DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgments
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the application as well as the preliminary amendment both filed on 03/04/2024.
Claims 11-20 have been added.
Claims 1-10 have been canceled.
Claims 11-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Step 1:
The claims recite a process, system, apparatus, article of manufacture, and/or a nontransitory storage medium with instructions, each of which are proper statutory categories.
Step 2A (prong 1):
Claim 11 (representative of claims 19 and 20):
The claim limitations are grouped as shown immediately following:
a broker unit configured to provide a message bus configured for serialized publish/subscribe topic-based communication between any of the number of control apps, the plurality of units, and the technical system; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
in response to a new instance of the broker unit being executed on the embedded control device in addition to an old instance of the broker unit, publish an update topic on the message bus; (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
cause a handover of control from the old instance to the new instance of the broker unit substantially without interrupting an operation of the broker unit or requiring a temporary shutdown of the control device by transmitting a switch command in an update topic on the message bus. (Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity - business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions)
Additional dependent claims 12-18 do not appear to remedy the deficiency.
Step 2A (prong 2):
Claim 11 (representative of claims 19 and 20):
An embedded control device configured to concurrently execute a number of control apps for controlling a technical system, the embedded control device comprising:
…a plurality of units including:
…an updater unit configured to:
…a technical system,
… a message bus enabling
…a non-transitory computer program product
These remaining claim limitations are delineated as shown immediately preceding. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. There are no improvements to the functioning of a computer, other technology or technical field, a particular machine is not cited, nothing is transformed into a different state or thing, the abstract idea is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. The claim merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is generally linked to a particular field of use, in this case, marketing and advertising. Thus, these limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and memory performing a generic computer function of processing and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component – MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, receiving data, evaluating data and distributing data are data gathering and data outputting, which has no effect on technology and does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B:
The claim limitations do not provide an Inventive Concept. The claim limitations do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more that the abstract idea because the additional elements of the system comprising a computer processor, computer readable storage medium with instructions, and a memory configured to store information, each recited at a high level of generality in a computer network which only perform the universal computer functions of accessing, receiving, storing, and processing data, transmitting and presenting information. Taking the elements both individually and as an ordered combination, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely orthodox. Using a computer to obtain and display data are some of the most basic functions of a computer. As shown, the individual limitations claimed are some of the most rudimentary functions of a computer. The technical solution described in this invention does not alter hardware structure or its routine, does not transform the character of the information being processed, does not identify a novel source or type of data, does not advance the functionality of a computer as a tool, and does not incorporate specific rules enabling the computer to accomplish innovative utilities. In summary, the individual step and/or component does no more than require a general computer to perform standard computer functions. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer devices amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component - requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
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 of this title, 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 11-20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffner et al. (USPGP 2018/0167476 A1) hereinafter HOFFNER, in view of Wang et al. (USPGP 2014/0025736 A1), hereinafter WANG.
Claims 11, 19, 20:
HOFFNER as shown below discloses the following limitations:
An embedded control device configured to concurrently execute a number of control apps for controlling a technical system, the embedded control device comprising: (see at least paragraphs 0006, 0030, 0193, 0219)
a plurality of units including: a broker unit configured to provide a message bus enabling serialized publish/subscribe topic-based communication between any of the number of control apps, the plurality of units, and the technical system; (see at least paragraphs 0130, 0134, 0137)
an updater unit configured to: in response to a new instance of the broker unit being executed on the embedded control device in addition to an old instance of the broker unit, publish an update topic on the message bus; (see at least paragraphs 0133, 0137, 0143)
HOFFNER does not necessarily disclose:
cause a handover of control from the old instance to the new instance of the broker unit substantially without interrupting an operation of the broker unit or requiring a temporary shutdown of the control device by transmitting a switch command in an update topic on the message bus.
WANG, however, in at least paragraph 0098 does. In this case, each of the elements claimed are all shown by the prior art of record but not specifically combined as claimed. However, the technical ability exists to combine the elements as claimed and the results of the combination are predictable. Therefore, when combined, the elements perform the same function as they did separately. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to combine/modify the method of HOFFNER with the technique of WANG because there is a recognized problem or need in the art including market pressure, design need, etc., and there are a finite number of identified predictable solutions. Accordingly, those in the art could have pursued known solutions with reasonable expectation of success. (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007)). Fundamentally, in the competitive business climate, there is a profit-driven motive to maximize the profitability of goods and services that are provided or marketed to customers. Enterprises typically use business planning to make decisions in order to maximize profits.
Claims 12-15:
The combination of HOFFNER/WANG discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. HOFFNER further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the old instance of the broker unit is configured, in response to receiving a prepare message in the update topic, to send a set of broker state entries to the new instance of the broker unit over the message bus.
wherein the old instance of the broker unit is configured, in response to receiving the prepare message:
to interrupt a registration of new publish or subscribe requests from the control apps during a hold-back time duration;
to store each publish and/or subscribe request from the control apps that has been received during the hold-back time duration.
wherein the old instance of the broker unit is configured, in response to receiving the switch command, to hand over a responsibility for a message queue for messages received from the control apps over the message bus to the new instance of the broker unit.
wherein the old instance of the broker unit is configured, after handing over the responsibility for the message queue to the new instance of the broker unit, to send the stored publish and/or subscribe requests to the new instance of the broker unit over the message bus.
See at least paragraphs 0046-0048, 0106, 0133, 0137, 0140, and 0143.
Claims 16-18:
The combination of HOFFNER/WANG discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. HOFFNER further discloses the following limitations:
configured to containerize the number of control apps and the plurality of units, to render the message bus an only means of communication available between the number of control apps and the plurality of units.
wherein said updater unit and said broker unit are implemented as respective apps of the number of apps executed on the embedded control device.
wherein said plurality of units further comprise an app installer unit configured to load the new instance of the broker unit onto the embedded control device.
See at least paragraphs 0046-0048, 0106, 0133, 0137, 0140, and 0143.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Non-Patent Literature:
Embedded.com. “Getting started with publish-subscribe messaging systems.” (Dec 11, 2017). Retrieved online 05/08/2026. Embedded - Getting started with publish-subscribe messaging systems
Relevancy: “Publish-subscribe is a messaging facility. It describes a particular form of communication between software modules or components. The name is chosen to reflect the most significant characteristics of this communication paradigm. In simple communications, software modules communicate directly with each other using structures and media that are understood by all parties. As the communications needs have become more complex or demanding, other communications architectures have evolved. Publish-subscribe is one of these and only one of many.” (Abstract/Introduction)
Foreign Art:
MILLER PETER GREGG et al. “EFFICIENTLY ADDING CAPABILITIES ACROSS MULTIPLE BRIDGED MESSAGE BROKERS.” (WO 2023/200510 A1)
Relevancy: “Methods, systems, apparatuses, and computer-readable storage mediums are described for bridging brokers of messages from Internet of Things (IoT) devices. In an example system, a first message broker receives a message and an associated topic from an IoT device. A bridging coordinator accesses a topic-to-broker map that indicates, for a second broker, a list of topic filters for which the second message broker has at least one subscriber. The bridging coordinator determines whether the list of topics includes the associated topic. In response to a determination that the list of topic filters in the topic-to-broker map includes the associated topic, the bridging coordinator forward the message to the second message broker. In response to a determination that the list of topic filters does not include the associated topic, the bridging coordinator prevents forwarding of the message to the second message broker.” (Abstract/Introduction)
Applicant’s amendment filed on 03/04/2024 necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to James A. Reagan (james.reagan@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is 571.272.6710. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9 AM to 5 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Hayes, can be reached at 571.272.6708.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
PO Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/JAMES A REAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3697
james.reagan@uspto.gov
571.272.6710 (Office)
571.273.6710 (Desktop Fax)
Prosecution Insights