DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application filed on August 25, 2025. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 7, 13-14 and 20 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.
The Claims state “… signals received from a user interface, the one or more file accessibility signals indicating whether the remote file should remain accessible when the remote data repository is inaccessible to the testing workstation.”
However, it is unclear how a remote file, that is stored in a remote data repository, “should remain accessible when the remote data repository is inaccessible.” If the remote repository is unavailable, how can a remote file be accessed?
Claim 14 depends upon Claim 13, but does not remedy the above issues.
As such, the claims are unclear.
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.
Specifically, Independent Claims 1 and 15 recite:
determine, based on file accessibility data, whether a remote file stored in a remote data repository should remain accessible when the remote data repository, or a communication network connecting a testing workstation to the remote data repository, becomes inaccessible to the testing workstation – Judging whether a data should be accessible is something that may be performed in the mind, and is thus abstract.
in response to determining the remote file should remain accessible, create a local file copy of the remote file and store the local file copy – Copying a file is a well-understood, routine and conventional operation as described at least in MPEP 2106.05(d).
while the remote data repository remains accessible to the testing workstation through the communication network, periodically update the local file copy based on the remote file – Updating a file is something that a person can do with at least a pen and paper. Also, updating a file is a well-understood, routine and conventional operation as described at least in MPEP 2106.05(d).
in response to the remote data repository, or the communication network, being inaccessible to the testing workstation, make the local file copy available to the testing workstation – Making a file available for processing is a well-understood, routine and conventional operation as described at least in MPEP 2106.05(d).
Independent Claim 8 recites:
determine, based on file accessibility data, whether a remote file stored in a remote data repository should remain accessible when the remote data repository, or a communication network connecting a testing workstation to the remote data repository, becomes inaccessible to the testing workstation - Judging whether a data should be accessible is something that may be performed in the mind, and is thus abstract.
in response to determining the remote file should remain accessible, create a local file copy of the remote file and store the local file copy - Copying a file is a well-understood, routine and conventional operation as described at least in MPEP 2106.05(d).
while the remote data repository remains accessible to the testing workstation through the communication network, periodically update the local file copy based on the remote file - Updating a file is something that a person can do with at least a pen and paper. Also, updating a file is a well-understood, routine and conventional operation as described at least in MPEP 2106.05(d).
in response to the remote data repository, or the communication network, being inaccessible to the testing workstation, make the local file copy available to the testing workstation - Making a file available for processing is a well-understood, routine and conventional operation as described at least in MPEP 2106.05(d).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Other, the abstract idea, the claims recite additional elements of hardware executing the abstract idea. The additional elements such as a storage device, a particular hardware controller, etc are recited at a high level of generality, i.e. as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of information processing. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are thus directed to an abstract idea.
Also, Claim 8 contains additional elements such as generic hardware (i.e. an machine, a sensor, an actuator, etc) that is used to execute a program. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are thus directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 recite further mental processes that may be completed in the mind and/or with aid of pen and paper and as such are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
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, 5, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yan et al (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0186538).
Claims 1 and 15: Yan discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium and a method comprising:
determine, based on file accessibility data, whether a remote file stored in a remote data repository should remain accessible when the remote data repository, or a communication network connecting a testing workstation to the remote data repository, becomes inaccessible to the testing workstation [0090]. [See at least identifying important and frequently used files that should be moved to local storage. That is interpreted as making sure that such data should remain accessible. As to “a testing workstation,” such a feature seems to describe a device without added functionality.]
in response to determining the remote file should remain accessible, create a local file copy of the remote file and store the local file copy [0090]. [See at least identifying important and frequently used files that should be moved to local storage.]
while the remote data repository remains accessible to the testing workstation through the communication network, periodically update the local file copy based on the remote file [0088]. [See at least updating a replica file that is stored on a local device.]
in response to the remote data repository, or the communication network, being inaccessible to the testing workstation, make the local file copy available to the testing workstation [0090]. [See at least using the copied files on local storage.]
Claim 5: Yan discloses the medium of Claim 1 above, and Yan further discloses wherein the machine readable instructions, when executed by processing circuitry, further cause the processing circuitry to: while the remote data repository remains accessible to the testing workstation through the communication network, periodically determine whether a change has been made to the remote file, and in response to determining the change has been made to the test file, update the local file copy based on the change to the remote file [0088, 0107]. [See at least updating a file that is stored on a local device.]
Claim 16: Yan discloses the method of Claim 15 above, and Yan further discloses wherein the local data repository is directly accessible to the testing workstation, rather than being accessible through the communication network, or the testing workstation comprises the local data repository [Fig. 18, 0090].
Claim 17: Yan discloses the method of Claim 15 above, and Yan further discloses periodically determining, via the server processing circuitry, whether a change has been made to remote test file while the local server remains in communication with the remote data repository through the communication network; and in response to determining the change has been made to the remote test file, updating the local test file copy, via the server processing circuitry based on the change to the remote test file [0088, 0107]. [See at least updating a file that is stored on a local device.]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0186538) in view of Zarum et al (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0181632).
Claim 2: Yan discloses the medium of Claim 1 above, but Yan alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the remote file comprises: a remote test file that defines a method of conducting a test of a material specimen on a material testing machine, or of analyzing test results of the test, a test result file that is representative of the test results, a remote event record that indicates when one or more events occurred during use of a material testing system, the material testing system comprising the material testing machine and a testing workstation configured to control the material testing machine to conduct the test of the material specimen, or remote settings representative of a security setting, a traceability setting, a user setting, or a team setting.
However, Yan [0090] discloses important files that are stored remotely, and Zarum [0025] discloses a configuration file that provides various user settings.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Yan with Zarum. One would have been motivated to do so in order to identify how user request should be handled.
Claim 3: Yan as modified discloses the medium of Claim 2 above, and Zarum, for the same reasons as above, further discloses wherein the security setting indicates which users have permission to access, edit, or execute a test file, or the traceability setting indicates how many reviews are needed before a test file can become active [0025, 0067]. [See at least permission settings what a user is allowed to access.]
Claim 4: Yan as modified discloses the medium of Claim 2 above, and Zarum, for the same reasons as above, further discloses wherein the user setting indicates an identifier or credential of a user, or the team setting indicates a particular team to which a particular user belongs [0025, 0067]. [See at least identifying which user is allowed to access particular data. Such identifying is based at least on some kind of an identifier.]
Claims 6 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0186538) in view of Oh et al (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0239556).
Claims 6 and 18: Yan discloses the medium and method of Claims 1 and 15 above, but Yan alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the machine readable instructions, when executed by processing circuitry, further cause the processing circuitry to send the local test file copy to the remote data repository after the remote data repository or the communication network again becomes accessible to the testing workstation.
However, Oh [0028] discloses when a client device reconnects to a server, the “client device 120 may transmit, to server 110, the encrypted data file…”
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Yan with Oh. One would have been motivated to do so in order to have synchronized data between a client and a server.
Claim 19: Yan as modified discloses the method of Claim 18 above, and Oh, for the same reasons as above, further discloses determining, via the server processing circuitry, whether to update the remote test file based on a difference between the remote test file and the local test file copy; and updating the remote test file based on a difference between the remote test file and the local test tile copy in response to determining to update the remote test file [0028]. [“client device 120 may transmit, to server 110, the encrypted data file together with a request to synchronize the data file.”]
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0186538) in view of Myerscough et al (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0110903).
Claims 7 and 20: Yan discloses the medium and the method of Claims 1 and 15 above, but Yan alone does not explicitly disclose update the file accessibility data based on the one or more file accessibility signals received from a user interface, the one or more file accessibility signals indicating whether the remote file should remain accessible when the remote data repository is inaccessible to the testing workstation.
However, Myerscough [0056] discloses updating a list of files and indicating if a remote file is available or unavailable. If a device state is “OFF,” then the file should remain unavailable because there is no way to connect to the file.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Yan with Myerscough. One would have been motivated to do so in order to keep a list of files which are accessible to a system.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0186538) in view of Matsuura (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0146614) and further in view of Ong et al (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0247325).
Claim 8: Yan discloses a remote data repository storing a remote test file, the remote data repository being communicatively connected with the testing workstation through a communication network; a local data repository; and a local server comprising or in communication with the local data repository, the local server being in communication with the remote data repository through the communication network, the local server comprising server processing circuitry configured to:
determine, based on file accessibility data, whether the remote test file should remain accessible when the testing workstation becomes disconnected from the communication network or the remote data repository [0090]. [See at least identifying important and frequently used files that should be moved to local storage. That is interpreted as making sure that such data should remain accessible. As to “a testing workstation,” such a feature seems to describe a device without added functionality.]
in response to determining the remote test file should remain accessible, store a local test file copy of the remote test file in the local data repository [0090]. [See at least identifying important and frequently used files that should be moved to local storage.]
while the local server remains in communication with the remote data repository through the communication network, periodically update the local test file copy, or create a new version of the local test file copy, based on the remote test file [0088, 0107]. [See at least updating a file that is stored on a local device.]
in response to the testing workstation becoming disconnected from the communication network or the remote data repository, make the local test file copy available to the testing workstation to conduct the test with the material testing machine, or analyze the test results [0090]. [See at least using the copied files on local storage.]
Yan alone does not explicitly disclose a material testing system, comprising: a material testing machine, comprising a test machine sensor, a test machine actuator, and a test machine controller configured to control the test machine actuator; a testing workstation configured to communicate with the test machine controller to conduct a test on the material testing machine, or analyze test results of the test, according to a test method set forth in a test file.
However, Ong [0024] discloses using a test file to use for material measurement and Matsuura [Fig. 1, 0024-0028] discloses a testing machine with an actuator, a sensor and a controller to conduct material testing.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Yan with Ong and Matsuura. One would have been motivated to do so in order to use a particular machine to conduct tests based at least on contents of a file.
Claim 9: Yan as modified discloses the system of Claim 8 and Yan further discloses wherein the testing workstation is in direct communication with the local server or the local data repository, rather than being in communication through the communication network, or the testing workstation comprises the local server or the local data repository [Fig. 18, 0090].
Claim 10: Yan as modified discloses the system of Claim 8 and Yan further discloses wherein the server processing circuitry is configured to: while the local server remains in communication with the remote data repository through the communication network, periodically determine whether a change has been made to remote test file, and in response to determining the change has been made to the remote test file, update the local test file copy based on the change to the remote test file, or create the new version of the local test file copy based on the remote test file [0088, 0098].
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0186538) in view of Matsuura (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0146614) further in view of Ong et al (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0247325) and further in view of Oh et al (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0239556).
Claim 11: Yan as modified discloses the system of Claim 8 but Yan alone does not explicitly disclose wherein the local server is configured to send the local test file copy to the remote data repository after the testing workstation is reconnected with the communication network or the remote data repository.
However, Oh [0028] discloses when a client device reconnects to a server, the “client device 120 may transmit, to server 110, the encrypted data file…”
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Yan with Oh. One would have been motivated to do so in order to have synchronized data between a client and a server.
Claim 12: Yan as modified discloses the system of Claim 11 above, and Oh, for the same reasons as above, further discloses wherein the remote data repository is configured to update the remote test file based on a difference between the remote test file and the local test file copy [0028]. [“client device 120 may transmit, to server 110, the encrypted data file together with a request to synchronize the data file.”]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Beckhardt (2015/0269170) discloses at least identifying when data is inaccessible on a particular device
Liu (9,306,985) describes at least a user setting file.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX GOFMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Tony Mahmoudi can be reached at 571-272-4078. 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.
/ALEX GOFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2163
Prosecution Insights