DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Application 17/701,662 filed on 3/22/2022 and claims benefit of 63/165,699 filed on 03/24/2021.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendments filed on 5/16/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 5/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Although the examiner agrees the amendments of receive user defined storage criteria cannot be implemented by a human mind, however, the amendments fell short to solve the abstract idea of the mathematical concept explained in the rejection below. In regard to the practical implementation argument of page 7, the examiner respectfully does not agree, as the application is drawn towards testing a device, yet the expected practical outcome should serve the purpose of the device testing, however, the data processing including input (including user input) and data storing are mere extra solution of data collection and processing using well-understood conventional approaches using conventional and well-understood device disclosed at high level of generality. The new amendments are also well-understood GUI interface used within the art to facilitate input/data gathering, thus argument of improving the functionality of a computer, by such input/threshold is a mere data processing that is well-understood within the art.
In regard to the argument of “continuously analyze signal and determine which portion of the signal based on the user-defined criteria”. The examiner respectfully does not agree, first the claimed language merely indicate that the processor processes a user input threshold related to storage data (which data to be stored), there is no “continuously” input mentioned anywhere in the claimed language neither explicitly nor explicitly. However, as explained above the concept of GUI and a user enters a threshold criteria is well-understood and conventional process, that does not provide practical implementations nor improve the processing functionality.
In regard to the argument of “allow the user to customize the specific bounds of acquisition parameters”, the examiner respectfully does not agree and refers to the explanations provided above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendments. Please see the rejection below.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to abstract idea of mathematical concept of comparison and getting the results of comparison, the claim recites “compare the acquisition in the data store to the one or more storage criteria”, “identify whether the compared acquisition meets the one or more storage criteria”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the concept of implementing a set of instructions in a computerized system using well understood, conventional and generic device cited at high level of generality. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations of “an input configured…., storage facility structured…” are mere extra solution activities used to collect and store data. Whereas the limitation of “an acquisition processor…” is conventional well-understood computerized system cited at high level of generality to implement a set of instructions. The claimed language does not provide a practical outcome that serves the purpose of testing the device and does not answer the question of how this computerized implementation serves the purpose of device testing.
In step 2A prong 1: this part of the eligible analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Claim 1 recites "compare the acquisition in the data store to one or more criteria, and identify whether the compared acquisition meets the one or more criteria and identify whether the compared acquisition meets the one or more criteria" has Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) that requires performing an arithmetic calculation/ mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2: this part of the eligible analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Claim 1 recites additional elements: “an input configured…., storage facility structured…” are mere extra solution activities used to collect and store data. Whereas the limitation of “an acquisition processor…” is conventional well-understood computerized system cited at high level of generality to implement a set of instructions. The claimed language does not provide a practical outcome that serves the purpose of testing the device and does not answer the question of how this computerized implementation serves the purpose of device testing. (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Step 2B, claim 1 does not contain additional element that is sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed about with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim, therefore, is directed to the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the additional element does not amount significantly more than the abstract idea of itself therefore claim 11 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding to claim 2-10, the claims further extend the abstract idea of claim 1 without additional element that as a whole that can integrate the abstract idea of the claims into a practical application (i.e. Step 2A Prong 2) nor additional that can amount significantly more than the abstract idea of itself (Step 2B). Therefore claims 2-10 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 11, In step 2A prong 1: this part of the eligible analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. Claim 11 recites "comparing the acquisition in the data store to one or more criteria; identifying whether the compared acquisition meets the one or more criteria; identifying whether the compared acquisition meets the one or more criteria" has Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) that requires performing an arithmetic calculation/ mathematical concept.
Step 2A Prong 2: this part of the eligible analysis evaluates whether the claim integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Claim 11 recites additional elements:
"receiving a test signal at a test input during a first testing session; producing digitized samples of the signal under test as an acquisition and storing the acquisition in an acquisition memory; copying the acquisition from the acquisition memory to a data store of the instrument;" is conventional step required for data gathering for in order to carry out the algorithm or outputting the result to a device. This additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea.
"storing an identified acquisition in a secondary memory store; and copying the identified acquisition stored in the history memory to a separate storage device as a storage file" is a well understood routine and conventional of storing data. (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the concept of implementing a set of instructions in a computerized system using well understood, conventional and generic device cited at high level of generality. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations of “receiving at least signal at…., copying acquisition …storing , copying..…” are mere extra solution activities used to collect and store data. Whereas the limitation of “producing digitized samples…” is conventional well-understood computerized system cited at high level of generality to implement a set of instructions. The claimed language does not provide a practical outcome that serves the purpose of testing the device and does not answer the question of how this computerized implementation serves the purpose of device testing.
Step 2B, claim 11 does not contain additional element that is sufficient to amount significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed about with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim, therefore, is directed to the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the additional element does not amount significantly more than the abstract idea of itself therefore claim 11 is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding to claim 12-20, the claims further extend the abstract idea of claim 11 without contain additional element that as a whole cannot integrate the abstract idea of the claims into a practical application (i.e. Step 2A Prong 2) nor contain additional that can amount significantly more than the abstract idea of itself (Step 2B). Therefore claims 12-20 are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The limitation “an input configured to receive a signal for testing” is interpreted to a user interface or any equivalent limitation within the art.
The limitation of “an acquisition processor configured to generate an acquisition from the received signal/ configured to receive one or more storage criteria defined by a user” is interpreted to any processing device/computerized process or any equivalent limitations.
The limitation “storage facility structured to store the identified acquisition/ second storage facility structured to copy the acquisition stored in the history memory” is memory or any equivalent limitations.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 8 of copending Application No. 17/701658 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 11 of the present application are anticipated by claims 1 and 8 of the co-pending application. Specially, the present application store acquisition data in history memory and secondary storage and co-pending application' 1658 stores acquisition data in the acquisition memory and secondary memory. Both present and co-pending may use different name for data storage devices but they are still pieces of hardware used to store data.
Claims 10 and 20, provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7 and 14 of the copending Application No. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 7 and 20 of the present application are anticipated by claims 7 and of the co-pending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-4, 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryson et al. (US 2015/0301085) hereinafter referenced as Bryson.
As to claims 1 and 11, Bryson teaches “A system/method including a test and measurement device having a history memory, comprising:” ([abstract])
“an input configured to receive a signal for testing during a first testing session;” (Fig. 2A, [0091] “The instruments may be coupled to the unit under test (UUT) or process 150, or may be coupled to receive field signals, typically generated by transducers”)
“an acquisition processor configured to generate an acquisition from the received signal, store the acquisition in an acquisition memory,” ([0105] “In 502, an acquired dataset may be received from a measurement device, where the acquired dataset includes measurement data from measurements of one or more physical phenomena acquired by the measurement device. For example, the dataset may be a current dataset in a sequence (i.e., stream) of datasets acquired by the measurement device. The measurement data may be any type of measurement data desired. For example, in some embodiments, each acquired dataset may include waveform data, although any other form of measurement data may be used as desired”) and copy the acquisition to a data store,” ([0012] “the storage medium may itself be a buffer, e.g., in a volatile memory such as RAM, or may be a persistent (non-volatile) storage medium, e.g., flash memory, disk drive, etc.”; [0106] “In 504, the acquired dataset may be buffered, resulting in a buffered dataset. In other words, the received acquired dataset may be stored in a buffer, i.e., a memory buffer, from which the dataset may be subsequently read”)
“and the acquisition processor further configured to receive one or more storage criteria defined by a user;” ([0010], [0016] “Said another way, datasets of interest (e.g., of interest to the user, a process, etc.) may be specified via one or more thresholds (i.e., threshold values) to be applied to the data sets to identify those of interest. These thresholds may be static, e.g., retrieved from a file, or may be dynamic, e.g., determined in response to user input”… “to save image the image or additional data to some designated storage”, “in response to further user input, including adding one or more of: annotations to the first dataset of interest, one or more cursors to the first dataset of interest, or additional measurement values to the first dataset of interest, saving the first dataset of interest to another storage medium”; “the method may include receiving user input selecting a first dataset of interest”, also see [0021] and [0107-0109] “In506…specified threshold”, fig 5, also see claim 17.)
an acquisition evaluator configured to: (Fig. 2A computer 82)
“compare the acquisition in the data store to the one or more storage criteria, ([0108] “In 508, the buffered dataset may be automatically analyzed with respect to the one or more thresholds. For example, the method may compare data in or of the buffered dataset to the one or more thresholds. Note that any types of analysis may be employed as desired. For example, the method may simply compare the acquired data itself to the one or more thresholds, or may process the data in some way and compare the results to the one or more thresholds, e.g., computing moving averages and comparing them to a threshold value, calculating standard deviation of the dataset and comparing to a respective threshold, etc.”) and identify whether the compared acquisition meets the one or more storage criteria; ([0109] “In 510, a determination may be made as to whether the buffered dataset is a dataset of interest based on the automatic analysis of 508, and in 512, the buffered dataset may be stored in a storage medium (i.e., a memory medium) in response to determining that the buffered dataset is a dataset of interest. In various embodiments, the storage medium may itself be a buffer, e.g., in a volatile memory such as RAM, or may be a persistent (non-volatile) storage medium, e.g., flash memory, disk drive, etc.)
“a storage facility structured to store the identified acquisition meeting the one or more storage criteria to the history memory of the test and measurement device;” ([0107-0109])
Bryson does not explicitly disclose a secondary storage facility structured to copy the acquisition stored in the history memory to a separate storage device as a storage file. Bryson discloses a second storage facility different from a first storage facility. ([0049] “In addition, the memory medium may be located in a first computer in which the programs are executed, or may be located in a second different computer which connects to the first computer over a network, such as the Internet. In the latter instance, the second computer may provide program instructions to the first computer for execution. The term "memory medium" may include two or more memory mediums which may reside in different locations, e.g., in different computers that are connected over a network”).
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to recognize that the second storage facility can be used to store another copy of the acquisition for data redundancy. Through redundancy, various copies of data are saved in case the main source gets damaged or for the purpose of data distribution to multiple users/sites; this will help the organization recover its data and proceed with the operations immediately with minimal hassle.
As to claim 2 and 12, Bryson further discloses “the storage file is accessible by the test and measurement device. ([0009] “The acquired dataset may be buffered, resulting in a buffered dataset. In other words, the received acquired dataset may be stored in a buffer, i.e., a memory buffer, from which the dataset may be subsequently read”)
As to claim 3 and 13, Bryson further discloses “the storage file is located on the test and measurement device. ([0049] “In addition, the memory medium may be located in a first computer in which the programs are executed, or may be located in a second different computer which connects to the first computer over a network, such as the Internet. In the latter instance, the second computer may provide program instructions to the first computer for execution. The term "memory medium" may include two or more memory mediums which may reside in different locations, e.g., in different computers that are connected over a network”.)
Claims 4 and 14, Bryson further discloses “the storage file is located separate from the test and measurement device.” ([0049] “In addition, the memory medium may be located in a first computer in which the programs are executed, or may be located in a second different computer which connects to the first computer over a network, such as the Internet. In the latter instance, the second computer may provide program instructions to the first computer for execution. The term "memory medium" may include two or more memory mediums which may reside in different locations, e.g., in different computers that are connected over a network.)
Claims 10 and 20, Bryson discloses “Bryson further discloses “in which the one or more criteria comprises at least one of a visual trigger, a measurement trigger, an event trigger, a search result, a mask test, a bus decode result, or a hardware trigger.” ([0108] “the method may simply compare the acquired data itself to the one or more thresholds, or may process the data in some way and compare the results to the one or more thresholds, e.g., computing moving averages and comparing them to a threshold value, calculating standard deviation of the dataset and comparing to a respective threshold, etc.”)
Claims 5-9 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bryson as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of White et al. (US 2013/0262015) hereinafter White.
Claims 5 and 15, Bryson fails to disclose in which the test and measurement device is structured to restore, in a second testing session, the acquisition stored in the storage file during the first testing session.
White discloses “in which the test and measurement device is structured to restore, in a second testing session, the acquisition stored in the storage file during the first testing session. (Fig. 8; [0139] - First, “in 802, a file may be received. The file may be associated with measurement results from a measurement by a first measurement system, such as the first measurement system described above. As also described above, in some embodiments, the file may include image data, where the image data are sufficient for display of an image of the measurement results data by an image viewer, and may further include measurement configuration data. The measurement configuration data may be sufficient for configuring a second measurement system to repeat the measurement, where, as above, the second measurement system may be or include the first measurement system or another instance of the first measurement system”).
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to have modified the invention of Bryson to include teaching of White. By using a same configuration of the first test, the user can identify and catch new defects, regressions, or unintended side effects introduced by code changes, updates, or new features. This ensures that the software remains reliable and free from issues, maintaining a high level of quality.
Claims 6 and 16, Bryson as modified by White discloses the system according to claims 5 and 15 above, and Bryson teaches the limitations of “one or more storage criteria defined by a user as in claim 1 and 11 above. However, Bryson fails to disclose compare an acquisition in the data store from the second testing session to the one or more storage criteria; and identify whether the compared acquisition generated in the second testing session meets the one or more storage criteria; and in which the storage facility is structured to store the identified acquisition from the second testing session to the history memory of the test and measurement device.
White further discloses compare an acquisition in the data store from the second testing session to the one or more storage criteria, and identify whether the compared acquisition generated in the second testing session meets the one or more criteria; ([0026] “Once the one or more instruments of the second measurement system have been automatically configured, the measurement may be repeated using the automatically configured one or more instruments of the second measurement system, and new measurement results data may be displayed in a graphical user interface for the second measurement system. Thus, a user may compare the original measurement to the subsequent (repeated) measurement. For example, the file may include raw measurement data from the measurement, and the repeated measurement may generate new raw data, and the method may include comparing the raw data from the measurement with the new raw data, and indicating any differences between the raw data from the measurement and the new raw data”. See [0133] “that may be configured per the saved measurement configuration data (specifically that portion that specifies the GUI layout for each instrument GUI or GUI portion. The user may invoke configuration (and/or display) of the multi-instrument GUI via any of a variety of ways” also see claim 4-6.) “and in which the storage facility is structured to store the identified acquisition from the second testing session to the history memory of the test and measurement device.([0011] “A file may be stored (in a memory medium), where the file includes image data that are sufficient for display of the measurement results data by an image viewer, and measurement configuration data, which are sufficient for configuring a second measurement system to repeat the measurement. Note that in various embodiments, the second measurement system may be or include the first measurement system or another instance of the first measurement system. In a further embodiment, the second measurement system may be a different, but similar, measurement system, e.g., with one or more measurement devices that, while not identical to those of the first measurement system, may be similar enough for the configuration information to be applicable. Further details regarding the measurement configuration data are provided below).
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to have modified the invention of Bryson to include teaching of White. By using a same configuration of the first test, the user can identify and catch new defects, regressions, or unintended side effects introduced by code changes, updates, or new features. This ensures that the software remains reliable and free from issues, maintaining a high level of quality.”
Claims 7 and 17, Bryson discloses the system according to claims 1 and 11 above. Bryson fails to disclose a second test and measurement device structured to retrieve the storage file and store data contained therein to the second test and measurement device.
White further discloses “a second test and measurement device structured to retrieve the storage file and store data contained therein to the second test and measurement device. ([0026] and [0011])
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to have modified the invention of Bryson to include teaching of White. By using a same configuration of the first test, the user can identify and catch new defects, regressions, or unintended side effects introduced by code changes, updates, or new features. This ensures that the software remains reliable and free from issues, maintaining a high level of quality.
Claims 8 and 18, Bryson in view of White discloses the system according to claims 7 and 17 above. Bryson fails to disclose in which the second test and measurement device is an analysis program operating on a computing device.
White further discloses in which the second test and measurement device is an analysis program operating on a computing device. ([0082] “A measurement device may be further configured to perform control functions, e.g., in response to analysis of the acquired or stored data. For example, the measurement device may send a control signal to an external system, such as a motion control system or to a sensor, in response to particular data. A measurement device may also be configured to perform automation functions, i.e., may receive and analyze data, and issue automation control signals in response)
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to have modified the invention of Bryson to include teaching of White. By using a same configuration of the first test, the user can identify and catch new defects, regressions, or unintended side effects introduced by code changes, updates, or new features.
As to claim 9 and 19, Bryson as modified by White discloses the system according to claims 6 and 16 above. Bryson fails to disclose in which the storage file contains history data and session configuration data.
White discloses in which the storage file contains history data and session configuration data. ([0011] “A file may be stored (in a memory medium), where the file includes image data that are sufficient for display of the measurement results data by an image viewer, and measurement configuration data, which are sufficient for configuring a second measurement system to repeat the measurement. Note that in various embodiments, the second measurement system may be or include the first measurement system or another instance of the first measurement system. In a further embodiment, the second measurement system may be a different, but similar, measurement system, e.g., with one or more measurement devices that, while not identical to those of the first measurement system, may be similar enough for the configuration information to be applicable. Further details regarding the measurement configuration data are provided below”).
It would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Bryson to include teaching of White. By using a same configuration of the first test, the user can identify and catch new defects, regressions, or unintended side effects introduced by code changes, updates, or new features. This ensures that the software remains reliable and free from issues, maintaining a high level of quality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 20140002508 A1 Ward et al, teaches “a test and measurement instrument that includes a signal input. extract a digital signal from the received modulated RF signal. The extracted digital signal has a measurable parameter. The instrument also includes a display controller structured to display the extracted demodulated signal at one of at least two different intensities based on the measured parameter of the digital signal. See fig 1, [0022] and [0042].
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMAN A ALKAFAWI whose telephone number is (571)272-4448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 Am- 5:00 Pm.
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 director, Mathew Such can be reached at 571 272 1570. 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.
EMAN A. ALKAFAWI
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/EMAN A ALKAFAWI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858 8/5/2025
Prosecution Insights