DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/672647 filed on 05/23/2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
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.
Priority
As required bye M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on applications filed on 03/29/2022.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 05/23/2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter of software per se.
Regarding claim 10, the claim calls for a system; however, there is no hardware element found within the claimed system. As recited in the body of the claim, the claimed system contains “an information acquisition module”, “a first information representation module”, “a second information representation module”, “a set determination module”, and “a consistency determination module” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “an information acquisition module”, “a first information representation module”, “a second information representation module”, “a set determination module”, and “a consistency determination module” could be implemented in software, which is non-statutory subject matter. The nominal recitation of the system in the preamble with an absence of a hardware element in the body of the claim fails to make the claim statutory under 35 USC 101. See Am. Med. Sys., Inc v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010). See also Ex parte Cohen et al., (Appeal No. 2009-011366) for details. It is suggested that the claim be further amended to positively recite at least one hardware embodiment in the body of the claim to make the claim statutory under 35. U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1-10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter of abstract ideas.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites “A method for…”; the claim recites a series of steps and therefore is a process. Claim 11 recites “A system…” therefore the claim is a machine.
Step 2A Prong One: Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitations "establishing", and “performing a consistent adjustment …” These limitations are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a "”system”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, "acquiring", and “presenting” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper writing the changes down on a sheet of paper and examine the list to identify the relevant ones (rationale).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Step 2A Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements "acquiring"; this limitation amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); and "presenting"; this limitation is a mere generic presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g).
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements "acquiring” and “representing” The limitations amount to a data gathering step and a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations "acquiring” and “representing” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine , and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group Inc....
Regarding claim 2, under prong 2, the “wherein the system-level static information comprises a system name primitive and a system task name primitive; the system-task-level static information comprises the system task name primitive and a software function module name primitive; and the system-task-level dynamic data flow comprises the system task name primitive, a software name primitive and the software function module name primitive” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 3, the multiple steps “placing …” are an additional metal process under prong 1.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “placing” is an additional metal process under prong 1. Under prong 2, the “representing” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 5, under prong 2, the “wherein an order of the system task name primitive, the software name primitive, and the software function module name primitive is consistent with an execution order of the system; and when a software or a software function module is in chronological juxtaposition, the arrowed transverse straight line connecting the software or the software function module is indicated by a dashed line” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Regarding claim 6, the multiple limitation “establishing” is an additional metal process under prong 1.
Regarding claim 7, the multiple limitation “performing a constancy adjustment” and “determining a weight …” are an additional metal process under prong 1.
Regarding claim 8, the multiple limitation “determining” is an additional metal process under prong 1.
Regarding claim 9, under prong 2, the “wherein when Z>1, the first software function modules in the static set or the second software function modules in the dynamic set are adjusted until Z≤1; and when Z<1, the first software function modules in the static set or the second software function modules in the dynamic set are adjusted until Z=1” limitations are additional elements that recite insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to a practical application, nor amount to significantly more under step 2B as explained above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is cited to establish the level of skill in the applicant’s art and those arts considered reasonably pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP 707.05(c).
Prior arts:
US 2016/0116894 to Brennan
Control system designers have long used cause-and-effect diagrams in defining and documenting the desired operation of a control system, even prior to the advent of programmable controllers. Early cause-and-effect diagrams were typically drawn on paper as a visual tool to assist the system designer in creating a control system that was then implemented in electrical circuitry, computer hardware and/or software having a desired set of operational control characteristics.
US 20130185114 to Sadri
the experts can utilize other tools or procedures such as a fishbone diagram shown in FIG. 5. In the fishbone diagram, the separate FMEAs are lined up for potential contribution to master FMEA 32. For example, a design FMEA (or DFMEA) for a System #1 has failure modes FM1, FM2, and FM3 that may potentially address a product performance shortcoming as contributed by an expert familiar with System #1.
US 2009/0099887 to Sklar
[0332] A Cause-and-Effect Diagram helped illustrate the root causes of high water use. [0333] A Critical-to-Sustainability Tree was developed to identify the design and operational aspects of the water saver systems that were most important to sustaining the gains.
US 2006/0241957 to Boswel
the Ishikawa diagram has six cause branches, environment 410, methods 420, people 450, measure 470, machine 480 and materials 490. The environment branch 410 has four root causes, namely power 412 (typically lack of "clean" power, or insufficient voltage or current), complexity 414 (typically references the system/solution configuration
US 2020/0226401 to Rajagopal
the fishbone generator model may generate a causal diagram that shows causes for the defects in the portion of the top defect class. A defect may be represented as a head of a fish, facing to the right, in the diagram, with causes of the defect extending to the left as fishbones, ribs branching off a backbone of the fish for major causes and sub-branches for root-causes, to as many levels as required.
US 2020/0241949 to Basu
The cause-tree/fishbone diagram creation and managing unit 208c is also configured to facilitate simultaneous updating of the cause-tree or the fishbone diagram by at least two users of the plurality of users as per the concurrency control model provided for the cause-tree or the fishbone diagram.
US 2022/0332324 to Ucar
(3) constructing one or more cause-and-effect diagrams based at least in part on the on the analysis of step 2; (4) analyzing the cause-and-effect diagrams to determine the origin of the abnormal driving behavior diagram; and (5) outputting origin data describing the origin of the abnormal driving behavior.
US 2023/0315408 to Kawanoue
development program 226 for creation of a user program (source code) run in information processing apparatus 200, debugging of the created user program, and setting of system architecture definitions and parameters, analysis program 228 that enables an analyzing process described later, and cause-and-effect model tool program 230 for exhibition of analysis results.
The prior art of record does not disclose and/or fairly suggest at least claimed limitations recited in such manners in independent claim 1 "... based on fishbone diagram analysis, representing the system-level static information as a system static composite structure diagram, and representing the system-task-level static information as a system task composite structure diagram corresponding to each system task in the system static composite structure diagram; based on the fishbone diagram analysis, representing the system-task-level dynamic data flow as a system function point dynamic data flow diagram; based on the system task composite structure diagram, establishing a static set of first software function modules of a system; and based on the system function point dynamic data flow diagram, establishing a dynamic set of second software function modules of the system; and performing a consistency adjustment between the first software function modules in the static set and the second software function modules in the dynamic set to make the first software function modules in the static set consistent with the second software function modules in the dynamic set” and similarly recited in such manners in other independent claim 10.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to examiner Tuan Dao, whose telephone/fax numbers are (571) 270 3387 and (571) 270 4387, respectively. The examiner can normally be reached on every Monday-Thursday, and the second Friday of the bi-week from 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at (571) 272 4215.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature of relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272 2100.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TUAN C DAO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights