Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This initial office action is based on the application filed on 05/09/2024, which claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
Status of Claim
2. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application and have been examined below, of which, claims 1, 8 and 15 are presented in independent form.
Priority
3. This application is a CON of PCT/CN2021/126979 filed on 10/28/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/30/2024, 01/10/2025 and 01/31/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
5. Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis specific to Claims 1, 8 and 15 is being presented below.
Claims 1, 8 and 15:
Step 1 Analysis:
Claims 1-7 of the instant application is direct to process.
Claims 8-14 of the instant application is direct to apparatus.
Claims 15-20 of the instant application is direct to product.
Thus, they are statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite:
(a) configuring n processes, wherein n is an integer greater than or equal to 1;
(b) mapping m processes in the n processes to a first component, wherein m is an integer greater than 0 and less than or equal to n, and the first component is associated with a first port;
(c) generating, based on a preconfigured association relationship, an association relationship between each of m service instances corresponding to the m processes and the first port.
Step 2A -- Prong 1:
The claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the limitations of:
(c) generating, based on a preconfigured association relationship, an association relationship between each of m service instances corresponding to the m processes and the first port.
Limitation (c) is limitation that, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “generating”/creating can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A -- Prong 2:
The claim 8 recites the additional limitations of “A configuration apparatus ”, “at least one processor” and “one or more memories”. The limitations of “A configuration apparatus ”, “at least one processor” and “one or more memories” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Claim 15 recites the additional limitations of “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and “a computer”. The limitations of “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” and “a computer” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, limitations (a) and (b) are merely insignificant extra solution activity of arrangement and comparation data. Accordingly, these 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.
Step 2B:
As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, 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 same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., simply adding extra-solution activity or well-understood, routine and conventional activity or generic computer components does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05. Therefore, claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims
Additionally, claims 2, 9 and 16 recite “wherein the preconfigured association relationship comprises: reference information of a process, a port, and a service instance; and a correspondence between the process, the port, and the service instance” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of defining data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 2, 9 and 16 are ineligible.
Additionally, claims 3, 10 and 17 recite “wherein, before the generating an association relationship between each of m service instances corresponding to the m processes and the first port, the method further comprises: generating the m service instances based on a preconfigured service instance; and configuring property information of each of the m service instances”. The limitation “before the generating an association relationship between each of m service instances corresponding to the m processes and the first port, the method further comprises: generating the m service instances based on a preconfigured service instance” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “generating”/creating can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. The addition limitation “configuring property information of each of the m service instances” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of arrangement data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 2, 9 and 16 are ineligible.
Additionally, claims 4, 11 and 18 recite “wherein the mapping m processes in the n processes to a first component comprises: mapping the m processes to a first executable program (exe), wherein a root component of the first exe is a first composite component; and creating a first sub-element of the first composite component, wherein a type of the first sub- element points to the first component”. The limitation “wherein the mapping m processes in the n processes to a first component comprises: mapping the m processes to a first executable program (exe), wherein a root component of the first exe is a first composite component” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of comparation data. The limitation “creating a first sub-element of the first composite component, wherein a type of the first sub- element points to the first component” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “creating” can be performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract idea. These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 4, 11 and 18 are ineligible.
Additionally, claims 5, 12 and 19 recite “wherein n is greater than or equal to 2, and the n processes are receiver processes” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of defining data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 5, 12 and 19 are ineligible.
Additionally, claims 6, 13 and 20 recite “wherein theapplication because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 6, 13 and 20 are ineligible.
Additionally, claims 7 and 14 recite “wherein the property information of each of the m service instances comprises one or more of identification information, transport plugin information, deployment information, quality of service configuration information, or end-to-end communication protection information of the service instance” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of defining data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 7 is ineligible.
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.
7. Claim(s) 1-4, 6-11, 13-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Autosar (Specification of Manifest AUTOSAR AP R22-11 – IDS filed on 01/31/2025 – herein after Autosar) in view of Seo (WO 2021107179 A1 – Date Published 06/03/2021 – herein after Seo).
Regarding claim 1.
Autosar discloses
A configuration method (configuration of an AUTOSAR adaptive platform product – See page 37), comprising:
configuring n processes (how to front-load the configuration of a Process by means of ProcessDesign – See page 41. Section 3.21, processDesign – see page 228), wherein n is an integer greater than or equal to 1 (multiplicity ProcessDesign – See page 230, Table 3.169);
mapping m processes in the n processes (process executable and process states in the process – See pages 355-357) to a first component (Multiplicity of reference in the role ProcessDesign-ToMachineDesignMapping.processDesigndFor each ProcessDesignToMachineDesignMapping – See page 230. The reference to function group states within the context of one process – See page 355-357. StateDependentStartupConfig of a Process is mapped to exactly one ResourceGroup dEach StateDependentStartupConfig of a Process shall be assigned to exactly one ResourceGroup that is defined in the Machine Manifest.c – See page 362. Mapping of AdaptivePlatformService Instance to a MachineDesign – See page 945), [[wherein m is an integer greater than 0 and less than or equal to n]], and the first component is associated with a first port (ServiceInterface [Meta-class ServiceInterface] inherits from PortInterface and allows for a heterogeneous aggregation of elements – See page 83); and
generating, based on a preconfigured association relationship (SwcServiceDependency – See Table D.120), an association relationship between each of m service instances corresponding to the m processes and the first port (port and service needs – See Table D.120, page 913. ServiceInstance and PortPrototype – See page 123. ARPackage.element, processDesign (different processes referering to a specific executable, PortPrototype executable instance – See Table 4.12, page 264).
Autosar does not disclose
wherein m is an integer greater than 0 and less than or equal to n.
Seo discloses
wherein m is an integer greater than 0 and less than or equal to (the process generator generate one process element for each executable element. Examiner respectfully notes that one process element is equal one process. Therefore, m = 1 process element which is = n (process).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Seo’s teaching into Autosar’s invention because incorporating Seo’s teaching would enhance Autosar to enable to configure an application dependency based on an interaction relationship between data as suggested by Seo (page 5).
Regarding claim 2, the configuration method according to claim 1,
Autosar discloses
wherein the preconfigured association relationship comprises:
reference information of a process, a port, and a service instance (the reference RootSwComponent-Prototype.applicationType. The aggregation of RootSwComponentPrototype by Executable is the basis for the applicability of an <<instanceRef>> reference into the hierarchy of software-components that represent the functionality of the Executable – See page 201); and
a correspondence between the process, the port, and the service instance (constructing the corresponding InstanceSpecifier that the PortPrototype will use at run-time – See page 257).
Regarding claim 3, the configuration method according to claim 1,
Autosar discloses
wherein, before the generating an association relationship between each of m service instances corresponding to the m processes and the first port (model elements like ServiceSwComponentType, Swc-ServiceDependency, ServiceNeeds, or PortInterface.isService have been created on the AUTOSAR classic platform – See page 24), the method further comprises:
generating the m service instances based on a preconfigured service instance (the description of AdaptivePlatformServiceInstances including the definition of E2E properties.– See page 35); and
configuring property information of each of the m service instances (the description of AdaptivePlatformServiceInstances including the definition of E2E properties.– See page 35. The SupervisedEntity instance is constructed using the InstanceSpecifier of the respective RPortPrototype– See page 141).
Seo also discloses
wherein, before the generating an association relationship between each of m service instances corresponding to the m processes and the first port (when the element is generated, the generator 104b may configure an application dependency based on an interaction relationship between data (e.g, a relationship between data provision and data use – See page 6), the method further comprises:
generating the m service instances based on a preconfigured service instance (creating an interactive provision and a requested based on a prototype element of a software component element type related to the element; and assigning an identifier to each of the provided and the requested – See page 3); and
configuring property information of each of the m service instances (generate a provided or a requested based on a prototype element of a software component element type related to an element. The creation unit 106b may assign identifiers (arbitrary values with guaranteed uniqueness) to the provided and the requested – See page 6).
Regarding claim 4, the configuration method according to claim 1,
Autosar discloses
wherein the mapping m processes in the n processes to a first component (composite service interface mapping – See page 109) comprises:
mapping the m processes to a first executable program, wherein a root component of the first exe is a first composite component (that a piece of application software on the AUTOSAR adaptive platform shall be represented by an SwComponentType. This includes the definition of CompositionSwComponentTypes that in turn aggregate SwComponentPrototypes typed by e.g. (in case of the AUTOSAR adaptive platform) AdaptiveApplicationSwComponentTypes – See page 22. The usage of an ApplicationAssocMapDataType is limited to the context of AdaptiveApplicationSwComponentTypes and CompositionSwComponent-Types defined in the context of an Executable – See page 47); and
creating a first sub-element of the first composite component, wherein a type of the first sub- element points to the first component (ApplicationAssocMapdatatype – See Fig. 3.2 and page 47).
Regarding claim 6, the configuration method according to claim 1,
Autosar discloses
wherein the comprise a first (referencing DDS Service Instances [Com-Grants associated with DdsProvidedServiceInstances – See page 474), the first (the serialization rules that are defined in AUTOSAR for SOME/IP and DDS are based on the defined types of the standard library – See pages 54 and page 210).
Regarding claim 7, the configuration method according to claim 3,
Autosar discloses
wherein the property information of each of the m service instances comprises one or more of identification information, transport plugin information, deployment information, quality of service configuration information, or end-to-end communication protection information of the service instance (RequiredSomeipServiceInstance related method call properties – See page 603. Definition of DdsProvidedServiceInstance. fieldNotifierQosProps dThe DdsProvidedServiceInstance.fieldNotifierQosProps configures the DDS entities associated with the field according to a QoS Profile specified with the qosProfile attribute – See page 614)
Regarding claim 8.
A configuration apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor; and
one or more memories coupled to the at least one processor and storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
Regarding claim 8, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 10, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 11, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 13, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 14, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 15.
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable medium stores program code, and when the program code is run on a computer, the computer is enabled to perform operations comprising:
Regarding claim 15, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 17, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 18, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 20, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 6 above.
8. Claim(s) 5, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Autosar and Seo as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 respectively above, and further in view of Kuriyamajunji et al. (WO 2021/059897 A1 – herein after Kuri).
Regarding claim 5, the configuration method according to claim 1,
Kuri discloses
wherein n is greater than or equal to 2 (at least two processes – See Abstract), and the n processes are receiver processes (the metamodel in at least one of the two processes and the metamodel in the other process are related by the derivation relationship and stored in the database – See page 15. The design procedure of top-down development in which the requirement definition 110, which is the highest process, is gradually detailed from the lower process to the lower process, but this design procedure is subdivided as the process progresses – See page 2).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Kuri’s teaching into Autosar’s and Seo’s inventions because incorporating Kuri’s teaching would enhance Autosar and Seo to enable to define a metamodel in any one process among the at least two processes as suggested as suggested by Kuri (Abstract)
Regarding claim 12, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 19, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 5 above.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moors (DE 102020123506 A1) discloses opening the block diagram comprising the first block in a model editor, reading out the referenced discovery object from the definition data collection, generating an application source code based at least on the first block, and generating a service discovery source code based at least on the referenced discovery – See Abstract.
Anburose et al. (US Patent No. 10,833,936 B1) discloses constructs, based on configuration data associated with a first network device and a second network device, respectively, a first partial service instance associated with a service executing on a first network device and a second partial service instance associated with the service executing on a second network device. The network management system merges the first partial service instance and a second partial service instance to form a merged partial service instance. The network management system promotes the merged partial service instance as a service instance – See Abstract and specification for more details.
Frye (US Patent No. 7,860,957 B1) discloses the network devices run instances of various services. If a particular network device becomes inaccessible, the system is capable of replacing the services instances running on the inaccessible network device by initiating new service instances on the remaining network devices. If a new network device becomes accessible, the network is capable of redistributing the currently running service instances to balance the workload by initiating service instances on the new network device and terminating service instances on existing network device – See Abstract and specification for more details.
Chrysant et al. (US Patent No. 8,122,427 B1) discloses DSS includes a runtime implementation for managing concurrent services--the Common Concurrency Runtime (CCR), a protocol for service interactions--the Web Services Application Protocol (WSAP), and a set of required service behaviors which provide for composibility, location independence, and fault tolerance--Distributed Protocol Oriented Programming (DPOP). DSS also includes a set of base level infrastructure services which make it easy to communicate, secure, distribute, debug, and store content across devices – See Abstract and specification for more details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONGBAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/MONGBAO NGUYEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights