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 .
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is -directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-5 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Part I. 2A-prong one (Identify the Abstract Ideas)
The Alice framework, step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
Independent claims 1, 4, and 5 are finding/detecting nodes that do not satisfy the conditional branch.
Under step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claimed invention in claims 1 and 18 are directed to non-statutory 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.
The above limitation falls within a computer aided mental process.
Part II. 2A-prong two (additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application)
Under step 2A-Prong two (part 1 of Mayo test), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea. Such as, “…display control unit…detection unit…processor…non-transitory computer readable medium”
The courts have recognized the following computer functions as a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) and as insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., "receiving, processing, storing, transmitting/notifying/displaying/presenting data" (MPEP 2106.05(d))
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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea with no significantly more elements.
As a result, Examiner asserts that claims 2-3 are similarly directed to the abstract idea. Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
Part III. Determine whether any Element, or Combination, Amounts to“Significantly More” than the Abstract Idea itself
The Alice framework, we turn to step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) to determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more" than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 do not include any limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, alone. Claims 1, 4, and 5 include various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include, “…display control unit…non-transitory computer readable medium…detection unit…processor…” these amounts to generic computing elements performing generic computing functions.
In addition, Fig. 1 & 3 of the Applicant’s specifications detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method (i.e., commercially available processors). Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea without adding significantly more. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Further, Examiner notes that the additional limitations, when considered as an ordered combination, add nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements individually.
Therefore, the dependent claims are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 based on a rationale similar to independent claims 1, 4, and 5. To Note: the limitations elements of claims 2-3, such as, acquisition unit and determination unit do not change the analysis’s outcome.
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: “detection unit” and “display control unit” in claims 1-3.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Mine, et. Al. (WO 2019186778), Hereinafter, Mine.
As per claim 1,
Mine teaches,
a detection unit, including one or more processors, configured to detect, from operation flow information that represents an operation procedure for apparatuses by a tree structure in which an operation content is a node, a node of a conditional branch in the operation procedure;
(Figs. 4 & 5 and corresponding text)
and display control unit, including one or more processors, configured to hide a branch node of branch nodes of the conditional branch node detected from the operation flow information, the branch node being for a case in which an apparatus to be operated does not satisfy a branch condition set for the conditional branch node.
(Figs. 6 & 8, with corresponding text; not the error is functioning as the not satisfied branch condition)
As per claim 2,
Mine teaches,
The operation support apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising an
acquisition unit, including one or more processors, configured to acquire a value related to determination on the conditional branch from configuration information of the apparatus to be operated,
(Fig. 8 with corresponding text)
wherein the detection unit, including one or more processors, configured to detect conditional branch nodes from the operation flow information by using the acquired value,
(Figs. 4 &5 with corresponding text)
the operation support apparatus further comprising a determination unit, including one or more processors, configured to determine, for each of the detected conditional branch nodes, whether the apparatus to be operated satisfies a branch condition set for the conditional branch node by using the acquired value,
(Figs. 6 & 8, with corresponding text; not the error is functioning as the not satisfied branch condition)
Wherein the display control unit, including one or more processors, configured to hide, by using a result of the determination, a branch node of the branch nodes, the branch node being for a case in which the apparatus to be operated does not satisfy the branch condition set for the conditional branch node
(Figs. 6 & 8, with corresponding text; not the error is functioning as the not satisfied branch condition)
As per claim 3.
Mine teaches
The operation support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the operation flow information is information describing the operation procedure for apparatuses by a problem analysis diagram (PAD)
(Fig. 10)
As per claims 4 & 5,
They disclose similar limitations to claim 1, however in varying form of a method and non-transitory computer readable form. The prior art discloses the same varying methods. Thus, the rejection of claims 4 & 5 are relayed based on claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZAHRA ELKASSABGI whose telephone number is (571)270-7943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 11:30 to 8:00.
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, Rob Wu can be reached at 571.272.6045. 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.
ZAHRA . ELKASSABGI
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623