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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected subcombination, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/02/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 916 (see specification [0050]). 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. 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 13, 18, and 20-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, line 5, “the determined amount of improvement” should be --the determined amount of increase-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 18, line 3, “the voltage ripple” should be --a voltage ripple-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 20, line 6, “the serial data signal” should be --a serial data signal-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 20, line 11, “the results” should be --results-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are objected to for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 22-24 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.
Regarding claim 22, it recites “The test and measurement system according to claim 17” in line 1. However, there is not antecedent basis for “The test and measurement system.” For examination purpose, --The test and measurement system according to claim 20-- is assumed.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are rejected for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
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.
MPEP 2106 outlines a two-part analysis for Subject Matter Eligibility as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Step 2, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis. Abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Claims 1-4, 6-15, 17, and 19-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)? Yes (see analysis below).
Prong one: Whether the claim recites a judicial exception? (Yes). The claim is directed to an abstract idea because it recites the limitation “correlating the noise measured from the power supply to the jitter of the serial data signal.” The limitation is directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper).
Prong two: Whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception? (No). The claim recites additional elements of “measuring noise at an output of a power supply; measuring jitter of a serial data signal produced by a data generating circuit coupled to the power supply.” However, they are recited at a high level of generality to collect the data for the abstract idea, which are insignificant extra-solution activities. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The power supply and data generating circuit are recited at high level of generality that they are not particular machines (see MPEP 2106.05(b)) and are to indicate the data source, environment, and/or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements (other than the judicial exception) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No (see analysis below).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, the additional element(s) in the claim are insignificant extra-solution activities, generic machines, and/or to indicate the field of use. Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-15, 17, and 19 when analyzed as a whole respectively are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they either extend (or add more details to) the abstract idea or the additional recited limitation(s) (if any) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as discussed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that sufficiently integrates the abstract idea into a practical application of, or makes the claims significantly more than, the judicial exception (abstract idea). The additional element(s) (if any) are mere instructions to apply an except, field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities (applied to Step 2A_Prong Two and Step 2B; see MPEP 2016.05(f)-(h)) and/or well-understood, routine, or conventional (applied to Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. Note That claim 2 recites additional elements of outputting results of the Abstract idea, not sufficient to make the claim a practical application.
On the other hand, claims 5, 18, and 21-25 are eligible under 35 USC 101. Claim 5 requires applying a generated stress signal to the power supply at a particular frequency. It is a particular active testing step rather than mere data collection. Claim 18 similarly requires applying a voltage ripple at a particular frequency. Claims 21-25 recite sufficient structure of the test and measurement system to be a particular machine (See MPEP 2106.05(b)).
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, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmitt et al. ("Investigating the Impact of Supply Noise on the Jitter in Gigabit I/O Interfaces" IEEE 2007; hereinafter “Schmitt”).
Regarding claim 1, Schmitt teaches a method in a test and measurement instrument (i.e., “The serial link test system”; see p. 190. ¶ 4) comprising:
measuring noise at an output of a power supply (i.e., “These monitors use the auto-correlation of supply voltage measurements different at two time points to determine the supply noise spectrum”; see p. 190, ¶ 4 and FIG. 4; “The amplitude of the supply noise at the frequency of interest is measured using the noise monitor circuits”; see p. 190, ¶ 7);
measuring jitter of a serial data signal produced by a data generating circuit (i.e., high speed interface; see Abstract) coupled to the power supply (i.e., “the resulting jitter at this frequency is measured. Sweeping the noise frequency provides the sensitivity profile over the frequency range of interest… The jitter component due to the generated supply noise is measured at the clock-like signal transmitted by the link using a real time scope”; see p. 190, ¶ 7 and FIG. 7); and
correlating the noise measured from the power supply to the jitter of the serial data signal (i.e., “We define the jitter sensitivity of an interface system as the ratio between the jitter generated by a single-frequency supply noise signal divided by the amplitude of this noise signal”; see p. 190, ¶ 6 and formula (2); “We can estimate the jitter spectrum induced by supply noise in the interface by multiplying the simulated supply noise spectrum with the measured jitter sensitivity”; see p. 191, ¶ 1 and formula (3)).
Regarding claim 5, Schmitt further teaches:
applying a generated stress signal to the power supply at a particular frequency (i.e., “In order to measure the noise sensitivity at one frequency, supply noise is generated at this frequency”; see p. 190, ¶ 7).
Regarding claim 6, Schmitt further teaches:
in which measuring noise at an output of a power supply comprises measuring ripple (i.e., “The amplitude of the supply noise at the frequency of interest is measured using the noise monitor circuits”; see p. 190, ¶ 7).
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, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt.
Regarding claim 2, Schmitt further teaches:
generating a first spectral plot display in a frequency domain of the measured noise spanning a range of frequencies (see FIG. 4);
generating a second spectral plot display in the frequency domain of the measured jitter spanning (see FIG. 7); and
presenting the first spectral plot display and the second spectral plot display (see FIGs 4 and 7)
Schmitt does not explicitly disclose (see only the underlined):
generating a second spectral plot display in the frequency domain of the measured jitter spanning the same range of frequencies; and
presenting the first spectral plot display and the second spectral plot display on an output display screen.
It is well-known to show a plot on a display screen. Also, since the noise and jitter are correlated at the same frequencies (see formulae (2) and (3)), It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schmitt by generating a second spectral plot display in the frequency domain of the measured jitter spanning the same range of frequencies; and presenting the first spectral plot display and the second spectral plot display on an output display screen, as claimed. The rationale would be to facilitate the showing of the spectral plots at the corresponding frequencies of interest.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Schmitt does not explicitly disclose:
in which the range of frequencies is user specified.
However, sine different circuits are sensitive to different frequency ranges (see p. 189, Introduction), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Schmitt such that the range frequencies is user specified, as claimed. The rationale would be to provide flexibility in analyzing different circuits.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Schmitt does not explicitly disclose:
presenting a series of interactive screens to a user of the test and measurement instrument.
However, it is well-known to present a series interactive screens in a computer application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schmitt by presenting a series of interactive screens to a user of the test and measurement instrument, as claimed. The rationale would be to facilitate the execution of the testing program in the testing system.
Regarding claim 18, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Schmitt does not explicitly disclose:
in which the series of interactive screens accepts a voltage ripple frequency from the user, and in which the voltage ripple is applied to the power supply at the accepted ripple frequency.
But Schmitt further teaches:
generating noise signal at a frequency (see p. 190, ¶ 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Schmitt, such that the series of interactive screens accepts a voltage ripple frequency from the user, and in which the voltage ripple is applied to the power supply at the accepted ripple frequency, as claimed. The rationale would be to facilitate the generation of the noise signal.
Regarding claim 20, Schmitt teaches a test and measurement system (see Abstract), comprising:
a Device Under Test (DUT) to be tested (i.e., the combination of “power delivery system” and “highspeed interfaces”), the DUT including a power supply (i.e., “power delivery system”) and a serial data generator (i.e., “highspeed interfaces”) that uses power supplied by the power supply (see Abstract); and a test and measurement instrument (i.e., “The serial link test system”; see p. 190. ¶ 4) coupled to the DUT, and including:
an input channel (this is implied or obvious for measurement of noise) for receiving a power supply signal from the power supply of the DUT (i.e., “These monitors use the auto-correlation of supply voltage measurements different at two time points to determine the supply noise spectrum”; see p. 190, ¶ 4 and FIG. 4; “The amplitude of the supply noise at the frequency of interest is measured using the noise monitor circuits”; see p. 190, ¶ 7);
another input channel (this is implied or obvious for measurement of jitter) for receiving the serial data signal generated by the DUT (i.e., “the resulting jitter at this frequency is measured. Sweeping the noise frequency provides the sensitivity profile over the frequency range of interest… The jitter component due to the generated supply noise is measured at the clock-like signal transmitted by the link using a real time scope”; see p. 190, ¶ 7 and FIG. 7);
a measurement unit structured to measure noise of the power supply signal (i.e., “These monitors use the auto-correlation of supply voltage measurements different at two time points to determine the supply noise spectrum”; see p. 190, ¶ 4 and FIG. 4; “The amplitude of the supply noise at the frequency of interest is measured using the noise monitor circuits”; see p. 190, ¶ 7) and to measure jitter of the serial data signal generated by the DUT (i.e., “the resulting jitter at this frequency is measured. Sweeping the noise frequency provides the sensitivity profile over the frequency range of interest… The jitter component due to the generated supply noise is measured at the clock-like signal transmitted by the link using a real time scope”; see p. 190, ¶ 7 and FIG. 7);
(i.e., “We define the jitter sensitivity of an interface system as the ratio between the jitter generated by a single-frequency supply noise signal divided by the amplitude of this noise signal”; see p. 190, ¶ 6 and formula (2); “We can estimate the jitter spectrum induced by supply noise in the interface by multiplying the simulated supply noise spectrum with the measured jitter sensitivity”; see p. 191, ¶ 1 and formula (3)); and
(see FIGs 4 and 7).
Schmitt does not explicitly disclose (see only the underlined):
a processor structured to correlate the noise measured from the power supply to the jitter of the serial data signal; and
a display structured to show the results of the correlation.
However, it is well-known to use a processor and a display to process data and display information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schmitt by incorporating a processor structured to correlate the noise measured from the power supply to the jitter of the serial data signal; and a display structured to show the results of the correlation, as claimed. The rationale would be to facilitate the testing.
Regarding claim 21, Schmitt further teaches: in which the results of the correlation comprises:
a first spectral plot display in a frequency domain of the power supply noise spanning a range of frequencies (see FIG. 4); and
a second spectral plot display in the frequency domain of the jitter spanning the same range of frequencies (see FIG. 7).
Regarding claim 25, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 17 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt in view of Gines et al (US 10200085 B1; hereinafter “Gines”).
Regarding claim 7, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Schmitt does not explicitly disclose:
in which measuring jitter of a serial data signal comprises measuring time interval error.
But Gines teaches:
measuring time interval error (i.e., “the measurement instrument is configured: to process the received victim signal to recover a clock for the received victim signal from the captured samples of the received victim signal; and to ascertain time interval error (TIE) data for the received victim signal from the captured samples of the received victim signal and from the recovered clock”; see col. 4, lines 52-58).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schmitt in view of Gines, such that measuring jitter of a serial data signal comprises measuring time interval error, as claimed. The rationale would be to measure a known jitter (i.e., TIE) to help better analyzing the jitter.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt in view of Keysight Labs (Bing Video: “How to Analyze Vertical Noise – Exposing Signal Integrity Myths – E2” 2019, screenshot provided; video available at https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=vertical+noise+jitter&mid=7DBB2E79EAD381AF8EAB7DBB2E79EAD381AF8EAB&FORM=VIRE).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Schmitt does not explicitly disclose:
measuring vertical noise of the serial data signal; and
correlating the noise measured from the power supply to the vertical noise of the serial data signal.
But Keysight Labs teaches:
measuring vertical noise of the serial data signal (see video); and
where the vertical noise can affect signal integrity and can be subtracted from DUT measurement (see video).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schmitt in view of Keysight Labs by measuring vertical noise of the serial data signal; and correlating the noise measured from the power supply to the vertical noise of the serial data signal (i.e., associating the vertical noise with the power supply noise for further analysis or for subtraction), as claimed. The rationale would be to obtain more accurate noise measurement.
Claims 9-12, 19, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt in view of Agoston et al. (US 20110103451 A1; hereinafter “Agoston”).
Regarding claims 9-11, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Schmitt does not explicitly disclose:
(claim 9) applying a notch filter to the serial data signal to generate a filtered serial data signal; and displaying a visual output of the filtered serial data signal.
(claim 10) in which parameters for the notch filter are configurable by a user of the test and measurement instrument.
(claim 11) in which displaying a visual output of the filtered serial data signal comprises generating an eye diagram of the filtered serial data signal, generating a spectral plot display of the filtered serial data signal, or generating a histogram of the filtered serial data signal.
Agoston teaches:
applying a notch filter to the serial data signal to generate a filtered serial data signal (i.e., “Filter elementPJ of the periodic jitter and filter elementPN of the periodic noise may be notch filters for removing particular periodic jitter and noise”; see [0035]); and
displaying serial data signal as a numeric table, eye diagram or bit error rate presentation (see abstract).
Note that a notch filter necessarily or obviously requires parameters configuration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schmitt in view of Agoston, by applying a notch filter to the serial data signal to generate a filtered serial data signal; and displaying a visual output of the filtered serial data signal, in which parameters for the notch filter are configurable by a user of the test and measurement instrument; in which displaying a visual output of the filtered serial data signal comprises generating an eye diagram of the filtered serial data signal, generating a spectral plot display of the filtered serial data signal, or generating a histogram of the filtered serial data signal as claimed. The rationale would be to test and check the results of removing the jitter.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art applied to the preceding linking claim(s) teaches the features of the linking claim(s).
Schmitt does not explicitly disclose:
displaying a visual output of the serial data signal prior to applying the notch filter.
However, displaying visual output of a serial data is well-known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Schmitt in view of Agoston, by displaying a visual output of the serial data signal prior to applying the notch filter, as claimed. The rationale would be to track the changes before and after the application of the filter.
Regarding claim 19, Schmitt further teaches:
in which the test and measurement instrument is coupled to a Device Under Test that includes the power supply (i.e., “power delivery system of”) and the data generating circuit (i.e., “high speed interfaces”; see Abstract), and
Schmitt does not explicitly disclose:
in which the series of interactive screens accepts input from a user defining an input channel of the test and measurement instrument that is coupled to the power supply, and accepts input from the user defining an input channel of the data generating circuit.
But Agoston teaches:
a testing device having plural input channels (i.e., “Oscilloscope 100 include multiple signal channels with each signal channel having an input on which is connected a signal acquisition probe 105 for acquiring electrical signals from a device under test (DUT). The oscilloscope 100 signal channel inputs are coupled to respective signal channel acquisition circuitry 115”; see [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Schmitt in view of Agoston, such that the series of interactive screens accepts input from a user defining an input channel of the test and measurement instrument that is coupled to the power supply, and accepts input from the user defining an input channel of the data generating circuit, as claimed. The rationale would be to facilitate the testing using a multi-channel oscilloscope or tester.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 9 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Regarding claim 23, the claim recites the same substantive further limitations as claim 11 and is rejected by applying the same teachings.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 13-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the features: “determining particular frequencies within the range of frequencies for which the noise components of the output of the power supply exceed a first threshold and for which the jitter components of the serial data signal exceed a second threshold,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. Schmitt teaches correlating the noise and jitter for showing the spectra and calculating the jitter sensitivity for corresponding frequencies. It does not teach or suggest the above indicted features. Nor does the other prior art of record.
Regarding claim 13, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the features: “determining an amount of increase of opening of an eye diagram produced from the serial data signal before and after application of the notch filter; and presenting the determined amount of improvement on a display,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. Schmitt is silent about the above indicated features. Agoston teaches eye diagram, but does not teach or suggest the above indicated features. Nor does the other prior art of record.
Regarding claims 14-15, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the features of claim 14: “in which correlating the noise measured from the power supply to the jitter of the serial data signal comprises comparing ripple measured from the power supply to time interval error of the serial data at particular frequencies,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. None of the prior art or record teach or suggest the above indicated features.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tripathi et al. ("A Review on Power Supply Induced Jitter" IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COMPONENTS, PACKAGING AND MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 9, NO. 3, MARCH 2019) provides a review on Power Supply Induced Jitter.
Sui et al. ("Predicting Statistical Characteristics of Jitter Due to Simultaneous Switching Noise" IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ELECTROMAGNETIC COMPATIBILITY, VOL. 58, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 2016) teaches a method using vectorless techniques to predict mean and standard deviation of power supply noise on a printed circuit board (PCB), and mean and standard deviation of the resulting peak-to-peak jitter in a driver on the same PCB.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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 Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights