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 Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 08/02/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 7 and 14 are independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claims 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding the claim limitation of claim 7 such as “execute one or more commands specified the current state of the device object in the device object definition”, it’s not clear to the examiner whether it means the commands being executed is specified with the current state of the device object or the commands are specifying the current state of the device object or the commands are being specified (defined) by the current state of the device object.
The specification describes such subject matter in Par 11, “when the current state of the device object corresponding to that device object definition is the same as a state specified in that device object definition, execute one or more operations specified for that command”
However, for the purpose of the examination, the examiner interprets it as “execute one or more commands specified by the current state of the device object” with BRI in light of the specification.
Thus, Claims 8-13 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. 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 independent claims 1, 7 and 14 are corresponding to one of four statutory categories including method, system, and method respectively under step 1.
The claim 1 recites “a system comprising a computer to perform acts comprising: determining whether an application command should be executed; and based on determining that the application command should be executed, adding a globally unique identifier corresponding to that application command to that application command to a log”.
The claim 7 recites “a method comprising: track a current state of a device object corresponding to a device object definition; and when the current state of the device object is the same as a state specified in the device object definition, execute one or more commands specified the current state of the device object in the device object definition.”.
The claim 14 recites “a system comprising a computer to: track a current state of a device object corresponding to a device object definition, wherein the device object definition specifies a state corresponding to an application command; based on determining that the application command should be executed: update a current state of the device object to the state corresponding to the application command; and add a globally unique identifier corresponding to the application command to a log; determine that the current state of the device object is the state corresponding to the application command; and based on determining that the current state of the device object is the same as the state corresponding to the application command, execute one or more commands specified for the current state in the device object definition”.
The limitation of the claim 1 of “determining whether an application command should be executed” as drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “determining”. For example, a human may determine whether an application command should be executed with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
The limitation of the claim 1 of “based on determining that the application command should be executed, adding a globally unique identifier corresponding to that application command to that application command to a log” as drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “adding”. For example, a human may add a globally unique identifier corresponding to that application command to that application command to a log based on determining that the application command should be executed with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
The limitation of the claim 7 of “track a current state of a device object corresponding to a device object definition” as drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “tracking”. For example, a human may track a current state of a device object corresponding to a device object definition with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 7 recites additional elements such as “when the current state of the device object is the same as a state specified in the device object definition, execute one or more commands specified the current state of the device object in the device object definition”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claim 14 of “track a current state of a device object corresponding to a device object definition, wherein the device object definition specifies a state corresponding to an application command” as drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “tracking”. For example, a human may track a current state of a device object corresponding to a device object definition, wherein the device object definition specifies a state corresponding to an application command with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
The limitation of the claim 14 of “based on determining that the application command should be executed: update a current state of the device object to the state corresponding to the application command” as drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “updating (changing) state”. For example, a human may update a current state of the device object to the state corresponding to the application command based on determining that the application command should be executed with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
The limitation of the claim 14 of “add a globally unique identifier corresponding to the application command to a log” as drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “adding”. For example, a human may add a globally unique identifier corresponding to the application command to a log with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
The limitation of the claim 14 of “determine that the current state of the device object is the state corresponding to the application command” as drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “determining”. For example, a human may determine that the current state of the device object is the state corresponding to the application command with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 14 recites additional elements such as “based on determining that the current state of the device object is the same as the state corresponding to the application command, execute one or more commands specified for the current state in the device object definition”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claims 2 and 15 of “prior to determining that the application command should be executed, determining whether a conversion has been defined between a device operation and the application command” as drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “determining”. For example, a human may determine whether a conversion has been defined between a device operation and the application command prior to determining that the application command should be executed with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 2 and 15 recite additional elements such as “in the event that the conversion between the device operation and the application command has not been defined, generating an error message”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data outputting under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 3 and 16 recite additional elements such as “data indicating a conversion between the application command and a device operation; a device module definition which defines a device module object to execute the application command and which also defines a conversion between the application command and the device operation”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 4 and 17 recite additional elements such as “receive a run command to run a script which comprises the device operation; in response to receiving the run command”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claims 4 and 17 of “confirm that the conversion between the device operation and the application command has been defined” as drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “confirming”. For example, a human may confirm that the conversion between the device operation and the application command has been defined with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
The limitation of the claims 4 and 17 of “confirm that the device operation with any associated parameters is executable by the device module” as drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “confirming”. For example, a human may confirm that the device operation with any associated parameters is executable by the device module with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 5 recites additional elements such as “indicating one or more inputs to provide to a corresponding device when performing a device operation to which the application command corresponds”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
The limitation of the claim 5 of “determining whether the application command should be executed” as drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “determining”. For example, a human may determine whether the application command should be executed with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
The limitation of the claim 5 of “enqueueing the application command in a queue corresponding to a device corresponding to the device operation, which device is referred to herein as the application command’s corresponding device” as drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “enqueueing”. For example, a human may enqueue the application command in a queue corresponding to a device corresponding to the device operation, which device is referred to herein as the application command’s corresponding device with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
The limitation of the claim 5 of “checking a state corresponding to a thread corresponding to the application command’s corresponding device” as drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “checking”. For example, a human may check a state corresponding to a thread corresponding to the application command’s corresponding device with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 6 recites additional elements such as “one or more inputs to provide to a corresponding device when performing a device operation to which the application command corresponds”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 6 recites additional elements such as “receiving an instruction to control the device corresponding to the application command’s corresponding device operation via a graphical user interface.”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 7 recites additional elements such as “the device object definition specifies a set of operations to execute while the device object is in an idle state”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 9 recites additional elements such as “the device object definition is a temperature controller device object definition; and the set of operations the device object definition specifies to execute while the device object is in the idle state comprises checking a temperature”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 10 and 20 recite additional elements such as “all loops comprised by the device object definition have a deterministic end”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 11 recites additional elements such as “the device object definition inherits from a module class definition which defines state machines comprising command queues and having states comprising: an idle state; a stop state; a shutdown state; and a bootup state”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 12 and 18 recite additional elements such as “the device object definition: corresponds to a physical device; and is comprised by an intermediate module definition”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 12 and 18 recite additional elements such as “obtaining a module manager definition which comprises instructions to control the physical device corresponding to the device object definition by performing acts”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data gathering under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 12 and 18 recite additional elements such as “instantiating a command object”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 12 and 18 recite additional elements such as “passing the command object to an intermediate module defined by the intermediate module definition the command object is defined by a command object definition”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 12 and 18 recite additional elements such as “both the command object definition and the device object definition inherit from a base object definition”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to field of use under MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological Environment, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 2 and 2B.
The limitation of the claims 13 and 19 of “generate a unique identifier for that object” as drafted is a mental process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind such as “generating”. For example, a human may generate a unique identifier for that object with a pen and paper or in a human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong I.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 13 and 19 recite additional elements such as “whenever an object defined by a definition that inherits from the base object definition is instantiated”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to apply it under MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 13 and 19 recite additional elements such as “store the unique identifier in that object as private data”.
Examiner would like to point out that with the broad reasonable interpretation, this element amounts to mere data storing under MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity, which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the mental process (insignificant additional element). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to insignificant additional elements under Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-13 and 15-20 are also similar rejected under same rationale as cited above wherein these claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. These claims are merely further elaborate the mental process itself or providing additional definition of process which does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 2-6, 8-13 and 15-20 are also rejected for incorporating the deficiency of their independent claims 1, 7 and 14 respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 7, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
8. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shiratori (US PGPub 20030001737).
As per Claim 7, Shiratori teaches of a method comprising: track a current state of a device object corresponding to a device object definition; (Par 46, A contact state monitoring module 40 of the monitoring software 4 periodically checks states of the contact input device 22, and previously defines a alarm content for a state of each contact. Par 47, FIG. 10 shows an example of definition for the contact numbers of the contact input device 22 and for the contents of the alarm processes.)
and when the current state of the device object is the same as a state specified in the device object definition, execute one or more commands specified the current state of the device object in the device object definition. (Claim 9 and Par 48, When the monitoring device 211 detects an abnormality, the contact of the monitoring device 211 closes (turns on), and simultaneously the contact 1 of the contact input device 22 closes. The alarm software 4 detects such a state that the contact 1 of the contact input device 22 has turned on, and thereby a alarm process is done according to the alarm definition (in FIG. 10, alarm to the group ID: 1000) for the contact 1. Likewise, when the monitoring device 212 detects an abnormality, a alarm process is done according to the alarm definition for the contact 2, and when the monitoring device 213 detects an abnormality, a alarm process is done according to the alarm definition for the contact 3. As described above, these respective monitoring devices are connected to the different contacts of the contact input device 22, and are provided with different alarm contents previously defined by the alarm software 4, to carry out different alarm processes. Par 30, The monitoring tool 2 may operate on a computer connecting to the computer 3 via a network, or on the computer 3 which contains the alarm software 4. In the monitoring tool 2, an executing command for an abnormal event is previously defined. A alarm command of the alarm software 4 is automatically executed as the defined executing command when an abnormal event occurs.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
11. 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.
12. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiratori (US PGPub 20030001737), in view of Sagar (US PGPub 20180095517).
As per Claim 8, Shiratori does not specifically teach, however Sagar teaches of the method of claim 7, wherein the device object definition specifies a set of operations to execute while the device object is in an idle state. (Par 27, FIG. 2 illustrates an example state diagram 200 for the computing device 100 implementing the forced idle state for device components. Par 27, In the none state 202, the computing device 100 has not yet determined to begin the process of forcing a device component into the forced idle state. In the forced idle state 210, the processor 102 is in the forced idle state. In the forced idle state 210 various actions are taken to reduce power consumption by the device component, such as ceasing execution of program instructions, duty cycling the device component, changing the performance level of the device component, and so forth.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to add executing while the device object is in an idle state, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Sagar, into that of Shiratori because this modification can help guard against invalid operations such as error for safety and validation while optimizing resource utilization.
As per Claim 9, Shiratori does not specifically teach, however Sagar teaches of the method of claim 8, wherein: the device object definition is a temperature controller device object definition; and the set of operations the device object definition specifies to execute while the device object is in the idle state comprises checking a temperature. (Par 31, By way of another example, this determination to begin the process of forcing the device component into the forced idle state can be made in response to a thermal warning in the computing device 100. For example, a temperature sensor in the computing device 100 can indicate that the temperature of the computing device 100 exceeds a threshold temperature (e.g., 60 degrees Celsius), and make the determination to begin the process of forcing the device component into the forced idle state to reduce power consumption and stabilize the temperature of the computing device 100.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to add executing while the device object is in the idle state comprises checking a temperature, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Sagar, into that of Shiratori because this modification can help guard against invalid operations such as error for safety and validation while optimizing resource utilization.
13. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiratori (US PGPub 20030001737), in view of Cartaya (US PGPub 20180083828).
As per Claim 10, Shiratori does not specifically teach, however Cartaya teaches of the method of claim 7, wherein all loops comprised by the device object definition have a deterministic end. (Par 102, FIGS. 5A-5F depict illustrative embodiments of Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs), or shuttles, that can be used to implement the FSMs at the virtual device or the selected communication devices for orchestrations of the combinatorial services via the selected communication devices. This requirement can lead to two important consequences: [0103] The process can be described by graphs where nodes represent the steps that must be taken and edges that indicate the necessary precedence between the steps. These are called directed graphs. [0104] An orchestration's graph may contains no loops, which can make execution deterministic (i.e., it ends after completing at most N steps) as opposed to a general program. Directed graphs with no loops are called Directed Acyclic Graphs or DAGs.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to add all loops comprised by the device object definition have a deterministic end, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Cartaya, into that of Shiratori because this modification can help guard against invalid operations such as error for safety and validation while optimizing resource utilization.
14. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shiratori (US PGPub 20030001737), in view of Belov (US PGPub 20210165672), and further in view of Meng (CN 107817771 A).
As per Claim 11, Shiratori does not specifically teach, however Belov teaches of the method of claim 7, wherein: the device object definition inherits from a module class definition which defines state machines comprising (Par 37, According to another aspect of the subject matter described herein, one application definition can inherit a definition from another application state machine definition. Since each application state machine definition is composed of transition tables and/or maps (represented by in the examples above), emulated applications can be extended by referring to base transition tables and defining differences existing in the base transition tables in terms of i) adding new transitions to the base tables, ii) deleting transitions from the base tables, and/or iii) modifying transitions in the base tables. Notably, the application definition may define a plurality of actors (e.g., one or more server actors and client actors) that are involved with the execution of an application.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to add the device object definition inherits from a module class definition which defines state machines, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Belov, into that of Shiratori because this modification can help guard against invalid operations such as error for safety and validation while optimizing resource utilization.
Neither Shiratori nor Belov specifically teaches, however Meng teaches of command queues and having states comprising: an idle state; a stop state; a shutdown state; and a bootup state. (On page 19 The workshop energy consumption mainly comprises two parts of machine tool energy consumption and public energy consumption, and the machine tool energy consumption mainly comprises processing energy consumption and idle waiting energy consumption. The machine tool can be divided into states of shutdown, startup, standby, idle running, machining, shutdown and the like according to the machining state, wherein the startup and shutdown are instantaneous states, and only 5 states of shutdown, startup, shutdown, standby and machining of the machine tool are considered because the energy consumption of the whole workshop is researched.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to add command queues and having states comprising: an idle state; a stop state; a shutdown state; and a bootup state, as conceptually seen from the teaching of Meng, into that of Shiratori and Belov because this modification can help guard against invalid operations such as error for safety and validation while optimizing resource utilization.
Reasons for Allowance
1. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior-art, Burk (US PGPub 20220329437), in view of Chaganti (US Patent 11095730), and further in view of Lu (US PGPub 20210357718) failed to disclose of a system comprising a computer to perform acts comprising: determining whether an application command should be executed; and based on determining that the application command should be executed, adding a globally unique identifier corresponding to that application command to that application command to a log, as recited by the independent claim 1.
Regarding the claim 1, the prior-art, Burk, Chaganti and Lu teaches of a system comprising a computer to perform acts comprising: determining whether an application command should be executed; and adding a globally unique identifier corresponding to that application command to that application command to a log.
The prior-art, Shiratori (US PGPub 20030001737), in view of Sagar (US PGPub 20180095517), and further in view of Burk (US PGPub 20220329437) failed to disclose of a system comprising a computer to: track a current state of a device object corresponding to a device object definition, wherein the device object definition specifies a state corresponding to an application command; based on determining that the application command should be executed: update a current state of the device object to the state corresponding to the application command; and add a globally unique identifier corresponding to the application command to a log; determine that the current state of the device object is the state corresponding to the application command; and based on determining that the current state of the device object is the same as the state corresponding to the application command, execute one or more commands specified for the current state in the device object definition, as recited by the independent claim 14.
Regarding the claim 14, the prior-art, Shiratori, Sagar and Burk teaches of a system comprising a computer to: track a current state of a device object corresponding to a device object definition, wherein the device object definition specifies a state corresponding to an application command; determine that the current state of the device object is the state corresponding to the application command and execute one or more commands specified for the current state in the device object definition.
Individually, Burk teaches in one embodiment, the vTEE may be assigned a globally unique identifier (GUID). In this embodiment, the container may be built by identifying this GUID. For example, the GUID may be included in a command in a Dockerfile (or similar file) [globally unique identifier is added to the command] used to build the image. Alternatively, the GUID may be stored as a tag in a manifest [log] of the software container.
Chaganti teaches that In some embodiments of block 512 and in response to the target computing device type qualifier identifying server computing devices, the management controller device 304 in the server computing device 206/302 may access the command block and evaluate the command block to determine whether the execution of the command block should retrieve the identity information for the server computing device 206/302 directly, or via a “proxy” (e.g., the management service sub-engine 306a) from the operating system provided by the operating system engine 306.
Lu teaches that the selecting response includes an application selected successfully response and an application selected unsuccessfully response; specifically, the IC card determines whether application corresponding to the application identifier in the selecting application command permits to be executed after receiving the selecting application command sent from the terminal, if yes, returns the application selected successfully response including the file control information to the terminal, the file control information includes a processing option data object list, and the IC card requests terminal data from the terminal via the processing option data object list; otherwise, returns the application selected unsuccessfully response to the terminal.
However, the prior-art, Burk, Chaganti, Lu, Shiratori and Sagar failed to disclose the following subject matter such as “based on determining that the application command should be executed, adding a globally unique identifier corresponding to that application command to that application command to a log” for claim 1 and “based on determining that the application command should be executed: update a current state of the device object to the state corresponding to the application command; and add a globally unique identifier corresponding to the application command to a log” for claim 14.
Therefore, the prior-art, Burk, Chaganti, Lu, Shiratori and Sagar failed to teach the system of claim 1 and the system of claim 14. Thus, claims 1-6 and 14-20 contain allowable subject matter.
2. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
The Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rising (US PGPub 20020095438): Rising teaches that as the result, the decoder will have more flexibility to schedule the execution of these commands. If the group of commands are tagged to be executed sequentially, then the order of execution matters. Thus, execution of one command depends on the execution of a prior command. Therefore, in order to synchronize the execution of the group of commands in a set, a parallel or sequential tag is included identifying whether this group of commands should be executed in parallel or in sequence.
Srivastava (US Patent 8561193): Srivastava teaches of a globally unique identifier (e.g., a string used as a unique identifier for an object or resource, such as a class in a DLL, a database entry, etc.), a class identifier (e.g., a "CLSID" that identifies a component object model class), a string in a resource section (e.g., a resource section of a PORTABLE EXECUTABLE file), a batch file command (e.g., a script command to be executable by a command interpreter of an operating system), a packer-specific string (e.g., a string left by software for compressing a self-extracting executable file), a compiler-specific string (e.g., a string left by a compiler used for the malware), an installer-specific string, a package-specific string, version information, and/or a digital signature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE UK JEON whose telephone number is (571)270-3649. The examiner can normally be reached 10am-6pm. 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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/JAE U JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights