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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “[a] computer-implemented method of identifying that a fault has occurred in a finite-state machine (FSM), the method comprising: determining whether a set of one or more transitions that have occurred between states of the FSM is allowable; and in response to determining that the set of one or more transitions is not allowable, identifying that a fault has occurred in the FSM.”
The limitation of “determining whether a set of one or more transitions that have occurred between states of the FSM is allowable,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “in response to determining that the set of one or more transitions is not allowable, identifying that a fault has occurred in the FSM,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein said determining is performed in dependence on a data record comprising at least one predefined set of one or more transitions.”
The limitation of “wherein said determining is performed in dependence on a data record comprising at least one predefined set of one or more transitions,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites “[t]he method of claim 2, wherein said determining comprises: comparing the set of one or more transitions that have occurred between states of the FSM with the data record comprising the at least one predefined set of one or more transitions; and determining that the set of one or more transitions is not allowable in response to said comparison.”
The limitation of “comparing the set of one or more transitions that have occurred between states of the FSM with the data record comprising the at least one predefined set of one or more transitions,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “determining that the set of one or more transitions is not allowable in response to said comparison,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites “[t]he method of claim 2, wherein a first group comprises predefined allowable sets of one or more transitions between states of the FSM, and a second group comprises predefined unallowable sets of one or more transitions between states of the FSM, and the data record comprises the sets of the group comprising the fewest predefined sets out of the first and second groups.”
The limitation of “wherein a first group comprises predefined allowable sets of one or more transitions between states of the FSM, and a second group comprises predefined unallowable sets of one or more transitions between states of the FSM, and the data record comprises the sets of the group comprising the fewest predefined sets out of the first and second groups,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites “[t]he method of claim 2, wherein the number of transitions in the set of one or more transitions that have occurred is equal to the number of transitions in one of the at least one predefined set of one or more transitions in the data record.”
The limitation of “wherein the number of transitions in the set of one or more transitions that have occurred is equal to the number of transitions in one of the at least one predefined set of one or more transitions in the data record,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites “[t]he method of claim 1, further comprising recording the set of one or more transitions that have occurred between states of the FSM in a transition history.”
The limitation of “the method of claim 1,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim recites “recording the set of one or more transitions that have occurred between states of the FSM in a transition history.” Extra-Solution Activity.
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. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites “[t]he method of claim 6, wherein said determining is performed in dependence on the transition history.”
The limitation of “determining is performed in dependence on the transition history,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites “[t]he method of claim 6, wherein the transition history is configured to record up to a maximum number of transitions.”
The limitation of “the method of claim 6,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The claim recites “the transition history is configured to record up to a maximum number of transitions.” Extra-Solution Activity.
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. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites “[t]he method of claim 8, wherein the number of transitions in the set of one or more transitions that have occurred does not exceed the maximum number.”
The limitation of “wherein the number of transitions in the set of one or more transitions that have occurred does not exceed the maximum number,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites “[t]he method of claim 8, wherein said determining is performed in dependence on a data record comprising at least one predefined set of one or more transitions and the maximum number of transitions is determined based on the at least one predefined set of one or more transitions in the data record.”
The limitation of “wherein said determining is performed in dependence on a data record comprising at least one predefined set of one or more transitions and the maximum number of transitions is determined based on the at least one predefined set of one or more transitions in the data record,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites “[t]he method of claim 2, wherein said determining is performed in response to detecting that the number of transitions that have occurred is equal to the number of transitions in one of the at least one predefined set of one or more transitions in the data record.”
The limitation of “wherein said determining is performed in response to detecting that the number of transitions that have occurred is equal to the number of transitions in one of the at least one predefined set of one or more transitions in the data record,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites “[t]he method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed while the FSM is active and responding to input data.”
The limitation of “wherein the method is performed while the FSM is active and responding to input data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites “[t]he method of claim 1, further comprising, in response to identifying that a fault has occurred in the FSM: replaying the FSM from a first state corresponding to a first transition in the set of one or more transitions that have occurred; and in response to determining that the same set of one or more transitions has occurred between states of the FSM, determining that the fault that has occurred is a stuck-at-fault.”
The limitation of “in response to identifying that a fault has occurred in the FSM: replaying the FSM from a first state corresponding to a first transition in the set of one or more transitions that have occurred; and in response to determining that the same set of one or more transitions has occurred between states of the FSM, determining that the fault that has occurred is a stuck-at-fault,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “in response to determining that the same set of one or more transitions has occurred between states of the FSM, determining that the fault that has occurred is a stuck-at-fault,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” language, “determining… [and] identifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper determining and identifying data. 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.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, “computer,” “processing module,” “memory,” and “circuit” to enact determining and identifying. The computer in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer to enact the determining and identifying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 14-16 and 17-19 are rejected based on similar rationale given to claims 1-3 and 5-7.
Claim 20 is rejected based on similar rationale given to claim 1.
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)(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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boschi et al. US 2021/0311832 (hereinafter “Boschi”).
Regarding claim 1, Boschi teaches: A computer-implemented method of identifying that a fault has occurred in a finite-state machine (FSM), the method comprising: determining whether a set of one or more transitions that have occurred between states of the FSM is allowable; and [FIG. 8 and 0063: “a method of fault detection… if the first encoded value is the same as the second encoded value, operate according to a first operational mode; and if the first encoded value is different from the second encoded value, operate according to a second operational mode.”]
in response to determining that the set of one or more transitions is not allowable, identifying that a fault has occurred in the FSM. [0037: “In a first configuration of the first operational mode and the second operational mode, the first operational mode may generally be understood as a lack of sending an error message. That is, in the first configuration of the first operational mode, identical encoded value from the compute encoding circuit 212 and the stored encoding register 218 may not require the comparator 215 and/or the register fault detector 202 to send any signal representing an affirmative notification that no fault was detected. According to this first configuration of the first operational mode, the fault detector may send no signal when the encoded values are identical, and only when the encoded values are not identical will the comparator 215 and/or the register fault detector 202 send a signal representing an error or detected fault (e.g. in the second operational mode)”]
Regarding claim 2: The method of claim 1, wherein said determining is performed in dependence on a data record comprising at least one predefined set of one or more transitions. [FIG. 8 and 0063: “a method of fault detection… if the first encoded value is the same as the second encoded value, operate according to a first operational mode; and if the first encoded value is different from the second encoded value, operate according to a second operational mode.”]
Regarding claim 3: The method of claim 2, wherein said determining comprises: comparing the set of one or more transitions that have occurred between states of the FSM with the data record comprising the at least one predefined set of one or more transitions; and determining that the set of one or more transitions is not allowable in response to said comparison. [FIG. 8 and 0063: “a method of fault detection including receiving, during a register write event, first data that are to be stored on a first register 802; determining a first encoded value from the first data using an encoding operation 804; receiving second data from the first register from one or more bit locations on which the first data were to be stored 806; determining a second encoded value from the second data using the encoding operation 808; comparing the first encoded value and the second encoded value 810; if the first encoded value is the same as the second encoded value, operate according to a first operational mode; and if the first encoded value is different from the second encoded value, operate according to a second operational mode.”]
Regarding claim 4: The method of claim 2, wherein a first group comprises predefined allowable sets of one or more transitions between states of the FSM, and a second group comprises predefined unallowable sets of one or more transitions between states of the FSM, and the data record comprises the sets of the group comprising the fewest predefined sets out of the first and second groups. [FIG. 8 and 0063: “a method of fault detection… if the first encoded value is the same as the second encoded value, operate according to a first operational mode; and if the first encoded value is different from the second encoded value, operate according to a second operational mode.”]
Regarding claim 5: The method of claim 2, wherein the number of transitions in the set of one or more transitions that have occurred is equal to the number of transitions in one of the at least one predefined set of one or more transitions in the data record. [FIG. 8 and 0063: “a method of fault detection… if the first encoded value is the same as the second encoded value, operate according to a first operational mode; and if the first encoded value is different from the second encoded value, operate according to a second operational mode.”]
Regarding claim 6: The method of claim 1, further comprising recording the set of one or more transitions that have occurred between states of the FSM in a transition history. [FIG. 8 and 0063: “a method of fault detection including receiving, during a register write event, first data that are to be stored on a first register 802...”]
Regarding claim 7: The method of claim 6, wherein said determining is performed in dependence on the transition history. [FIG. 8 and 0063: “a method of fault detection including receiving, during a register write event, first data that are to be stored on a first register 802...”]
Regarding claim 8: The method of claim 6, wherein the transition history is configured to record up to a maximum number of transitions. [FIG. 8 and 0063: “a method of fault detection including receiving, during a register write event, first data that are to be stored on a first register 802...”]
Regarding claim 9: The method of claim 8, wherein the number of transitions in the set of one or more transitions that have occurred does not exceed the maximum number. [FIG. 8 and 0063: “a method of fault detection including receiving, during a register write event, first data that are to be stored on a first register 802...”]
Regarding claim 10: The method of claim 8, wherein said determining is performed in dependence on a data record comprising at least one predefined set of one or more transitions and the maximum number of transitions is determined based on the at least one predefined set of one or more transitions in the data record. [FIG. 8 and 0063: “a method of fault detection including receiving, during a register write event, first data that are to be stored on a first register 802; determining a first encoded value from the first data using an encoding operation 804; receiving second data from the first register from one or more bit locations on which the first data were to be stored 806; determining a second encoded value from the second data using the encoding operation 808; comparing the first encoded value and the second encoded value 810; if the first encoded value is the same as the second encoded value, operate according to a first operational mode; and if the first encoded value is different from the second encoded value, operate according to a second operational mode.”]
Regarding claim 11: The method of claim 2, wherein said determining is performed in response to detecting that the number of transitions that have occurred is equal to the number of transitions in one of the at least one predefined set of one or more transitions in the data record. [FIG. 8 and 0063: “…comparing the first encoded value and the second encoded value 810; if the first encoded value is the same as the second encoded value, operate according to a first operational mode; and if the first encoded value is different from the second encoded value, operate according to a second operational mode.”]
Regarding claim 12: The method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed while the FSM is active and responding to input data. [FIG. 8 and 0063: “a method of fault detection including receiving, during a register write event, first data that are to be stored on a first register 802; determining a first encoded value from the first data using an encoding operation 804; receiving second data from the first register from one or more bit locations on which the first data were to be stored 806; determining a second encoded value from the second data using the encoding operation 808; comparing the first encoded value and the second encoded value 810; if the first encoded value is the same as the second encoded value, operate according to a first operational mode; and if the first encoded value is different from the second encoded value, operate according to a second operational mode.”]
Claims 14-16 and 17-19 are rejected based on the same citations and rationale given to claims 1-3 and 5-7.
Claim 20 is rejected based on the same citations and rationale given to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)431-0699. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 A.M.-4:00 P.M..
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, BRYCE P BONZO can be reached at (571)-272-3655. 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.
/JONATHAN D GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113