DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-7 are pending and examined in this office action.
Applicant is advised to remove the numerical labels from the claims.
Claim 1 contains typographical errors such as “teat” (it should be “test”). Correction is requested.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a test plan module, a measurement point module, a test documentation module in claims 1-2, 4. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 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, mathematical relationship or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Statutory Category: Claim 6 recites a method for testing components, comprising: entering component attributes across components and test attributes across test cases via a first user interface; identifying measurement points based on the entered component attributes and the entered test attributes; creating a test-specific and component-specific test plan based on the entered component attributes and the entered test attributes; retrieving the test-specific and component-specific test plan via a second user interface; testing the component with measurement devices placed at the identified measurement points based on the test-specific and component-specific test plan; and providing the test results via the second user interface for retrieval via the first user interface.
Step 2A – Prong 1: Claim 6 recites: identifying measurement points based on the entered component attributes and the entered test attributes (a mental step of identification); creating a test-specific and component-specific test plan based on the entered component attributes and the entered test attributes (a mental step of creating a test plan). That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed mentally or using pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the mental process grouping of abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under step 2A prong 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as “entering component attributes across components and test attributes across test cases via a first user interface”. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, these elements amount to mere data gathering for a mental process, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element and an extra-solution activity). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as “retrieving the test-specific and component-specific test plan via a second user interface”. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, these elements amount to mere data gathering for a mental process, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element and an extra-solution activity). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1 recites additional elements such as “testing the component with measurement devices placed at the identified measurement points based on the test-specific and component-specific test plan, providing the test results via the second user interface for retrieval via the first user interface”. Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, these elements amount to mere executing a test and providing the result of a test, which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element and an extra-solution activity, as evidenced in Holden (paragraphs [0033]-[0035]; a test execution system, one user can select and transmit a particular test case for execution on a target device; a reporting module of the test execution system (second user interface) then receives the test results from the target device)). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2B.
Dependent claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the dependent claim 7 recites more steps of extra-solution activities (placing devices, data transmission), which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
Independent claim 1 (a system with memory to perform the method of claim 6) is rejected under the similar rational as claim 6. The additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than generic software/hardware components with instructions to apply the exception, which cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claims 2-5 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the dependent claim 2-5 recites more steps of a mental process (determining, creating a documentation), which do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Therefore, these claims are not patent eligible.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adam et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0173373) hereinafter Adam, in view of Holden (US PGPUB 2016/0103748).
Per claim 1, Adam discloses a system comprising: a computer-based test tool that includes a test plan module with a memory that stores a plurality of component attributes and a plurality of test attributes, the test plan module being configured for determining a test-specific and component-specific test plan from the stored component attributes and the stored test attributes; a first user interface communicating with the teat plan module and inputting to the test plan module at least one component attribute from the stored component attributes and at least one test attribute from the plurality of test attributes (paragraphs [0025][0027][0087]; a user can independently define or specify an object class and its properties (component attributes) for testing, and assign a measurement object to the object; claims 1, 5; paragraph [0033][0034]; generating an object class-specific test plan (containing component attributes); based on object class-specific test plan, define measurement points to be captured; generating (determining a test plan) a resultant test plan).
Adam does not explicitly teach a second user interface communicating with the teat plan module for outputting a test-specific and component-specific test plan determined by the test plan module based on the at least one component attribute and the at least one test attribute input to the test plan module by the first user interface. However, Holden suggests the above (paragraphs [0033]-[0035]; a test execution system, one user can select (on a second user interface) and transmit a particular test case for execution on a target device (output the test plan); a reporting module of the test execution system (second user interface) then receives the test results from the target device)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Adam and Holden to implement Holden’s test execution system, so test plans can be centrally managed for execution (outputting the test plan to another device), and test results can also be distributed over a network; such distributed test framework allows different users to work together over a network.
Per claim 2, Adam further suggests wherein the computer-based test tool further comprises a measurement point module that is configured to determine measurement points for the test-specific and component-specific test plan (paragraphs [0005]-[0008]; carry out (executing) the test plan, measurement points to be captured by measuring devices (sensors) can be set on the basis of the test plan, measurement values are saved). Holden further discloses collecting test results at the second user interface (paragraphs [0033]-[0035]; a test execution system, one user can select (on a second user interface) and transmit a particular test case for execution on a target device (retrieving the test plan); a reporting module of the test execution system (second user interface) then receives the test results from the target device).
Per claim 3, Adam further suggests measuring devices removably positionable on the components at the measurement points, the measuring devices communicating wirelessly (paragraphs [0005]-[0008]; carry out (executing) the test plan, measurement points to be captured by measuring devices (sensors) can be set on the basis of the test plan, measurement values are saved; paragraph [0086]; transferring data over wireless connections). Holden further discloses collecting test results at the second user interface (paragraphs [0033]-[0035]; a reporting module of the test execution system (second user interface) then receives the test results from the target device).
Per claim 4, Adam further suggests wherein the computer-based test tool comprises a test documentation module that is configured such that test documentation is created as a function of the test-specific and component-specific test plan (paragraphs [0005]-[0008]; carry out (executing) the test plan, measurement points to be captured by measuring devices (sensors) can be set on the basis of the test plan, test results can be stored in a test result documentation which is a part of the test plan).
Per claim 5, Adam further suggests wherein the computer-based test tool is cloud-based (paragraph [0086]; transferring data over wired or wireless connections).
Per claim 6, Adam discloses a method for testing components, comprising: entering component attributes across components and test attributes across test cases via a first user interface (paragraphs [0025][0027][0087]; a user can independently define or specify an object class and its properties (component attributes) for testing, and assign a measurement object to the object); identifying measurement points based on the entered component attributes and the entered test attributes; creating a test-specific and component-specific test plan based on the entered component attributes and the entered test attributes (claims 1, 5; paragraph [0033][0034]; generating an object class-specific test plan (containing component attributes); based on object class-specific test plan, define measurement points to be captured; generating a resultant test plan); testing the component with measurement devices placed at the identified measurement points based on the test-specific and component-specific test plan, providing the test results (paragraphs [0005]-[0008]; carry out (executing) the test plan, measurement points to be captured by measuring devices (sensors) can be set on the basis of the test plan, test results can be stored in a test result documentation).
Adam does not explicitly the described computing apparatus is retrieving the test-specific and component-specific test plan via a second user interface; providing the test results via the second user interface for retrieval via the first user interface. However, Holden suggests the above (paragraphs [0033]-[0035]; a test execution system, one user can select (on a second user interface) and transmit a particular test case for execution on a target device (retrieving the test plan); a reporting module of the test execution system (second user interface) then receives the test results from the target device, and generates a report, email it to another user (i.e. providing test results to the first user interface)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Adam and Holden to implement Holden’s test execution system, so test plans can be centrally managed for execution, and test results can also be distributed over a network; such distributed test framework allows different users to work together over a network.
Per claim 7, Adam further suggests placing measurement devices at the identified measurement points and transmitting measurement data from the measurement devices (paragraphs [0005]-[0008]; carry out (executing) the test plan, measurement points to be captured by measuring devices (sensors) can be set on the basis of the test plan, measurement values are saved). Holden further discloses collecting test results at the second user interface (paragraphs [0033]-[0035]; a test execution system, one user can select (on a second user interface) and transmit a particular test case for execution on a target device (retrieving the test plan); a reporting module of the test execution system (second user interface) then receives the test results from the target device).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANG PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7667. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HANG PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193