DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Applicant’s response filed 6/26/26.
As indicated in Applicant’s response, claims 1, 4, 12, 15, 20 have been amended, claims 5, 16 cancelled and claims 21-22 added. Claims 1-4, 6-15, 17-22 remain and are pending prosecution by the following office action.
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.
Claim 1 is/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. Claim(s) 1 is/are directed to Abstract Idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of 2-step analysis as follows.
Step 1
The claim is directed to a method/process category.
Step 2A
Prong one:
The method contains steps of "determining" (test device is occupied), "determining" (usage
status), "determining" (health status), "marking" (a device as), "assigning" (a case), “determining” (a matching test case), “determining” (a label) and without presence of technical means (in the claim) to support these forms of activity, these activities are perceived as actions a human mind can easily perform, from identifying a object or a status, to marking it and assigning mentally, using only a mental faculty; that is, even the step of marking (or flagging as a logical step) and "assigning" can be considered an activity that falls into a mental process. The method is directed to a Abstract Idea - see MPEP 2106.04(a) that basically comprises activities of a mental process in form of determining, marking, tagging associated with organization of human activity (e.g. assigning).
As for Mental Process: A court or examiner will likely view "determining usage/health status," "marking," and "assigning... according to a matching table" as logical/data-processing steps that could hypothetically be performed by a human using a pen, paper, and a logbook (e.g., a technician looking at a device, checking a checklist, writing "available" in a ledger, and assigning it to a task).
As for Organizing Human Activity: Matching tasks to resources using a marking, labeling or lookup table/rules is typically classified as a standard business workflow or administrative scheduling technique.
Prong two:
The recital of elements “processor-based”, “in memory”, “test device” expressed in a very high level of generality cannot demonstrate evidence of a specific computer functionality being improved, as these elements are perceived as well-understood components in a computer test environment, and further fail to show that the status determination or matching table solves a specific technical problem in the test system (e.g., reducing memory overhead, optimizing low-level bus routing, preventing hardware deadlock during dynamic automated test runs).
Lacking specific hardware interaction steps (e.g. specific control signals, powered state and lines) there is no evidence that a physical control and hardware interaction is provided to control, isolate or execute a “test device” based on the “marking” or “assigning”.
In regard to elements recited as ‘executing a test case” (in a testing system) and “assigning test case to a test device”, these are perceived as well-understood, standard type actions in the computer field of testing, and as these standard activities depend of the “determining” and “marking” steps, they amount to extra-solution activities and cannot disclose substantial improvement to the Abstract Idea cannot provide substantial improvement to the Abstract Idea; nor can they demonstrate evidence of a specific computer functionality being improved in the field of computer test. MPEP 2106.05(a)(b)(c )(h)
That is, the “executing”, “assigning” and “generating” of matching table can be viewed as post-activity of meager significance as they depend of a Abstract Idea (determining usage/health status," "marking," and "assigning) MPEP 2106.05(g)
The elements recited as “configuration label” and “configuration demand label” as mere objects of a determination step and fail to convey a practical improvement or transformation to the Abstract Idea of “determining”.
The element recited as “test-device-to-test case matching table” is perceived as structure construed in a abstracted manner without special connectivity to the deep hardware or physical layer of the computer field in which the Abstract Idea (determining, marking, assigning) takes place, notably when the “matching” can be understood as one form of organization of information via a human process; as no specific non-conventional technical physical structure or implementation is visibly/perceivably attached with this “matching” concept. See MPEP 2106.04(d), MPEP 2106.05(a)(b)(c )(h)
Further, matching a "configuration label" to a "demand label" as a mathematical set-matching or administrative assignment task- can be conceptually identical to a human dispatcher looking at a worker's "skills list" (configuration) and a job's "requirements list" (demand) and filling out an assignment clipboard (matching table). The addition of labels and table generation fail to provide a technical improvement to computer/system functionality as these features merely describe listing of objects associated with what a assignment/matching logic is driven by, the assigning and matching construed as mental processes in view of clear disconnect to the physical hardware of the computer based on which the SW testing system operates.
The method claim fails to integrate the Abstract idea of prong one into a practical application.
Step 2B
As shown above, the additional elements of “executing” “generating” (matching table) included with the “assigning of test device to test case” are construed as mere insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g) – thus cannot impart a technical transformation or inventive change to the computer on which the Abstract Idea operates.
The addition of labels and table generation fail to provide a technical improvement to computer/system functionality as these features merely describe listing of objects associated with what a assignment/matching logic is driven by, the assigning and matching construed as mental processes in view of clear disconnect to the physical hardware of the computer based on which the SW testing system operates.
The element recited as “test-device-to-test case matching table” is perceived as structure construed in a abstracted manner without special connectivity to the deep hardware or physical layer of the computer field in which the Abstract Idea
Additional elements such as “processor-based”, “in memory”, “test device” expressed in a very high level of generality cannot demonstrate evidence of a specific computer functionality being improved, as these elements fail to show that the status determination or matching table solves a specific technical problem in the test system.
Analyzed in accordance with how the above elements are ordered in the claim, there is no evidence that the steps of determining (label), executing (test device) and generating of matching table clearly put forth a technical improvement to the core computer on which the test system operates. MPEP 2106.05(a)(b)(d)(h)(g)
As recited, the additional elements fail to add significantly more to the Abstract Idea of step 2A.
Claim 1 is therefore non-eligible under the 35 USC § 101 statute.
Claims 12 and 20 is/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. Claim(s) 12 and 20 is/are directed to Abstract Idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of 2-step analysis as follows
A. Eligibility of claim 12
Step I: this claim is directed to an apparatus category.
Step 2A
Prong one:
The claim comprises computer stored instructions to perform actions recited as "determining" (test device is occupied), "determining" (usage status), "determining" (health status), "marking" (a device as), "assigning" (a case), “determining” (a matching test case), “determining” (a label) and when construed as a whole, and absent any teaching to prove that memory-stored instructions achieve a particular computer improvement to the sequence of determining, marking or assigning, these activities can be viewed as actions which can be performed via human mind, using a generic computer or via pen/paper. The apparatus claim is thus directed to a Judicial Exception of an Abstract Idea type - see MPEP 2106.04(a)
Prong two:
The recital of “processor-based”, “in memory”, “test device” expressed in a very high level of generality cannot demonstrate evidence of a specific computer functionality being improved, when these elements merely represent well-understood components or tools used in the field of computer in which a “testing system” operates.
The elements recited as ‘executing a test case” (in a testing system) and “assigning test case to a test device” are perceived as well-understood, standard type actions in the computer field of testing, and as these standard activities depend of the “determining” and “marking” steps, they amount to extra-solution (post-activity) actions and cannot disclose substantial improvement to the Abstract Idea; nor can they demonstrate evidence of a specific computer functionality being improved in the field of computer test. MPEP 2106.05(a)(b)(c )(h) (g)
The elements recited as “configuration label” and “configuration demand label” as mere objects of a determination step and fail to convey a non-conventional improvement or transformation to the Abstract Idea of “determining”.
The element recited as “test-device-to-test case matching table” is perceived as structure construed in a abstracted manner without special connectivity to the deep hardware or physical layer of the computer field in which the Abstract Idea (determining, marking, assigning) takes place; thus fail to contribute to integrating the steps of determining, marking, assigning into a practical application
The apparatus claim as recited fails to integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
As shown above, the additional elements of “executing” “generating” (matching table) included with the “assigning of test device to test case” are construed as mere insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g) – thus cannot impart a technical transformation or inventive change to the computer on which the Abstract Idea operates.
The addition of labels and table generation fail to provide a technical improvement to computer/system functionality as these features merely describe listing of objects associated with what a assignment/matching logic is driven by, the assigning and matching construed as mental processes in view of clear disconnect to the physical hardware of the computer based on which the SW testing system operates.
The element recited as “test-device-to-test case matching table” is perceived as structure construed in a abstracted manner without special connectivity to the deep hardware or physical layer of the computer field in which the Abstract Idea
Additional elements such as “processor-based”, “in memory”, “test device” expressed in a very high level of generality cannot demonstrate evidence of a specific computer functionality being improved, as these elements fail to show that the status determination or matching table solves a specific technical problem in the test system.
Analyzed in accordance with how the above elements are ordered in the claim, there is no evidence that the steps of determining (label), executing (test device) and generating of matching table clearly put forth a technical improvement to the core computer on which the test system operates. MPEP 2106.05(a)(b)(d)(h)(g)
As recited, the additional elements fail to add significantly more to the Abstract Idea of step 2A.
B. Eligibility of claim 20
Step I: this claim is directed to a medium/product category
Step 2A
Prong one:
The product claim recites medium-stored instructions to perform steps of stored instructions
to perform "determining" (test device is occupied), "determining" (usage status), "determining"
(health status), "marking" (a device as), "assigning" (a case) “determining” (a matching test case), “determining” (a label) ; and when construed as a whole, and absent any teaching to prove that memory-stored instructions achieve a particular improvement to the act of determining, marking or assigning, these activities can be viewed as actions which can be performed via human mind, using a generic computer. The apparatus claim is directed to a Judicial Exception of an Abstract Idea type - see MPEP 2106.04(a)
Prong two:
The recital of “processor-based”, “in memory”, “test device” expressed in a very high level of generality fails to demonstrate evidence of a specific computer functionality being improved; as these elements merely represent well-understood components or tools used in the field of computer in which a “testing system” operates.
The elements recited as ‘executing a test case” (in a testing system) and “assigning test case to a test device” are perceived as well-understood, standard type actions in the computer field of testing, and as these standard activities depend of the “determining” and “marking” steps, they amount to extra-solution (post-activity) actions and cannot disclose substantial improvement to the Abstract Idea; nor can they demonstrate evidence of a specific computer functionality being improved in the field of computer test. MPEP 2106.05(a)(b)(c )(h) (g)
The elements recited as ‘executing a test case” (in a testing system) and “assigning test case to a test device” are perceived as well-understood, standard type actions in the computer field of testing, and as these standard activities depend of the “determining” and “marking” steps, they amount to extra-solution (post-activity) actions and cannot disclose substantial improvement to the Abstract Idea; nor can they demonstrate evidence of a specific computer functionality being improved in the field of computer test. MPEP 2106.05(a)(b)(c )(h) (g)
The elements recited as “configuration label” and “configuration demand label” as mere objects of a determination step and fail to convey a non-conventional improvement or transformation to the Abstract Idea of “determining”.
The element recited as “test-device-to-test case matching table” is perceived as structure construed in a abstracted manner without special connectivity to the deep hardware or physical layer of the computer field in which the Abstract Idea (determining, marking, assigning) takes place.
The medium claim as recited fails to integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
As shown above, the additional elements of “executing” “generating” (matching table) included with the “assigning of test device to test case” are construed as mere insignificant extra-solution activity – MPEP 2106.05(g) – thus cannot impart a technical transformation or inventive change to the computer on which the Abstract Idea operates.
The addition of labels and table generation fail to provide a technical improvement to computer/system functionality as these features merely describe listing of objects associated with what a assignment/matching logic is driven by, the assigning and matching construed as mental processes in view of clear disconnect to the physical hardware of the computer based on which the SW testing system operates.
The element recited as “test-device-to-test case matching table” is perceived as structure construed in a abstracted manner without special connectivity to the deep hardware or physical layer of the computer field in which the Abstract Idea
Additional elements such as “processor-based”, “in memory”, “test device” expressed in a very high level of generality cannot demonstrate evidence of a specific computer functionality being improved, as these elements fail to show that the status determination or matching table solves a specific technical problem in the test system.
Analyzed in accordance with how the above elements are ordered in the claim, there is no evidence that the steps of determining (label), executing (test device) and generating of matching table clearly put forth a technical improvement to the core computer on which the test system operates. MPEP 2106.05(a)(b)(d)(h)(g)
As recited, the additional elements of claim 20 fail to add significantly more to the Abstract Idea of step 2A.
Step 2B analysis of dependent claims
Claims 2 and 13 recite sending a reminder in response to a status and this can be viewed as
an extra-activity that uses information from the mental process in the base claim.
Claims 3 and 14 recite assigning in terms of determining then assigning, but these activities
can be construed as those that a human mind can perform; hence cannot render the judicial exception
significantly much more than a Abstract Idea.
Claims 4 and 15 recite determining and sending a notification, and these activities cannot
amount to significantly more than activities of a mental process.
Claims 6 and 17 recite "determining" and "assigning" and cannot amount to significantly
more than a Abstract Idea.
Claims 7 and 18 recite determining, generating a table and determining a matching device;
but these activities can be construed as those that are based on result from a determining are viewed
as extra-activities that are insignificant toward improving a computer technology or a solving a
particular problem; hence cannot render the judicial exception significantly much more than an
Abstract Idea.
Claims 8 and 19, recite determining based on assigning, and reserving a device; but
activities construed as those that are based on result of a "assigning" (i.e. a mental process) cannot
add significantly much more to the Abstract Idea state of the Judicial Exception.
Claim 9 recites determining a device in response to a determining, and assigning, all of
which construed as activities that can be performed by a human mind or with pen and paper.
Claim 10 recites determining a number of tests and determining test cases, all of which
construed as activities that can be performed by a human mind.
Claim 11 recites determining a duration, which appears to be a mental activity and cannot
add significantly more to the Judicial Exception of the base claim.
Claim 21 recites sending a reminder to release the test device in response the indication that device not been used for a specified time; but this amount to an extra-solution activity that cannot add significantly more to the Abstract Idea.
Claim 22 recites assigning of test device to a test case based on candidate test cases with the highest priority among the candidates; but what appears to be a mental process of assigning a device (based on determination that candidate test cases bears some priority) cannot prove that the assigning improve a technical functioning in this field of computer test environment; nor can this assigning add significantly more to the Abstract Idea.
In all, claims 1-4, 6-15, 17-22 are deemed non-eligible under the 35 USC § 101 statute.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Following are the Examiner’s observations in regard thereto.
(A) The Applicant has submitted that as amended, the claims rejected under USC § 101 are now directed to a practical Application and provide improvements to the computer technology (Applicant's Remarks pg. 10). The alleged merits relied upon by the Applicant in reference to the amended language are pending resolution of the latest ground of rejection now directed to the amended claims; and raise of their eligibility status is on hold until the next round of prosecution, rendering the above allegation by the Applicant largely MOOT.
(B) The Applicant has submitted that the claims as now amended with integration of claim 5, are not disclosed by the combination of reference such as Gao, Chen and ‘556 (Applicant's Remarks pg. 11-12). Patentability merits of the claims thus mentioned are deemed in a pause state awaiting resolution of the 35 USC § 101 rejection.
(C ) Regarding how the claims can surmount a Judicial exception, herein are some observations:
To make these label limitations actually work during prosecution, there is a need to anchor them to a specific technical solution in the system architecture. Consider amending along the following lines:
Tie the "Configuration Label" to Physical Hardware/Firmware Traits:
Instead of abstract labels, tie them to hardware characteristics: "wherein determining the configuration label comprises querying hardware registers/bus interfaces of the test device to dynamically sample real-time firmware versions, GPU architectures, or pin configurations..."
Tie Table Generation to Hardware Configuration/Execution:
Move past creating the table entries to using them to drive hardware: "wherein generating entries in the matching table automatically triggers a hardware switch matrix to open an isolated physical communications channel between the matched test device and a test-controller node."
Establish (into the claim) a Technical Improvement in the Specification:
Frame the label system as solving a specific technological problem in the testing environment (e.g., "eliminating hardware pin-conflict lockouts," "reducing dynamic memory footprint during parallel automated test runs," or "resolving hardware topology mismatches during continuous integration").
Without framing these labels and table operations as a specific technical mechanism that improves how the test system hardware/software functions, examiners will classify them as abstract data-matching steps.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan A Vu whose telephone number is (571) 272-3735. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-4:30PM/Mon-Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Chat Do can be reached on (571)272-3721.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-3735 ( for non-official correspondence - please consult Examiner before using) or 571-273-8300 ( for official correspondence) or redirected to customer service at 571-272-3609.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist: 571-272-2100.
/Tuan A Vu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
August 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights