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 .
The amendment filed on December 15, 2025 has been considered.
Specification
The amendment filed December 15, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the disclosure of “different spectrograms … have different/independent frequency spans” (paragraph 0013; Fig. 7B).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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.
Claims 3 and 21-31 are 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.
Claims 3, 21, and 30, the fist spectrogram and the second spectrogram have different frequency spans is not described in the original disclosure. For example, the original specification discloses that “the first spectrogram and the second spectrogram have the same frequency span” (paragraph 0052).
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, 4-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldo et al. (US 2023/0221352) in view of JP ‘827 (JP 5233827).
The applied reference, Waldo et al. (US 2023/0221352), has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Waldo et al. discloses a test and measurement instrument and method (Abstract, line 1), comprising:
a first channel input for accepting a first input signal (channel of test and measurement instrument receiving input signal, Abstract, lines 1-3);
a second channel input for accepting a second input signal (input selected from zoom window, paragraph 0092, line 4; user inputs from user interface, Abstract, lines 5-6);
a spectrogram processor (spectrogram generator, Abstract, lines 1-2) for producing a first spectrogram from the first input signal (Abstract, lines 1-3) and for producing a second spectrogram (Abstract, lines 7-9) from the second input signal (paragraph 0092, lines 1-4; Abstract, lines 7-10); and
a display for showing the first spectrogram (Abstract, line 3) and the second spectrogram on the display (paragraph 0092, lines 1-4).
However, Waldo et al. does not disclose the display for simultaneously showing the first spectrogram and the second spectrogram vertically stacked on the display.
JP ‘827 discloses a display for simultaneously showing the first spectrogram and the second spectrogram vertically stacked on the display (page 13, paragraph 8, lines 1-2; Fig. 6B) for obtaining a spectrogram of observation signals (page 13, paragraph 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Waldo et al. as modified with a display for simultaneously showing the first spectrogram and the second spectrogram vertically stacked on the display as disclosed by JP ‘827 for the purpose of obtaining a spectrogram of observation signals.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Waldo et al. discloses the first spectrogram and the second spectrogram have a different center frequency (different centers frequency of spectrograms 1250, Fig. 12, and 1350, Fig. 13).
Regarding claim 5, Waldo et al. discloses the first spectrogram and the second-spectrograms spectrogram are continuous spectrograms (spectrograms 1250, 1350 are continuous spectrograms, Figs, 12, 13).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldo et al. in view of JP ‘827 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 4,870,348).
Regarding claim 6, Waldo et al. as modified by JP ‘827 discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above except a spectrum display generated from a portion of the first input signal that is shown on the display adjacent to the first spectrogram.
Smith et al. discloses a spectrum display generated from a portion of the first input signal that is shown on the display adjacent to the first spectrogram (Fig. 3) for monitoring and comparison purposes (suggested buy column 1, lines 54-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Waldo et al. as modified with a spectrum display that is shown on the display adjacent to the first spectrogram for the purposes of monitoring and comparison.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldo et al. in view of JP ‘827 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holcomb et al. (US 2023/0140131).
Regarding claim 9, Waldo et al. as modified by JP ‘827 discloses the claimed limitations as discussed above except a third channel input for accepting a third input signal, in which the spectrogram processor is structured to produce a third spectrogram from the third input signal.
While Holcomb et al. does not expressly disclose a third channel input for accepting a third input signal, in which the spectrogram processor is structured to produce a third spectrogram from the third input signal, Holcomb et al. discloses producing a plurality of spectrograms (paragraph 0041, lines 13-16), producing spectrogram from an input signal (Fig. 5); and the test and measurement instrument have a plurality of input ports for accepting input signals (paragraph 0026, line 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Waldo et al. as modified with a third input port/channel for the purpose of producing a third spectrogram, as suggested by the plurality of input ports and a plurality of spectrograms Holcomb et al..
Regarding claim 10, while Waldo et al. as modified by JP ‘827 does not expressly disclose the display is structured to show a spectrum display generated from a combination of individual spectrums from the second input signal and the third input signal, but not including an individual spectrum from the first input signal, Waldo et al. discloses a display (Fig. 7) that displays spectrums corresponding to an input signal (paragraph 0042, lines 1-6). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to select an input from among the inputs to display a corresponding spectrum or not display a spectrum corresponding to an unselected input.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Waldo et al. as modified with a display is structured to show a spectrum display generated from a combination of individual spectrums from the second input signal and the third input signal, but not including an individual spectrum from the first input signal as suggested by Waldo et al. for the purpose of displaying a spectrum corresponding to a selected input.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waldo et al. in view of JP ‘827 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holcomb et al. (US 2023/0140131) and Smith et al. (US 4,870,348).
Regarding claim 7, Waldo et al. as modified by JP ‘827 discloses the claimed features as discussed above except a first spectrum display generated from a portion of the first input signal and a second spectrum display generated from a portion of the second input signal, in which the first spectrum display is shown on the display adjacent to the first spectrogram and in which the second spectrum display shown on the display is adjacent to the second spectrogram.
While Holcomb et al. as modified does not disclose a first spectrum display generated from a portion of the first input signal and a second spectrum display generated from a portion of the second input signal, in which the first spectrum display is shown on the display adjacent to the first spectrogram and in which the second spectrum display shown on the display is adjacent to the second spectrogram.
As discussed above, Smith et al. discloses a first spectrum display generated from a portion of the first input signal that is shown on the display adjacent to the first spectrogram (Fig. 3) for monitoring and comparison purposes (suggested buy column 1, lines 54-56). It would have been obvious to position the first and/or second spectrum display that is/ shown on the display adjacent to the first and/or second spectrogram as suggested by Fig. 3 for the purposes of monitoring and comparison (column 1, lines 54-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Holcomb et al. as modified with a spectrum display that is shown on the display adjacent to the first spectrogram for the purposes of monitoring and comparison as suggested by Holcomb et al. and Smith et al..
Regarding claim 8, Waldo et al. discloses locations of the first spectrogram (1250), the second spectrogram (1350), first spectrum display (1120), and the second spectrum display (1130) are independently positionable on the display (the first spectrogram, first spectrum display, Fig. 12, are displayed independently from the second spectrogram, second spectrum display, Fig. 13) by a user (spectrograms are controlled by a user, Abstract, lines 4-12).
Prior Art Note
Claims 3 and 21-31 do not have prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein a test and measurement instrument and method comprising the first spectrogram and the second spectrogram have different frequency spans (claims 3, 21, 31) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 15, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections have been withdrawn.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 103, Applicants argue “claims 1 (and claim 11) have been amended to incorporate the subject matter of prior claims 2 (and claim 12) deemed allowable, and claims 2 (and claim 12) have been cancelled. Amended claim 1 (and claim 11) therefore include the allowable limitations of prior claims 2 (and claim 12), and the Applicant asserts that claims 1-2, 4-11, and 14 are in condition for allowance.”
Examiner’s position is that claims 1 (and claim 11) have not been amended to incorporate the subject matter of prior claims 2 (and claim 12). Rather, claims 1 (and claim 11) have been amended to incorporate the subject matter of “a display for simultaneously showing the first spectrogram and the second spectrogram vertically stacked on the display”. As discussed above, JP ‘827 discloses a display for simultaneously showing the first spectrogram and the second spectrogram vertically stacked on the display (page 13, paragraph 8, lines 1-2; Fig. 6B) for obtaining a spectrogram of observation signals (page 13, paragraph 8).
Applicants further argue “[t]he subject matter of claims 3 (and 13) have also been rewritten in independent form as newly added claims 21 (and 30), respectively. Because claims 21 (and 30) include the subject matter of claims 3 (and 13) that were deemed allowable, the Applicant asserts that claims 21 (and 30) and the claims depending from it-i.e., newly added claims 22-29, 31, respectively, are in condition for allowance.”
Examiner’s position is that the subject matter of prior claim 3 (and prior 13) have not been rewritten in independent form as newly added claim 21 (and 30). Rather, the subject matter of the first spectrogram and the second spectrogram have different frequency spans has been rewritten in independent form as newly added claim 21 (and claim 30). As discussed above, the first spectrogram and the second spectrogram having different frequency spans is not described in the original disclosure.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been considered but are traversed in view of the discussions and rejections above.
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
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 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).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 April 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights