that maintenance information while a first program is being executed among the plurality of user programs based on the execution definition information.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Satish Rampuria whose telephone number is 571-272-3732. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3721. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Satish Rampuria/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193