DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Argument
2. Applicant's arguments received 02/26/2026 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Detailed response is given in sections 3-7 as set forth below in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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; or
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1, 8-9, 12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cirillo (US 10585120 B2).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Cirillo discloses a test and measurement instrument and a method for practicing the instrument (Abstract), the instrument comprising: an input port (e.g., 15 Fig. 1) for accepting an input signal (7) for measurement (col. 1, lines 28-36; col. 4, lines 48-58); a display (screen unit 4 in Fig. 1; see also col. 1, lines 57-67) having a first window (e.g., 35 in Fig. 4) for showing measurements of the input signal in first two-dimensional representation in which one of the two dimensions of the first representation indicates a time domain (Fig. 4), and having a second window (e.g., 33 in Fig. 4) for simultaneously showing measurements of the input signal in second two-dimensional representation in which one of the two dimensions in the second representation indicates a frequency domain (col. 6, line 64 – col. 7, line 2; col. 8, lines 10-14), where the time domain of the first representation and the frequency domain of the second representation are related through a transform (col. 5, line 63 – col. 6, line 15) having a pre-determined resolution bandwidth (by inherency, the FFT has a pre-determined resolution bandwidth which refers to the frequency spacing between individual bins in the spectrum, i.e., the smallest frequency difference that can be resolved by the FFT); a cursor generator structured to generate a first line cursor (e.g., 40.sub.1 in Fig. 4) at a specific location in time (“… to be varied by the input unit 5 with regard to their mutual spacing and their absolute position in the diagrams 34 and 35”) in the first window between a beginning time and an ending time of the time domain (col. 6, lines 49-52); a spectrogram generator structured to simultaneously generate a two-dimensional spectrogram representation (33 in Fig. 4) of the input signal in the second window, the spectrogram representation illustrating a frequency of the input signal on a first axis versus time of the input signal on a second axis (Fig. 4; col. 6, line 64 – col. 7, line 2); and a second cursor generator structured to generate a second line cursor (e.g., the upper or the lower boundary of the “range 36” in Fig. 4, which corresponds to the vertical limit line 40.sub.1 or 40.sub.2, of which the mutual spacing corresponds to the time range 41) on the spectrogram representation that corresponds to the same time in both the first and the second windows simultaneously, in which, when a user of the test and measurement instrument changes (via input unit 5 in Fig. 1) a location of the first line cursor from a first time to a second time in the first window, the test and measurement system changes the location of the second line cursor in the second window to match the second time (col. 8, lines 49-55: “As soon as one of the vertical limit lines 38.sub.1, 38.sub.2 and 40.sub.1, 40.sub.2 is varied, the at least one central data-processing unit 2 updates the selection range 36 in the first diagram 33”).
Regarding claim 8, Cirillo discloses: a user interface, through which a user may change the specific location in time of the first line cursor in a time window from a first location to a second location (col. 8, lines 49-55).
Regarding claim 9, Cirillo discloses: the user interface is a graphical user interface (e.g., 35 in Fig. 4), and in which the user may change the specific location in time of the first line cursor in the first window by operating a computer mouse (col. 4, lines 43-47; col. 8, lines 49-52).
Regarding claim 18, Cirillo discloses: accepting a change in location in time of the first line cursor position or the third line cursor position through a user interface (see discussion of Cirillo’s input unit 5 for claim 8 above).
Regarding claim 19, Cirillo discloses: the user interface is a graphical user interface (e.g., 35 in Fig.), and in which accepting a change in location in time of the first line cursor position or the third line cursor position comprises detecting movement of a computer mouse (col. 4, lines 43-47; col. 8, lines 49-52).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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 of this title, 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.
6. Claims 2-7, 13-17 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cirillo in view of Nara (US 20100272166 A1).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, Cirillo discloses: a third window (34 in Fig. 4) in the display; a spectral generator to simultaneously produce a spectral display (e.g., 37.sub.2 in window 34) in the third window of a portion of the input signal that has the pre-determined resolution bandwidth (col. 5, lines 35-49; col. 8, lines 24-41 and 49-67).
Cirillo does not mention explicitly: said spectral display (37.sub.2 in window 34) is centered around the first line cursor (40.sub.1 in window 35) of the first window.
Nara discloses a signal analyzer configured to provide frequency domain data derived from inputs of time domain data at different time and frequency resolution (Abstract), comprising: a spectral generator to produce a spectral display (e.g., the portion of the spectrogram within the box 50 in the graph area 42 in Fig. 4; para. 0003: “A graph area 42 displays the frequency domain data as a spectrogram graph of which horizontal axis is frequency, vertical axis is time in frame number”; see also para. 0024-0027); a cursor generator structured to generate a cursor (e.g., 44 Figs. 3 and 4 or 46 in Fig. 3) at a specific location in time (para. 0004), wherein the cursor pointing to a portion of the input time domain data that is centered around the cursor such that said spectral display is centered around the cursor (para. 0035: "the time location selected with the marker 46 on the display screen of FIG. 3 may be set as the center of the width along the time axis of the selecting box 50").
Since Cirillo teaches the general condition of selecting/varying the range box 36 or the vertical limit lines 40.sub.1/40.sub.2 (Fig. 4) to frame the signal impulse 37.sub.2 in an optimum manner (col. 8, lines 16-20 and 49-55), in view of Nara’s teaching of manipulating the graphical/visual spectrum time indicator (e.g., box 50 Fig. 4) using the mouse cursor in the time domain, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nara's cursor generator into Cirillo to provide a line cursor as an additional operator for assisting the user in designating a desired center position of the range box 36 or the area framed by the time limit lines (Nara, para. 0028).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 13-14, Cirillo discloses: wherein the spectral generator is further configured to produce a second spectral display (e.g., 50 in window 33 of Fig, 5B) in the second window (e.g., 33 in Fig. 5) of a second portion of the input signal that has the pre-determined resolution bandwidth (see discussion of interference spur 50 in window 33 of Fig. 5B); wherein the second portion of the input signal has a location in the time domain of the first window (35 in Fig. 5B) that is different than the location of the first line cursor (associated with 37.sub.1 in window 35 of Fig. 5B) in the time window and is between the beginning time and the ending time (see discussion of 50 in window 35 of Fig. 5B).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 15-16, Cirillo teaches: wherein the second portion of the input signal is centered about a location (e.g., the center location of the area framed by 40.sub.1/40.sub.2) in time in the first window (see discussion of 50 in window 35 of Fig. 5B); wherein the second portion of the input signal is centered (or focused) in the third window (see discussion of interference spurs 50 in window 34 of Fig. 5B).
Cirillo does not mention explicitly: wherein said location in time in the first window is indicated by a third line cursor.
The teaching of Nara includes: a cursor generator structured to generate a cursor (e.g., 44 Figs. 3 and 4 or 46 in Fig. 3) at a specific location in time (para. 0004), wherein the cursor pointing to a portion of the input time domain data that is centered around the cursor such that a spectral display is centered around the cursor (para. 0035: "the time location selected with the marker 46 on the display screen of FIG. 3 may be set as the center of the width along the time axis of the selecting box 50").
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Nara's teaching of the cursor generator into Cirillo to provide a third line cursor as an additional operator for assisting the user in designating a desired center position of the second portion of the input signal in the first window. Doing so would facilitate designating a desired portion of the input time domain data by a graphical operation (Nara, para. 0028) using common mouse cursor pointing/dragging events, thus improving the feasibility and applicability of the Cirillo invention.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Cirillo discloses: wherein the spectral generator is further configured to produce a third spectral display (e.g., 37.sub.6 in window 34 of Fig. 5B) of a third portion of the input signal that has the pre-determined resolution bandwidth (col. 5, lines 35-49; col. 9, lines 54-63); producing a third spectral display (e.g., 37.sub.6 in window 34 of Fig. 5B) in the third window (window 34 of Fig. 5B) of a third portion of the input signal that has the pre-determined resolution bandwidth (col. 5, lines 35-49; col. 9, lines 54-63).
Regarding claim 7, Cirillo does not mention explicitly: the spectral generator is further configured to produce any number of spectral displays of portions of the input signal respectively centered about any number of line cursors displayed in the time window.
The limitation in question is considered a mere intended application of the Cirillo/Nara combination, as discussed for claims 2 and 3 above, for producing multiple spectral displays of portions of the input signal respectively centered about a corresponding line cursor displayed in the time window. Since Cirillo teaches the general condition of the spectral displays of portions of the input signal and the adjustability of the selection range box 36 or line cursors 40.sub.1/40.sub.2 (Cirillo, col. 8, lines 10-23 and 33-41), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Cirillo/Nara combination to arrive the claimed invention, which the skilled person would conceive and apply without needing inventive skill but depending on practical considerations and according to the dictates of the circumstances. It has been held that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
7. Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cirillo in view of Foo et al. (US 20100194755 A1).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Cirillo is silent on: the user interface is a text interface, and in which the user may change the specific location in time of the line cursor in the first window by entering a location reference in the first window through the text interface.
Foo discloses a method/apparatus for identifying a point on a rendered signal (Abstract); comprising: providing a user interface (201 Figs. 2-5), and displaying in the user interface an input time domain signal (207/209 Figs. 2 and 4; para. 0003: “A typical representation of the sampled-points on the oscilloscope is a time-amplitude graph (time-voltage signal) …”) for measurement (para. 0030, 0045), wherein the user interface comprises a text interface (e.g., 215 Fig. 2; 413 Fig. 4); enabling a user to visually designate a portion of the input data through the text interface (para. 0035, 0044, 0046; see also para. 0080: “It can return the display-points to the requesting object by the start time and end time of display-points”); wherein the user may change the specific location in time of a cursor (e.g., a mouse cursor, or a marker on the display that can be moved by the user, see para. 0005, 0011-0015, 0037; the movable button of a scroll-bar 415 in Fig. 4 also reads on “a cursor”) in a window of the user interface by entering a location reference in the window through the text interface (para. 0046, 0072, 0075, 0080).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Foo’s teaching of the text interface into Cirillo to arrive the claimed invention. Doing so would allow to provide an additional input means for the user to select a location reference in the first window, such that the user can easily find the accurate placement of markers (or cursor) in the time domain as the identification of a desired portion of the input signal (Foo, para. 0013, 0020).
Conclusion
8. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XIUQIN SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-2280. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00pm.
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, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. 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.
/X.S/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/SHELBY A TURNER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights