DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
Examiner is requiring suitable descriptive legends for all numeric reference characters in figure 1 except for reference character 24a, 24b, 29a, and 29b, and for figure 2 reference character 64, as being necessary for understanding of the drawing. See 37 CFR 1.84(o). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 1 line 5 recites “the waveform generator”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis. Antecedent basis is present for “the arbitrary waveform generator”. Claims 2-10 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 based on dependence.
Claim 5 appears to have a typographical error reciting “[t]he arbitrary waveform generator of 4 claim 2, and should possibly recite “[t]the arbitrary waveform generator of claim 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 recites “wherein said filter is adapted to at least one of “add, for each sample value of the selected waveform, a zero value or a value of opposite sign to the sample value”. There is not disclosure in the specification for adding a zero value or a value of the opposite sign to the sample value. Written description is set forth for adding a zero value or a value of opposite sign before or after the sample value for each sample value. See specification p. 13 example d).
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 lines 12-13 recite “a waveform identifier descriptive of a waveform to be played and/or a parameter identifier descriptive of a parameter for modifying said waveform”. It is not clear whether the apparatus is configured for both identifiers, or configured such that one or the other identifier is configured, or the apparatus is selectively configurable for both or one identifier. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets that the apparatus as claimed may include only one identifier. Claims 2-20 inherit the same deficiency as claim 1 based on dependence.
Claim 5 lines 3-4 recite “said parameter identifier is descriptive of said scaling factor and/or a change in said scaling factor”. It is not clear whether the apparatus is configured for both the said scaling factor and a change in said scaling factor, or configured such that one or the other of the scaling factor/change in said scaling factor is configured, or the apparatus is selectively configurable for both or only one. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets that the apparatus as claimed may include only a scaling factor or a change in a scaling factor.
Claim 6 lines 3-4 recite “wherein said parameter identifier is descriptive of a phase and/or frequency of the carrier signal”. It is not clear whether the apparatus is configured such that the parameter identifier is descriptive of both the phase and the frequency of the carrier signal, or that one or the other of the parameter identifier is descriptive of phase or frequency, or the signal processor is selectively configurable for both or only one. For purposes of examination, Examiner interprets that the parameter identifier is one of the phase or frequency of the carrier signal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3, 5-6, 9-11, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 2430320 A Jungerman, (hereinafter “Jungerman”).
Regarding claim 1, Jungerman teaches the following:
an arbitrary waveform generator (title, abstract) comprising
at least one analog output ([001] last sentence),
a digital-to-analog converter connected to the analog output (fig 3 DACs 314, 316),
a waveform source connected to said digital-to-analog converter (fig 3 308 DDS 310 multiplication module 310, gain module 312 including input and output connections [009-0010]), and
a sequencer adapted to control the waveform generator, wherein said sequencer comprises an instruction memory for instructions and an instruction interpreter adapted to sequentially execute said instructions (fig 3 sequencer 304 and sequencer memory 302, [0029] sequencer directed by software control, [0045] software includes executable instructions in connection with an instruction execution system),
wherein said waveform generator further comprises a command table unit in addition to the sequencer, and wherein said command table unit is connected to the waveform source and comprises a command table memory holding a plurality of commands identifiable with command addresses, with at least some of said commands comprising a waveform identifier descriptive of a waveform to be played and/or a parameter identifier descriptive of a parameter for modifying said waveform ([0026], [0029] sequencer memory 302 and part of sequencer 304 which passes the waveform address to the waveform memory 306 for command table unit, sequencer memory 302 for command table memory, gain module, multiplication module for modifying said waveform under control, the sequencer 304 may step through the sequencer memory 302 as directed by a scenario table (not shown), software control, external triggers, or combination of the three, to dynamically modify the aggregate output waveform being played [0029]),
wherein said sequencer is adapted to execute table execution instructions, with each table execution instruction specifying at least one command address, wherein, upon execution of such a table execution instruction, the command table unit is triggered to cause the waveform source to play the waveform with the parameter as identified by the command at the specified command address ([0029], [0045], [009-0010], [0024], [0026-0027]).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis, Jungerman teaches the following:
wherein said waveform source comprises: a waveform memory holding a plurality of waveforms, wherein a desired waveform in the waveform memory is selectable by the waveform identifier of the commands ([0022], [0024] waveform memory may produce signal waveform data in response to receiving a signal waveform address), and
a signal processor structured to modify the desired waveform, wherein said signal processor is at least partially controllable by the parameter identifier of the commands ([0026], [0028], [0030] fig 3 310, 312).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 2 analysis, Jungerman teaches the following:
further comprising a waveform player generating a time series of values from the selected waveform ([001], [006], [0029] sequencer includes playing waveforms).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 2 analysis, Jungerman teaches the following:
wherein said signal processor comprises a scaler adapted to scale the selected waveform with a scaling factor, and wherein said parameter identifier is descriptive of said scaling factor and/or a change in said scaling factor (fig 3 gain module 312, [0021], [0024] programmed modifications for gain changes, pointers, start/stop gain values).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 2 analysis, Jungerman teaches the following:
wherein said signal processor comprises a mixer for mixing the waveform of the waveform player with a carrier signal, and wherein said parameter identifier is descriptive of a phase and/or frequency of the carrier signal ([0025-0026]).
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 2 analysis, Jungerman teaches the following:
wherein said signal processor comprises an interpolator for interpolating the selected waveform, wherein said parameter identifier is descriptive of at least one parameter of said interpolator ([0024]).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis, Jungerman teaches the following:
wherein said command table unit comprises a write port for modifying commands in said command table memory ([0025] 330 input to waveform memory 306).
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 10 analysis, Jungerman teaches the following:
wherein said sequencer is connected to said write port and adapted to interpret table change instructions for writing commands into said command table memory (fig 3 sequencer 304, with 330 connection to waveform memory, [0021], [0026], [0029]).
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis, Jungerman teaches the following:
further comprising an input interface for applying a multibit data word to said arbitrary waveform generator ([0029] fig 3 input 322 to sequencer), wherein the sequencer is adapted to interpret at least one of said table execution instructions as an instruction to use the data word for generating the command address ([0029], [0045]).
Regarding claim 16, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis, Jungerman teaches the following:
interpreting, in said sequencer, a table execution instruction (fig 5, [0029], [0033]),
identifying, using said table execution instruction, a command in the command table memory to be executed (fig 5, [0024], [0033],[0045]),
choosing a waveform to be played using the waveform identifier in the command to be executed ([0033] choosing a scenario), and
playing the waveform to be played and modifying it using the parameter identifier of the command to be executed ([0029]).
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 4, 7-8, 12, 14-15, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungerman in view of US 7072781 B1 Gershon et al., (hereinafter “Gershon”).
Regarding claim 4, Jungerman teaches the claim 3 limitations. Jungerman is silent with respect to a parameter buffer. However in the same field of endeavor, Gershon discloses an apparatus similar to Jungerman comprising an architecture for generating adaptive arbitrary waveforms (abstract, fig 1). Gershon further discloses:
a parameter buffer for buffering the parameter identifier, wherein said waveform player is adapted to trigger the parameter buffer to forward the parameter identifier of a given command to the signal processor in synchronization to starting playing a waveform identified by the waveform of the given command (col 17 lines 35-61, fig 16 sample buffer 1618 which stores amplitudes, offsets, slopes with respect to basis shapes of waveforms slices, col 16 line 12 – 52, fig 16 real-time control 1614 trigger to basic shape memory to sample buffer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the details of the real-time waveform control and sample buffer of Gershon in the sequencer and waveform memory of Jungerman. It would have been obvious to achieve the benefit of assembling waveform slices into a continuous waveform based on user selections (col 16 line 57-64).
Regarding claim 7, Jungerman teaches the claim 2 limitations. Jungerman is silent with respect to a delay unit. However in the same field of endeavor, Gershon discloses an apparatus similar to Jungerman comprising an architecture for generating adaptive arbitrary waveforms (abstract, fig 1). Gershon further discloses:
wherein said signal processor comprises a delay unit generating a delay in the signal of the waveform player, wherein said parameter identifier is descriptive of a delay time to be applied by the delay unit (fig 5 506, col 6 line 44-62, col 9 line 43-56 and table following).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the details of the real-time waveform control including the delay unit of Gershon in the sequencer of Jungerman. It would have been obvious to achieve the benefit of allowing a level of granularity in control of waveform slices (col 6 line 44-62).
Regarding claim 8, Jungerman teaches the claim 2 limitations. Jungerman is silent with respect to a filter. However in the same field of endeavor, Gershon discloses an apparatus similar to Jungerman comprising an architecture for generating adaptive arbitrary waveforms (abstract, fig 1). Gershon further discloses:
wherein said signal processor comprises a filter filtering the selected waveform, wherein said parameter identifier is descriptive of at least one parameter of said filter (col 15 line 1-11, filters in DSP).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the filter of Gershon in the signal processing section of Jungerman, with parameter control as in Gershon incorporated in the sequencer of Jungerman. It would have been obvious to achieve the benefit of allowing changes in the waveform including filtering (col 14 line 12-15).
Regarding claim 12, Jungerman teaches the claim 10 limitations. Jungerman is silent with respect to an input interface for external signals. However in the same field of endeavor, Gershon discloses an apparatus similar to Jungerman comprising an architecture for generating adaptive arbitrary waveforms (abstract, fig 1). Gershon further discloses:
further comprising an input interface for external signals, wherein said input interface is connected to said write port for writing commands into said command table memory without using the sequencer (fig 15 1506 including EXT trigger enable, col 14 line 8-col 15 line 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the input interface for external signals of Gershon connected to the write port of writing commands into the command table memory of Jungerman without suing the sequencer of Jungerman. It would have been obvious to achieve the benefit of allowing a user to test devices in a user-selected order (col 14 line 22-30).
Regarding claim 14, Jungerman teaches the claim 1 limitations. Jungerman is silent with respect to the commands comprise a condition specifier. However in the same field of endeavor, Gershon discloses an apparatus similar to Jungerman comprising an architecture for generating adaptive arbitrary waveforms (abstract, fig 1). Gershon further discloses:
wherein at least some of said commands comprise a condition specifier, wherein said command table unit is adapted to check for a given condition specified by the condition specifier and to execute said command only if the given condition is met (fig 9 thresholds THRS, col 6 line 54-63, col 8 line 53- col 9 line 50 including subsequent table).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the threshold condition specifier of Gershon in the sequencer of Jungerman to check for a threshold crossing and to trigger different slices of a waveform if the threshold is met. It would have been obvious to achieve the benefit of allowing a user selected granularity of waveforms within a cycle (col 6 line 54-62).
Regarding claim 15, Jungerman teaches the claim 1 limitations. Jungerman is silent with respect to at least one counter. However in the same field of endeavor, Gershon discloses an apparatus similar to Jungerman comprising an architecture for generating adaptive arbitrary waveforms (abstract, fig 1). Gershon further discloses:
further comprising at least one counter, wherein at least one of said commands comprises a counter operation identifier, wherein said command table unit is adapted to access a value of said counter as a function of said counter operation identifier (col 13 lines 56-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the counter of Gershon in the sequencer of Jungerman accessible by the command table unit. It would have been obvious to achieve the benefit of controlling the start/stop time of waveforms per slice (col 13 lines 56-67).
Regarding claim 19, Jungerman teaches the claim 8 limitations. Jungerman is silent with respect to a filter, and wherein the filter is a clipping filter. However in the same field of endeavor, Gershon discloses an apparatus similar to Jungerman comprising an architecture for generating adaptive arbitrary waveforms (abstract, fig 1). Gershon further discloses:
wherein said filter is a clipping filter limiting an amplitude of the selected waveform, wherein said parameter identifier is descriptive of a maximum amplitude to be passed by the clipping filter (fig 9 thresholds THRS, col 6 line 54-63, col 8 line 53- col 9 line 50 including subsequent table).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the clipping of Gershon in the sequencer of Jungerman to limit an amplitude of the selected waveform, wherein said parameter identifier is descriptive of a maximum amplitude to be passed by the clipping filter. It would have been obvious to achieve the benefit of allowing a user selected granularity of waveforms within a cycle (col 6 line 54-62).
Regarding claim 20, Jungerman teaches the claim 8 limitations. Jungerman is silent with respect to a filter, and wherein the filter. However in the same field of endeavor, Gershon discloses an apparatus similar to Jungerman comprising an architecture for generating adaptive arbitrary waveforms (abstract, fig 1). Gershon further discloses:
wherein said filter has at least one memory cell that changes its value during a filtering operation, wherein said parameter identifier is descriptive of resetting said memory cell to a predefined value (fig 14A, col 13 line 11-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the resetting of the memory cell to a predefined value of at least one memory call that changes its value during a filtering operation of Gershon in the sequencer and waveform memory of Jungerman. It would have been obvious to achieve the benefit of allowing a user selected granularity of waveforms in and between cycles (col 6 line 54-62).
Regarding claim 21, Jungerman in view of Gershon teach the claim 14 limitations. Gershon further discloses:
further comprising an input interface for external signals, wherein said given condition depends on a signal at said input interface (fig 15 1506 including EXT trigger enable, col 14 line 8-col 15 line 36, the tester allows user control on a wide variety of test parameters, col 6 line 54-63 the user assigns various trigger threshold level).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the input interface for external signals of Gershon connected to the write port of writing commands into the command table memory of Jungerman without using the sequencer of Jungerman. It would have been obvious to achieve the benefit of allowing a user to test devices with user defined conditions (col 14 line 22-30).
Regarding claim 22, Jungerman in view of Gershon teach the claim 15 limitations. Gershon further discloses:
wherein said command table unit is adapted to execute, as a function of said counter operation identifier, at least one of:
- setting said counter to a specified value, - increasing or decreasing said counter (col 13 lines 56-67 count in reverse, col 17 line 20-24 count up), and
- querying a value of said counter and executing a command only if the value fulfills a given condition (col 13 lines 56-67 TRIGx as a time interval, which resets).
The motivation to combine provided with respect to claim 15 applies equally to claim 22.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungerman in view of US 20210182725 A1 Zou et al., (hereinafter “Zou”).
Regarding claim 17, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis, Jungerman discloses an arbitrary waveform generator for use by scientists and engineers who develop and test various systems such as automotive electronics, avionics, radar, frequency agile satellite, communication systems and other systems ([001]). Jungerman does not, however, explicitly disclose wherein the arbitrary waveform generator is used for sending signals to a quantum processor.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zou discloses use of an arbitrary waveform generator to send signals to a quantum processor (Fig 4B AWG 452, [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute Jungerman’s arbitrary waveform generator for the arbitrary waveform generator of Zou. It is obvious to perform a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2141.III.(B).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jungerman in view of Gershon in view of WO 2107100953 A1 Haandbaek et al., (hereinafter “Haandbaek”).
Regarding claim 18, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 8 analysis, Jungerman discloses a signal processor of the waveform such as adding gain, or a doppler frequency, or a modulating complex waveform ([0024-0028]), and Jungerman in view of Gershon discloses a filter, filtering the waveform (col 15 line 1-11, filters in DSP). Jungerman in view of Gershon does not, however, explicitly disclose wherein the filter is adapted to at least one of: - apply a kernel to the selected waveform by a convolution, wherein said parameter identifier is descriptive of said kernel, - apply a window function to the selected waveform, wherein said parameter identifier is descriptive of at least one window parameter of said window function, and - add, for each sample value of the selected waveform, a zero value or a value of opposite sign to the sample value.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Haandbaek discloses an apparatus similar to both Jungerman and Gershon related to a device for dynamic signal generation and analysis (fig 2). Haandbaek further discloses wherein the filter is adapted to apply a kernel to the selected waveform by a convolution, wherein said parameter identifier is descriptive of said kernel, and wherein the filter is adapted to apply a window function to the selected waveform, wherein said parameter identifier is descriptive of at least one window parameter of said window function (p. 8-9, boxcar averaging for window function, convolution, algorithm/parameters for analyzing algorithm for kernel/parameter identifier). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the filter functions disclosed by Haandbaek into the filter functions of Jungerman in view of Gershon. It would have been obvious to achieve the benefit of expanding the breadth of important algorithms that can by applied to arbitrary waveform generation (Haandbaek p. 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY E LAROCQUE whose telephone number is (469)295-9289. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00am - 1200pm, 2:00pm - 8pm ET M-F.
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 Andrew Caldwell can be reached on 571-272-3701. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILY E LAROCQUE/Examiner, Art Unit 2182
Prosecution Insights