DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 are presented for examination.
The present application is being examined under the AIA (America Invents Act) First Inventor to File.
This Office Action is Non-Final.
Claims 1, 18 and 19 are independent claims. Claims 2-17 are dependent claims.
This action is responsive to the following communication: corresponding claims filed on 04-03-2024.
Domestic Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) (International) is acknowledged.
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: “configuration tool”, “diagnostic tool”, and “setup tool” in claim(s) 1, 4, 18, and 19.
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.
As per dependent claims 2-17, these claims are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Action May Be Required By Applicants
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 do one of the following:
(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).
(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 1-17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. In particular, claims are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S._,_, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2352 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293-1294 (2012)).
The Office recognizes the Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance memorandum that makes changes to how patent examiner apply the Alice/Mayo test, for which the subject matter eligibility is examined. Particularly, under the new revised guidance, the Office determines claim eligibility based on the following:
Step 1: Statutory Category
As explained in MPEP 2106(1), the claimed invention is directed to one of four- categories: a process, machine, manufacture, or a composition of matter. Examiner respectfully submits that all of the current claims are clearly directed to statutory categories of subject matter. In other words, claims 1-19 are not directed to the following non-limiting examples such as: “signals per se”, “software per se” or “humans per se”.
Thus, the Office finds the first step of the analysis to be satisfied and the claim to fall within a statutory category. (STEP 1: YES)
Step 2 (A): Directed to a Judicial Exception by determining whether the claim recites a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea.
The revised guidance released as of January 4th 2014, breaks step to 2(A) into a pair of sub-steps, 2(A)(Prong 1) and 2(A)(Prong 2).
In sub-step Step 2(A)(Prong 1), the office is to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea. Abstract ideas are limited to the following categories: mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
if the above step is True, then in sub-step 2A(Prong 2), the Office is to determine further "whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception."
Analysis under Step 2(A) Prong 1:
In this instant application, applying the first sub-step 2(A) (Prong 1), the Office states that claim 1 under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) is directed to an apparatus for a system [that] comprises:
-determine whether resultant scan data has changed from a previous scan’s scan data, and to evaluate the scan data based at least in part upon related configuration data provided.
The recitation for performing the claimed expression under i) recites an apparatus of organizing a “human mental work”. As a non-limiting example, the claimed invention is similar to that of human mental work of comparing and evaluating scanned data files for any changes. Stated differently, the claim recites no substantive limitations on how the apparatus determines the resultant scan has changed because the limitation are entirely functional. Therefore, claim is directed to a “mental process”, “evaluation” or “judgement” consistent with MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) which are judicially recognized as one of the exceptions.
Thus, the Office finds the Step 2(A)(Prong 1) under the judicial exception of the analysis to be satisfied and the claim to fall within one of the judicial exception. In this instance, the judicial exception is a mental process based on the analysis above. Thus, step 2A(Prong 1) is a YES.
Analysis under Step 2(A)(Prong 2):
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates into a practical application of that exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
In this instance, claim 1 further recites the following additional elements:
a network; (MPEP: 2106.05(h).That is, the field of use and technological environment )
a plurality of components, each communicatively coupled to the network, wherein the plurality of components are configured to perform the system’s functionality; and (MPEP: 2106.05(h).That is, the field of use and technological environment )
a configuration tool communicatively coupled to the network and configured to communicate with each of the plurality of components; (MPEP: 2106.05(f). That is, mere instructions to apply an exception)
a diagnostic tool communicatively coupled to the network and configured to communicate with each of the plurality of components; (MPEP: 2106.05(f). That is, mere instructions to apply an exception. And, insignificant extra-solution activity-MPEP 2106.05(g). That is, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception)
wherein the configuration tool is configured to perform a configuration for a selected component of the plurality of components; (MPEP: 2106.05(f). That is, mere instructions to apply an exception. And, insignificant extra-solution activity-MPEP 2106.05(g). That is, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.)
Thus, the Office finds the Step 2(A) (Prong 2) under the judicial exception of the analysis to be not satisfied and thus the claim to be directed to an abstract idea. Step 2(A) (Prong 2) is a NO.
Analysis under Step 2(B)—“Significantly More”:
Step 2(B) is directed on whether the claim provided an inventive concept. As described above under step 2(A) (Prong 2) the determination to whether the additional elements amount to significantly more.
-a network; (MPEP: 2106.05(h).That is, the field of use and technological environment )
-a plurality of components, each communicatively coupled to the network, wherein the plurality of components are configured to perform the system’s functionality; and (MPEP: 2106.05(h).That is, the field of use and technological environment )
-a configuration tool communicatively coupled to the network and configured to communicate with each of the plurality of components; (MPEP: 2106.05(f). That is, mere instructions to apply an exception)
-a diagnostic tool communicatively coupled to the network and configured to communicate with each of the plurality of components; (MPEP: 2106.05(f). That is, mere instructions to apply an exception. And, insignificant extra-solution activity-MPEP 2106.05(g). That is, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, Receiving or transmitting data over a network -MPEP 2105(d)(II)(i), and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document--MPEP 2105(d)(II)(v) )
-wherein the configuration tool is configured to perform a configuration for a selected component of the plurality of components; (MPEP: 2106.05(f). That is, mere instructions to apply an exception. And, And, insignificant extra-solution activity-MPEP 2106.05(g). That is, adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, Receiving or transmitting data over a network -MPEP 2105(d)(II)(i) )
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible. Step 2(B) is a NO.
To conclude, based on the above analysis, claim 1 is ineligible and properly rejected under 101.
Independent claim 19 recites similar features and are rejected for similar reasons explained above.
With respect to claim 2:
2(A) Prong 1: The claim recited a judicial exception.
-determine whether each of the configuration steps has been completed and verified, and wherein the configuration tool is configured to record corresponding configuration step data, completion data, and verification data for each configuration step. (mental process-evaluation whether step has been completed and verified)
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
- wherein the configuration tool is configured to access a database for a list of components and related configuration files, wherein each configuration file corresponds to a configuration procedure for a respective component of the plurality of components, wherein the configuration tool is configured to select a configuration file that corresponds to the selected component for configuration, and wherein the database is stored on either a local memory or an external memory. (MPEP: 2106.05(f). That is, mere instructions to apply an exception. And, insignificant extra-solution activity- MPEP 2106.05(g) )
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception.
-wherein the configuration tool is configured to access a database for a list of components and related configuration files, wherein each configuration file corresponds to a configuration procedure for a respective component of the plurality of components, wherein the configuration tool is configured to select a configuration file that corresponds to the selected component for configuration, and wherein the database is stored on either a local memory or an external memory. (MPEP: 2106.05(f). That is, mere instructions to apply an exception. And, insignificant extra-solution activity-MPEP 2106.05(g), Storing and retrieving information in memory-MPEP 2105(d)(II)(iv) And, receiving or transmitting data over a network-MPEP 2105(d)(II)(iv))
With respect to claim 3:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
-wherein each configuration file comprises at least one configuration step for configuring the corresponding component. MPEP: 2106.05(f). That is, mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity-MPEP 2106.05(g),
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception.
-wherein each configuration file comprises at least one configuration step for configuring the corresponding component, (MPEP: 2106.05(f). That is, mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity-MPEP 2106.05(g), Storing and retrieving information in memory-MPEP 2105(d)(II)(iv) And, receiving or transmitting data over a network-MPEP 2105(d)(II)(iv)))
With respect to claim 4:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
-wherein the configuration tool comprises a system setup tool and/or a display setup tool, wherein the system setup tool is configured to perform or guide a user through a system component configuration, and wherein the display setup tool is configured to perform or guide a user through a display configuration. (MPEP: 2106.05(f). That is, mere instructions to apply an exception.)
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception.
-wherein the configuration tool comprises a system setup tool and/or a display setup tool, wherein the system setup tool is configured to perform or guide a user through a system component configuration, and wherein the display setup tool is configured to perform or guide a user through a display configuration. (MPEP: 2106.05(f). That is, mere instructions to apply an exception.)
With respect to claim 5:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
-wherein the display is one of a monitor, a projector, a tablet, a phone, a wearable device, or some other electronic device. (MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment.)
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the display is one of a monitor, a projector, a tablet, a phone, a wearable device, or some other electronic device. (MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment.)
With respect to claim 6:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
-wherein the configuration tool is configured to output configuration data to a log, and wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to access the configuration data for use in evaluating the scan data. (mere instructions to apply an exception- MPEP: 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(g)- Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity-)
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception.
-wherein the configuration tool is configured to output configuration data to a log, and wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to access the configuration data for use in evaluating the scan data. (mere instructions to apply an exception- MPEP: 2106.05(f) & MPEP § 2106.05(g)- Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity- updating an activity log-MPEP 2105(d)(II)(ii) and Receiving or transmitting data over a network-MPEP 2105(d)(II)(i) )
With respect to claim 7:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
- wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to troubleshoot and correct configuration errors in system components, (mere instructions to apply an exception- MPEP: 2106.05(f))
wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to receive the log from the configuration tool, wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to run a list of tests during the diagnostic scan, (mere instructions to apply an exception- MPEP: 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(g)- Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity-)
wherein each test corresponds with a line item in the list of tests, wherein the diagnostic scan comprises at least one line item for each component, and wherein the diagnostic tool accesses the list of tests from a database stored on either a local memory or an external memory. (mere instructions to apply an exception- MPEP: 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(g)- Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity)
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to troubleshoot and correct configuration errors in system components, (mere instructions to apply an exception- MPEP: 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(g))
wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to receive the log from the configuration tool, wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to run a list of tests during the diagnostic scan, (mere instructions to apply an exception- MPEP: 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(g)- Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity- updating an activity log-MPEP 2105(d)(II)(ii) and Receiving or transmitting data over a network-MPEP 2105(d)(II)(i))
wherein each test corresponds with a line item in the list of tests, wherein the diagnostic scan comprises at least one line item for each component, and wherein the diagnostic tool accesses the list of tests from a database stored on either a local memory or an external memory. (mere instructions to apply an exception- MPEP: 2106.05(f) and MPEP § 2106.05(g)- Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity- Receiving or transmitting data over a network-MPEP 2105(d)(II)(i))
With respect to claim 8:
2A Prong 1:
- determine at least one of: a configuration, a software version and status, an operational state or condition of the component, and information related to software drivers utilized by the component, and ( “mental process”, “evaluation” or “judgement” consistent with MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) which are judicially recognized as one of the exceptions.
2A Prong 2:
- wherein the line-item tests comprise tests (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity-MPEP 2106.05(g))
wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to identify whether a line item test’s scan data has changed. (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity-MPEP 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception.
wherein the line-item tests comprise tests (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity-MPEP 2106.05(g), Performing repetitive calculations-MPEP 2105(d)(II)(ii) )
wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to identify whether a line item test’s scan data has changed. (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity-MPEP 2106.05(g), Electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document-MPEP 2105(d)(II)(v))
With respect to claim 9:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
-wherein the system is a light guide system configured to monitor and guide manufacturing activities.( linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -MPEP 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception.
-wherein the system is a light guide system configured to monitor and guide manufacturing activities. ( linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -MPEP 2106.05(f))
With respect to claim 10:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
- wherein the components comprise at least one of: a plurality of cameras, a plurality of projectors, a plurality of monitors, a system controller, one or more external computer systems, input/output devices, and a manufacturing execution system.( linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -MPEP 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception.
- wherein the components comprise at least one of: a plurality of cameras, a plurality of projectors, a plurality of monitors, a system controller, one or more external computer systems, input/output devices, and a manufacturing execution system. ( linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -MPEP 2106.05(f))
With respect to claim 11:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
- wherein the pluralities of cameras are configured to monitor the activities of workers at workstations in a manufacturing area, and wherein the pluralities of projectors and monitors are configured to display information to the workers and to guide manufacturing activities at the workstations.( linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -MPEP 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception.
- wherein the pluralities of cameras are configured to monitor the activities of workers at workstations in a manufacturing area, and wherein the pluralities of projectors and monitors are configured to display information to the workers and to guide manufacturing activities at the workstations.( linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use -MPEP 2106.05(f))
With respect to claim 12:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
-wherein the configuration tool is configured to display a visual timeline of the configurations and errors of the system based on the log, and (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f), Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g))
-wherein the configuration tool is configured to highlight serious and/or strange items in the visual timeline, and wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to access the changed scan data for each respective line-item test and rank them according to their severity and oddity with respect to the system’s ability to operate as expected. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f), Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception.
-wherein the configuration tool is configured to display a visual timeline of the configurations and errors of the system based on the log, and (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f), Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g), updating an activity log- MPEP 2105(d)(II)(iii)
-wherein the configuration tool is configured to highlight serious and/or strange items in the visual timeline, and wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to access the changed scan data for each respective line-item test and rank them according to their severity and oddity with respect to the system’s ability to operate as expected. (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f), Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g), updating an activity log- MPEP 2105(d)(II)(iii)
With respect to claim 13:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
-wherein rankings according to severity and oddity are updated over time based on performance metrics of the system or experience gained from servicing the system.
(insignificant extra solution -MPEP 2106.05(g))
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception.
- wherein rankings according to severity and oddity are updated over time based on performance metrics of the system or experience gained from servicing the system.
(insignificant extra solution -MPEP 2106.05(g), updating an activity log- MPEP 2105(d)(II)(iii)
With respect to claim 14:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
- wherein the configuration tool and/or the diagnostic tool comprises machine learning used to highlight components in the system that are showing unusual behavior.(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea-MPEP 2106.05(f))
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception.
- wherein the configuration tool and/or the diagnostic tool comprises machine learning used to highlight components in the system that are showing unusual behavior.
(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea-MPEP 2106.05(f))
With respect to claim 15:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
- wherein the configuration tool is configured to output the logs and configuration data to a central server to process and analyze results of the configuration (insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g)
-wherein the central server processes and analyzes results of individual systems for centralized management. (insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g), updating an activity log- MPEP 2105(d)(II)(iii))
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception.
- wherein the configuration tool is configured to output the logs and configuration data to a central server to process and analyze results of the configuration (insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g), updating an activity log- MPEP 2105(d)(II)(iii)
-wherein the central server processes and analyzes results of individual systems for centralized management. (insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g), updating an activity log- MPEP 2105(d)(II)(iii))
With respect to claim 16:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
- wherein the configuration tool is configured to prevent the system from running without user acknowledgement of any configurations remaining incomplete. (insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g),
-wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to output scan results to the system (insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g),
-wherein the system is configured to bypass selected components of the plurality of components and to limit work to perform based on the scan results. (insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g),
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception.
- wherein the configuration tool is configured to prevent the system from running without user acknowledgement of any configurations remaining incomplete. (insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g), Receiving or transmitting data over a network- MPEP 2105(d)(II)(i)
-wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to output scan results to the system (insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g), updating an activity log- MPEP 2105(d)(II)(iii) )
-wherein the system is configured to bypass selected components of the plurality of components and to limit work to perform based on the scan results. (insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g), updating an activity log- MPEP 2105(d)(II)(iii) )
With respect to claim 17:
2A Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
- wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to generate one or more resolution tips to resolve at least one of the identified occurrences of changed scan data for a particular line-item test (insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception-See MPEP § 2106.05(g))
-wherein the resolution tips are defined at least in part on related configuration data provided by the configuration tool. (insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g),
-
2B: The claim(s) does/do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception.
- wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to generate one or more resolution tips to resolve at least one of the identified occurrences of changed scan data for a particular line-item test (insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception-See MPEP § 2106.05(g), updating an activity log - MPEP 2105(d)(II)(iii))
-wherein the resolution tips are defined at least in part on related configuration data provided by the configuration tool. (insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05(g), repetitive calculation- MPEP 2105(d)(II)(ii) )
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 7.206,824 (hereinafter, “Somashekar”).
As per claim 18, Somashekar discloses a configuration apparatus for a system comprises:
a network; (network 200; Fig. 3)
a plurality of components, each communicatively coupled to the network, (pluggable components 208A and 208B within the plurality of embedded server systems coupled to network 200; Fig. 3) wherein the plurality of components are configured to perform the system’s functionality; and (Fig. 3 further illustrates each pluggable component responsible to provide service 210A, 210B and 210b)
a configuration tool (configuration system 202; Fig 3) communicatively coupled to the network (Fig. 3) and configured to communicate with each of the plurality of components; (Fig. 3 further illustrates configuration system 202 to communicate with pluggable components through network 200)
wherein the configuration tool is configured to perform a configuration for a selected component of the plurality of components. (Inter alia: abstract states “a Bundle Configuration Utility (BCU) for configuring network deliverable pluggable components for deployment in embedded servers are described.” )
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2020/0074086 (hereinafter, “Bulygin”).
As per claim 19, Bulygin discloses a diagnostic scanner for a system comprises:
a network; (cloud network; Fig. 1)
one or more components, each communicatively coupled to the network, (groups of host devices; Fig. 1)
wherein the one or more components are configured to perform the system’s functionality; and (groups of host devices performing functions dedicated to their organization; ¶ [0018])
a diagnostic tool (centralized server, e.g., server 108, on-premises server; Fig. 1) communicatively coupled to the network (within a private or public cloud network); ¶ [0017]) and configured to communicate with each of the one or more components; (communicate with group host devices; Fig. 1)
wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to perform a diagnostic scan of each of the components and determine whether resultant scan data has changed from a previous scan’s scan data.( ¶ [0026] states that “an administrator may submit a request for an on-demand scan of a group of host”. Based on said scanning, the system is configured to determine “changes to specific hardware components may be monitored to ensure that any deviation from baseline is detected in order to detect possible compromise. In this way, device data is extracted and compared against previous results, providing indications of change” )
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7.206,824 (hereinafter, “Somashekar”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0074086 (hereinafter, “Bulygin”).
As per claim 1, Somashekar discloses a configuration and diagnostic apparatus for a system comprises:
a network; (network 200; Fig. 3)
a plurality of components, each communicatively coupled to the network, (pluggable components 208A and 208B within the plurality of embedded server systems coupled to network 200; Fig. 3) wherein the plurality of components are configured to perform the system’s functionality; and (Fig. 3 further illustrates each pluggable component responsible to provide service 210A, 210B and 210b)
a configuration tool (configuration system 202; Fig 3) communicatively coupled to the network (network; Fig. 3) and configured to communicate with each of the plurality of components; (Fig. 3 further illustrates configuration system 202 to communicate with pluggable components through network 200)
wherein the configuration tool is configured to perform a configuration for a selected component of the plurality of components; and (Inter alia: abstract states “a Bundle Configuration Utility (BCU) for configuring network deliverable pluggable components for deployment in embedded servers are described.” )
Somashekar does not distinctly disclose the following:
a diagnostic tool communicatively coupled to the network and configured to communicate with each of the plurality of components;
wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to perform a diagnostic scan of each of the components and determine whether resultant scan data has changed from a previous scan’s scan data, and
wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to evaluate the scan data based at least in part upon related configuration data provided by the configuration tool.
However, Bulygin explicitly discloses the following:
a network; (cloud network; Fig. 1)
one or more components, each communicatively coupled to the network, (groups of host devices; Fig. 1)
wherein the one or more components are configured to perform the system’s functionality; and (groups of host devices performing functions dedicated to their organization; ¶ [0018])
a diagnostic tool (centralized server, e.g., server 108, on-premises server; Fig. 1) communicatively coupled to the network (within a private or public cloud network); ¶ [0017]) and configured to communicate with each of the one or more components; (communicate with group host devices; Fig. 1)
wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to perform a diagnostic scan of each of the components and determine whether resultant scan data has changed from a previous scan’s scan data.( ¶ [0026] states that “an administrator may submit a request for an on-demand scan of a group of host”. Based on said scanning, the system is configured to determine “changes to specific hardware components may be monitored to ensure that any deviation from baseline is detected in order to detect possible compromise. In this way, device data is extracted and compared against previous results, providing indications of change” )
wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to evaluate the scan data based at least in part upon related configuration data provided by the configuration tool. (centralized server (e.g., within a private or public cloud network) for analyzing information collected from the local agent of each associated host device; ¶ [0017])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Somashekar and Bulygin because both references are in the same field of endeavor. Bulygin’s teaching of analyzing information collected from a local agent from each of the host devices would enhance Somashekar's system by detecting any vulnerabilities and patching them with updated version that leads enhanced hardware/software security for the organization.
As per claim 4, Somashekar as modified discloses a configuration and diagnostic apparatus, wherein the configuration tool comprises a system setup tool and/or a display setup tool, wherein the system setup tool is configured to perform or guide a user through a system component configuration, and (Somashekar: BCU 206 may support multiple GUI windows 300 open at one time, with each displaying a set of preferences for a different pluggable component 208; Col 10 lines 34-39, Fig. 4)
wherein the display setup tool is configured to perform or guide a user through a display configuration. (Somashekar: BCU 206 may support multiple GUI windows 300 open at one time, with each displaying a set of preferences for a different pluggable component 208; Col 10 lines 34-39, Fig. 4)
As per claim 5, Somashekar as modified discloses a configuration and diagnostic apparatus, wherein the display is one of a monitor, a projector, a tablet, a phone, a wearable device, or some other electronic device. (Somashekar: Fig 2illustrates a PC, phone, PDS and other electronic devices and display Fig 4) & (Bulygin; display ¶ [0020]
Claims 6, 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7.206,824 (hereinafter, “Somashekar”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0074086 (hereinafter, “Bulygin”) and further view of U.S. Publication No. 2006/0235697 (hereinafter, “Filibeck”) .
As per claim 6, Somashekar as modified discloses a configuration and diagnostic apparatus, wherein the configuration tool is configured to output configuration data. (Somashekar; discloses a local agent to output collected data to a central server for analysis)
wherein the diagnostic tool is configured to access the configuration data for use in evaluating the scan data. (see mapping associated with claim 1)
Somashekar as modified does not distinctly disclose outputting data to a log.
However, Filibeck discloses outputting data to a log. (inter alia; log report; Fig 31)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Somashekar as modified and Filibeck because all references are in the same field of endeavor. Filibeck’s teaching of outputting information to a log report would enhance Somashekar's as modified system by allowing an administrator to more easily track events, thus enhancing system monitoring.
As per claim 15, Somashekar as modified discloses a configuration and diagnostic apparatus, wherein the configuration tool is configured to output the logs and configuration data to a central server to process and analyze results of the configuration, wherein the central server processes and analyzes results of individual systems for centralized management. (Somashekar; discloses a local agent to output collected data to a central server for analysis) and (Filibeck: inter alia; log report; Fig 31)
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7.206,824 (hereinafter, “Somashekar”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0074086 (hereinafter, “Bulygin”) and further view of U.S. Patent No. 10,854,015 (hereinafter, “Borke”) .
As per claim 9, Somashekar as modified does not distinctly disclose a configuration and diagnostic apparatus, wherein the system is a light guide system configured to monitor and guide manufacturing activities.
However, Borke discloses an apparatus, wherein the system is a light guide system configured to monitor and guide manufacturing activities. (provide for real-time quality control during manufacturing using augmented reality. In particular, in one embodiment, techniques herein project a three-dimensional (3D) virtual shape/model onto a work-in-progress part in the real-world in order to see defects in real-time, thus allowing for mid-manufacturing corrections; abstract)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Somashekar as modified and Borke because all references are in the same field of endeavor. Borke’s teaching of tracking manufacturing activities would enhance Somashekar's as modified system by enhancing quality of manufacturing products, thus limiting any errors.
As per claim 10, Somashekar as modified discloses a configuration and diagnostic apparatus, wherein the components comprise at least one of: a plurality of cameras, a plurality of projectors, a plurality of monitors, a system controller, one or more external computer systems, input/output devices, and a manufacturing execution system. (one or more projectors, cameras; Fig 1a-b, col 3 lines 0-5)
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 7.206,824 (hereinafter, “Somashekar”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0074086 (hereinafter, “Bulygin”) and further view of U.S. Patent No. 10,854,015 (hereinafter, “Borke”) and further view of U.S. Publication No. 2024/0330620 (hereinafter, “O’Hagan”) .
As per claim 11, Somashekar as modified discloses the following:
a configuration and diagnostic apparatus, wherein the pluralities of cameras are configured to monitor the activities at workstations in a manufacturing area, and (projectors 110 may be set up to project on a given area (e.g., a clean room, manufacturing floor, or otherwise) for “inside-out tracking”; col 3 lines 0-5)
wherein the pluralities of projectors and monitors are configured to display information to and to guide manufacturing activities at the workstations. (projectors 110 may be set up to project on a given area (e.g., a clean room, manufacturing floor, or otherwise) for “inside-out tracking”; col 3 lines 0-5)
Somashekar as modified does not discloses monitor activity of workers.
However, O’Hagan explicitly discloses monitor activity of workers ( ¶ [0025])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Somashekar as modified and O’Hagan because all references are in the same field of endeavor. O’Hagan’s teaching of tracking worker activities would enhance Somashekar's as modified system by optimizing processes and enhancing worker productivity.
Allowable Subject Matter Over 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 2-3, 7-8, 12-14, 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base