DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application submitted on April 12, 2024.
Claims 1-14 are pending.
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 .
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, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 4, 10 and 11 are objected to because of following informalities:
Claims 3 and 10 recite “a signal device to simulate one or more human.” It should read -- a signal device to simulate one or more human inputs --.
Claims 4 and 11 recite “a single board computer (SBC) to simulate one or more inputs” It should read -- a single board computer (SBC) to simulate one or more human inputs --.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a system, which is a machine and/or manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 recites the limitations:
monitoring a display of a device;
analyzing information recorded by the imaging system to determine a state of the device responsive to the one or more input signals; and
determining whether the state of the device is indicative of a successful operating condition based at least partially on the information recorded by the imaging system.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
at least one processor;
a memory operatively coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing processor-readable instructions configured to perform operations including at least:
using an imaging system;
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, the limitations in (a), (b) and (c) can be reasonably interpreted as mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) for the monitoring step, a human can read information displayed on a monitor using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to monitor a display of a device. The limitation (b) for the analyzing step, a human can read state information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to analyze the state of the device. The limitation (c) for the determining step, a human can read state information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to determine the operating condition. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
at least one processor;
a memory operatively coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing processor-readable instructions configured to perform operations including at least:
using an imaging system;
providing one or more input signals to the device to simulate one or more human inputs;
The additional elements (1), (2) and (3) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The at least one processor, the memory and image system are used as tools to perform the providing, monitoring, analyzing and determining steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element (4) is mere data gathering/transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/transmitting and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/transmitting. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
at least one processor;
a memory operatively coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing processor-readable instructions configured to perform operations including at least:
using an imaging system;
providing one or more input signals to the device to simulate one or more human inputs;
The additional elements (1), (2) and (3) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional element (4) simply appends a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to gathering input signals to simulate human inputs. Therefore, the limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activities, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more for at least the reasons stated above.
Claim 2 recites the limitation:
(a) if the state of the device is not indicative of the successful operating condition, adjusting one or more input signals to the device; and
(b) re-analyzing information recorded by the imaging system to determine a new state of the device responsive to the adjusted one or more input signals.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 3 recites the limitation:
(a) providing one or more input signals to the device from a signal device to simulate one or more human via a human interface device (HID).
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 4 recites the limitation:
(a) providing one or more input signals to the device from a single board computer (SBC) to simulate one or more inputs via a USB HID.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 5 recites the limitation:
(a) analyzing information recorded by the imaging system using one or more computer vision techniques to determine a state of the device responsive to the one or more input signals.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 6 recites the limitation:
(a) determining whether the state of the device is indicative of a successful software installation condition.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 7 recites the limitation:
(a) determining whether the state of the device is indicative of a successful software testing condition.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
These claims are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claims 2 and 5-7 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 2-4 recite further additional elements that fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they are mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and fail to integrated into practical application and they do not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 2-7 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 1-7 are therefore not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significant more.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 8 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 8 is directed to a method, which is a process (a series of steps or acts), and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 8 recites the limitations:
a. monitoring a display of a device;
analyzing information recorded by the imaging system to determine a state of the device responsive to the one or more input signals; and
determining whether the state of the device is indicative of a successful operating condition based at least partially on the information recorded by the imaging system.
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
1. using an imaging system;
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, the limitations in (a), (b) and (c) can be reasonably interpreted as mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) for the monitoring step, a human can read information displayed on a monitor using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to monitor a display of a device. The limitation (b) for the analyzing step, a human can read state information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to analyze the state of the device. The limitation (c) for the determining step, a human can read state information stored in a database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to determine the operating condition. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
1. using an imaging system;
providing one or more input signals to the device to simulate one or more human inputs;
The additional element (1) is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The image system is used as tools to perform the providing, monitoring, analyzing and determining steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element (2) is mere data gathering/transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/transmitting and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/transmitting. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
1. using an imaging system;
providing one or more input signals to the device to simulate one or more human inputs;
The additional elements (1) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional element (2) simply appends a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the computing art to gathering input signals to simulate human inputs. Therefore, the limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activities, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more for at least the reasons stated above.
Claim 9 recites the limitation:
(a) if the state of the device is not indicative of the successful operating condition, adjusting one or more input signals to the device; and
(b) re-analyzing information recorded by the imaging system to determine a new state of the device responsive to the adjusted one or more input signals.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 10 recites the limitation:
(a) providing one or more input signals to the device from a signal device to simulate one or more human via a human interface device (HID).
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 11 recites the limitation:
(a) providing one or more input signals to the device from a single board computer (SBC) to simulate one or more inputs via a USB HID.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 12 recites the limitation:
(a) analyzing information recorded by the imaging system using one or more computer vision techniques to determine a state of the device responsive to the one or more input signals.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 13 recites the limitation:
(a) determining whether the state of the device is indicative of a successful software installation condition.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 14 recites the limitation:
(a) determining whether the state of the device is indicative of a successful software testing condition.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
These claims are dependent on Claim 8, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 8.
Claims 9 and 12-14 recite further mental steps which can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper and thus, fail to make the claim any less abstract (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 9-11 recite further additional elements that fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they are mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and fail to integrated into practical application and they do not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 9-14 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 8 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 8-14 are therefore not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significant more.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10996923 (hereinafter “Nakazawa”) in view of US 9928450 (hereinafter “Geva”).
As per Claim 1, Nakazawa discloses:
A system, comprising:
at least one processor (col.5 lines 42-43, “The control unit 24 includes a processor such as a Central Processing Unit (CPU) or Micro Processing Unit (MPU) [at least one processor] (emphasis added),”);
a memory operatively coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing processor-readable instructions configured to perform operations including at least (col.5 lines 36-41, “The storage unit 23 includes a semiconductor memory such as a Random Access Memory (RAM) and a Read Only Memory (ROM), for example. The storage unit 23 may further include a storage device such as a Hard Disk Drive (HDD). The storage unit 23 stores a control program to be executed by the control unit 24 [a memory operatively coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing processor-readable instructions configured to perform operations including at least] (emphasis added.”):
monitoring a display of a device using an imaging system (col.8 lines 65-67 and col.9 lines 1-12, “The display unit 43 displays various screens. The display unit 43 is a liquid crystal display or an organic EL (electroluminescence) display, […] The control unit 34 of the display control device 3 reflects the information registered on the connection device registration screen 60 to the first management table 331 (emphasis added).”; col.9 lines 25-30, “The video input unit 45b is connected to the video capturing camera 100b. The video input unit 45b is an example of a peripheral device connection unit and the video capturing camera 100b is an example of a peripheral device. The video input unit 45b is a USB terminal, and the video capturing camera 100b is a web camera, for example [monitoring a display of a device using an imaging system] (emphasis added).”);
analyzing information recorded by the imaging system to determine a state of the device responsive to […] (col.9 lines 45-49, “The device information acquisition unit 471 acquires a current state of the first information processing device 4a. Specifically the device information acquisition unit 471 acquires information for indicating an application currently installed in the first information processing device 4a [analyzing information recorded by the imaging system to determine a state of the device responsive to] (emphasis added.”); and
determining whether the state of the device is indicative of a successful operating condition based at least partially on the information recorded by the imaging system (col.22 lines 4-12, “Further, the command generation unit 342 determines the display image output device with reference to the second management table 332, and determines whether or not the instruction correspondence application installed in the display image output device is in a state capable of receiving and displaying a specific image with reference to the first management table 331. In other words, the command generation unit 342 determines whether or not the instruction correspondence application is in operation [determining whether the state of the device is indicative of a successful operating condition based at least partially on the information recorded by the imaging system] (emphasis added.”).
Nakazawa does not explicitly discloses:
providing one or more input signals to the device to simulate one or more human inputs;
[…] the one or more input signals;
However, Geva discloses:
providing one or more input signals to the device to simulate one or more human inputs (col.4 lines 46-50, “Input device 18 may comprise any suitable device or device simulator that allows control computer 16 to produce a sequence of device signals such as keyboard keystrokes or mouse clicks for input to a communications interface, which is typically connected to another computer system (emphasis added).”; col.7 lines 36-39, “Virtual operator 28 causes input device 18 to automatically execute predetermined operations, e.g., inputting entry data to client computer system 14, thereby simulating actions of the human operator [providing one or more input signals to the device to simulate one or more human inputs] (emphasis added).”);
[…] the one or more input signals (col.4 lines 46-50, “Input device 18 may comprise any suitable device or device simulator that allows control computer 16 to produce a sequence of device signals such as keyboard keystrokes or mouse clicks for input to a communications interface, which is typically connected to another computer system [ […] the one or more input signals] (emphasis added).”;
Nakazawa is within the field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a display control system that is capable of controlling input switching of a display device according to a state of an information processing device connected to the display device. Geva is within the field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a computer-implemented method for automating interaction with a computer system includes linking a control computer system to an input interface and to an output interface of a client computer system. Thus, Nakazawa and Geva are both analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Geva into the teaching of Nakazawa to include “providing one or more input signals to the device to simulate one or more human inputs; […] the one or more input signals;” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enable receiving input signals from input devices that simulate the actions of a human operator (Geva, [Abstract]).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Nakazawa does not explicitly disclose:
providing one or more input signals to the device from a signal device to simulate one or more human via a human interface device (HID).
However, Geva discloses:
providing one or more input signals to the device from a signal device to simulate one or more human via a human interface device (HID) (col.4 lines 46-50, “Input device 18 may comprise any suitable device or device simulator that allows control computer 16 to produce a sequence of device signals such as keyboard keystrokes or mouse clicks for input to a communications interface, which is typically connected to another computer system (emphasis added).”; col.3 lines 27-31, “The client computer system produces user interface images on a display device, typically in response to data entered via the input interface, e.g., using a keyboard or mouse. A virtual operator running on the control computer system simulates actions of a human operator, as described hereinbelow [providing one or more input signals to the device from a signal device to simulate one or more human via a human interface device (HID)] (emphasis added).”).
Geva is within the field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a computer-implemented method for automating interaction with a computer system includes linking a control computer system to an input interface and to an output interface of a client computer system. Thus, Geva is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Geva into the teaching of Nakazawa to include “providing one or more input signals to the device from a signal device to simulate one or more human via a human interface device (HID).” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enable receiving input signals from input devices that simulate the actions of a human operator. (Geva, [Abstract]).
Claims 8 and 10 are method claims corresponding to the system claims hereinabove (Claims 1 and 3, respectively). Therefore, Claims 8 and 10 are rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claims 1 and 3.
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa in view of Geva as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of US 20230075705 (hereinafter “HATTA”).
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated;
Nakazawa discloses:
if the state of the device is not indicative of the successful operating condition […] (col.22 lines 4-12, “Further, the command generation unit 342 determines the display image output device with reference to the second management table 332, and determines whether or not the instruction correspondence application installed in the display image output device is in a state capable of receiving and displaying a specific image with reference to the first management table 331. In other words, the command generation unit 342 determines whether or not the instruction correspondence application is in operation [if the state of the device is not indicative of the successful operating condition […]] (emphasis added.”),
[…] the image system […] (col.9 lines 25-30, “The video input unit 45b is connected to the video capturing camera 100b. The video input unit 45b is an example of a peripheral device connection unit and the video capturing camera 100b is an example of a peripheral device. The video input unit 45b is a USB terminal, and the video capturing camera 100b is a web camera, for example [[…] the image system […]] (emphasis added).”).
The combination of Nakazawa and Geva does not explicitly disclose:
[…] adjusting one or more input signals to the device; and
re-analyzing information recorded by […] to determine a new state of the device responsive to the adjusted one or more input signals.
However, HATTA discloses:
[…] adjusting one or more input signals to the device (Paragraph [0205], “Next, the work support device 1 checks a signal input from the input device 4 and determines whether or not the operation is to be ended on the basis of the input signal (step S113). If the signal of “end of operation” is not input from the input device 4 (No in step S113), the operation of the work support device 1 returns to step S100. On the other hand, if the signal of “end of operation” is input from the input device 4 (Yes in step S113), the work support device 1 ends the operation [[…] adjusting one or more input signals to the device] (emphasis added).”; and
re-analyzing information recorded by […] to determine a new state of the device responsive to the adjusted one or more input signals (Paragraph [0205], “Next, the work support device 1 checks a signal input from the input device 4 and determines whether or not the operation is to be ended on the basis of the input signal (step S113). If the signal of “end of operation” is not input from the input device 4 (No in step S113), the operation of the work support device 1 returns to step S100. On the other hand, if the signal of “end of operation” is input from the input device 4 (Yes in step S113), the work support device 1 ends the operation [re-analyzing information recorded by […] to determine a new state of the device responsive to the adjusted one or more input signals] (emphasis added).”.
HATTA is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a work support method that supports the work of a working entity which can redo the work by detecting errors in the work. Thus, HATTA is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of HATTA into the teaching of the combined teachings of Nakazawa and Geva to include “[…] adjusting one or more input signals to the device; and re-analyzing information recorded by […] to determine a new state of the device responsive to the adjusted one or more input signals.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to improve the reliability of the system by repeating receiving and analyzing input signal steps (HATTA, Paragraph [0199]).
Claim 9 is method claim corresponding to the system claim hereinabove (Claim 2). Therefore, Claim 9 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 2.
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa in view of Geva as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of US 20220397889 (hereinafter “Patton”).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated;
Nakazawa does not explicitly disclose:
providing one or more input signals to the device from […] to simulate one or more inputs […].
However, Geva discloses:
providing one or more input signals to the device from […] to simulate one or more inputs […] (col.4 lines 46-50, “Input device 18 may comprise any suitable device or device simulator that allows control computer 16 to produce a sequence of device signals such as keyboard keystrokes or mouse clicks for input to a communications interface, which is typically connected to another computer system (emphasis added).”; col.7 lines 36-39, “Virtual operator 28 causes input device 18 to automatically execute predetermined operations, e.g., inputting entry data to client computer system 14, thereby simulating actions of the human operator [providing one or more input signals to the device from […] to simulate one or more inputs […]] (emphasis added).”).
Geva is within the field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a computer-implemented method for automating interaction with a computer system includes linking a control computer system to an input interface and to an output interface of a client computer system. Thus, Geva is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Geva into the teaching of Nakazawa to include “providing one or more input signals to the device from […] to simulate one or more inputs […].” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enable receiving input signals from input devices that simulate the actions of a human operator (Geva, [Abstract]).
The combination of Nakazawa and Geva does not explicitly disclose:
[…] a single board computer (SBC) […] via a USB HID.
However, Patton discloses:
[…] a single board computer (SBC) […] via a USB HID (Paragraph [0022], “To this end, a raspberry pi does not include a display device, keyboard, or other hardware that can add bulk and expense to a computing device. Instead, a raspberry pi device includes input devices such as USB ports, ethernet ports, WiFi communication devices, etc. that allow communication with hardware such as a display device, keyboard, joystick, hand controller, or the like [[…] a single board computer (SBC) […] via a USB HID] (emphasis added).”.
Patton is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a system is provided that may include plural data collector devices that may be configured to be communicatively coupled with each other in a network. Thus, Patton is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Patton into the teaching of the combined teachings of Nakazawa and Geva to include “[…] a single board computer (SBC) […] via a USB HID.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to communicate information between individual devices by utilizing provided data (Patton, Paragraph [0003]).
Claim 11 is method claim corresponding to the system claim hereinabove (Claim 4). Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Claims 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa in view of Geva as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of US 20230100652 (hereinafter “JANG”).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated;
Nakazawa discloses:
analyzing information recorded by the imaging system using […] to determine a state of the device responsive to […] (col.9 lines 45-49, “The device information acquisition unit 471 acquires a current state of the first information processing device 4a. Specifically the device information acquisition unit 471 acquires information for indicating an application currently installed in the first information processing device 4a [analyzing information recorded by the imaging system using […] to determine a state of the device responsive to […]] (emphasis added.”).
Nakazawa does not explicitly disclose:
[…] the one or more input signals.
However, Geva discloses:
[…] the one or more input signals (col.4 lines 46-50, “Input device 18 may comprise any suitable device or device simulator that allows control computer 16 to produce a sequence of device signals such as keyboard keystrokes or mouse clicks for input to a communications interface, which is typically connected to another computer system [[…] the one or more input signals] (emphasis added).”).
Geva is within the field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a computer-implemented method for automating interaction with a computer system includes linking a control computer system to an input interface and to an output interface of a client computer system. Thus, Geva is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Geva into the teaching of Nakazawa to include “[…] the one or more input signals.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enable receiving input signals from input devices that simulate the actions of a human operator (Geva, [Abstract]).
The combination of Nakazawa and Geva does not explicitly disclose:
[…] one or more computer vision techniques […].
However, JANG discloses:
[…] one or more computer vision techniques […] (Paragraph [0274], “For example, the processor 810 may use optical character recognition (OCR) or automatic content recognition (ACR) to identify the first partial area [[…] one or more computer vision techniques […]] (emphasis added).”.
JANG is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a display device capable of supporting output of images having various aspect ratios to reproduce content. Thus, JANG is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of JANG into the teaching of the combined teachings of Nakazawa and Geva to include “[…] one or more computer vision techniques […].” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to include optical character recognition into the imaging system to help identify the image.
Claim 12 is method claim corresponding to the system claim hereinabove (Claim 5). Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 5.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa in view of Geva as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of US 6662363 (hereinafter “Miyamoto”).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated;
Nakazawa discloses:
determining whether the state of the device is indicative of […] (col.22 lines 4-12, “Further, the command generation unit 342 determines the display image output device with reference to the second management table 332, and determines whether or not the instruction correspondence application installed in the display image output device is in a state capable of receiving and displaying a specific image with reference to the first management table 331. In other words, the command generation unit 342 determines whether or not the instruction correspondence application is in operation [determining whether the state of the device is indicative of […]] (emphasis added.”).
The combination of Nakazawa and Geva does not explicitly disclose:
[…] a successful software installation condition.
However, Miyamoto discloses:
[…] a successful software installation condition (col.5 lines 36-41, “According to the preferred embodiment of the present invention, as described above, the predetermined installation conditions are checked beforehand at step SP2, whether or not the new software has been successfully installed is determined at step SP6 after the installation of the new software at step SP5 [[…] a successful software installation condition] (emphasis added).”.
Miyamoto is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method for installing desired software in a computer. Thus, Miyamoto is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Miyamoto into the teaching of the combined teachings of Nakazawa and Geva to include “[…] a successful software installation condition.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to maximize the possibility of installing software on devices (Miyamoto, col.1 lines 63-66).
Claim 13 is method claim corresponding to the system claim hereinabove (Claim 6). Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 6.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa in view of Geva as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of US 20140282410 (hereinafter “Chan”).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated;
Nakazawa discloses:
determining whether the state of the device is indicative of […] (col.22 lines 4-12, “Further, the command generation unit 342 determines the display image output device with reference to the second management table 332, and determines whether or not the instruction correspondence application installed in the display image output device is in a state capable of receiving and displaying a specific image with reference to the first management table 331. In other words, the command generation unit 342 determines whether or not the instruction correspondence application is in operation [determining whether the state of the device is indicative of […]] (emphasis added.”).
The combination of Nakazawa and Geva does not explicitly disclose:
[…] a successful software testing condition.
However, Chan discloses:
[…] a successful software testing condition (Paragraph [0006], “The method may include determining a promoted status for the first software test based upon, at least in part, identifying a sequence of successful runs for the first software test [[…] a successful software installation condition] (emphasis added).”.
Chan is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method for testing of software. Thus, Chan is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Chan into the teaching of the combined teachings of Nakazawa and Geva to include “[…] a successful software testing condition.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to include identifying testing results based on testing status (Chan, Paragraph [0005]).
Claim 14 is method claim corresponding to the system claim hereinabove (Claim 7). Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US 2020/0379890 (hereinafter “Dong”) discloses a method and apparatus for testing software.
US 2020/0357272 (hereinafter “SUGIURA”) discloses information processing devices which perform visual remote monitoring control for an operator at a remote location to monitor moving bodies, obstacle, etc.
US 2022/0200922 (hereinafter “Arngren”) discloses a user terminal emulation server for providing communication services using sets of input and/or output (I/O) user devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Yanbin Li whose telephone number is 571-272-0906. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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 more 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.
/Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2191
/WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191