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 amendments filed on July 16, 2026 and June 17, 2026 have been considered.
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 6 and 25 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 6, “the display adjacent to the first spectrogram” (lines 2-3) lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 25, “the display adjacent to the first spectrogram” (line 3) lacks antecedent basis.
Examiner interprets the limitations to read – a display adjacent to the first spectrogram --.
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, 11, 14, 21, 23, 24, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dobyns et al. (US 2012/0036947).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Dobyns et al. discloses a test and measurement instrument (Abstract, line 1), comprising:
a first channel input for accepting a first input signal (18) (Fig. 1);
a second channel input for accepting a second input signal (18) (Fig. 1);
a spectrogram processor (14) for producing a first spectrogram (spectrum 100; claim 2, lines 7-8; see definition of spectrogram) from the first input signal (spectrum are from input ports, Abstract) and for producing a second spectrogram (large spectrum, small 104, Fig. 9) from the second input signal (spectrum are from input ports, Abstract); and
a display (60) for simultaneously showing the first spectrogram (100) and the second spectrogram (second spectrum, Fig. 9) vertically stacked on the display (first and second spectrums are vertically stacked, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Dobyns et al. discloses the first spectrogram and the second spectrogram have different frequency spans (first spectrum 100 has a different span than that of second frequency span 104, Fig. 9).
Regarding claims 4, 14, 23, and 31, Dobyns et al. discloses the first spectrogram (100) and the second spectrogram (second large spectrum, Fig. 9) have a different center frequency (Fig. 9).
Regarding claims 5 and 24, Dobyns et al. discloses the first spectrogram and the second-spectrograms spectrogram are continuous spectrograms (first and second spectrums, Fig. 9, are continuous).
Regarding claim 21, Dobyns et al. discloses a test and measurement instrument (Abstract, line 1), comprising:
a first channel input for accepting a first input signal (18) (Fig. 1);
a second channel input for accepting a second input signal (18) (Fig. 1);
a spectrogram processor (14) for producing a first spectrogram (100; claim 2, lines 7-8) from the first input signal (Abstract) and for producing a second spectrogram (second spectrum, Fig. 9) from the second input signal (Abstract); and
a display (60) for simultaneously showing the first spectrogram (100) and the second spectrogram (second spectrum, Fig. 9), the first spectrogram and the second spectrogram having same frequency spans (Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 30, Dobyns et al. discloses a method in a test and measurement instrument (Abstract, line 1), the method comprising:
accepting a first input signal from a first input channel (18) (Fig. 1);
accepting a second input signal from a second input channel (18) (Fig. 1);
producing a first spectrogram (100; claim 2, lines 7-8) from the first input signal (spectrum are from input ports, Abstract) and a second spectrogram (second spectrum, Fig. 9) from the second input signal (spectrum are from input ports, Abstract); and
simultaneously showing the first spectrogram and the second spectrogram (Fig. 9) on a display (60), the first spectrogram and the second spectrogram having same frequency spans (Fig. 9).
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 6-8 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobyns et al. in view of Smith et al. (US 4,870,348).
.
Regarding claims 6 and 25, Dobyns et al. does not disclose 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 Dobyns et al. with a spectrum display that is shown on the display adjacent to the first spectrogram for the purposes of monitoring and comparison.
Regarding claims 7 and 26, Dobyns et al. 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 Dobyns et al. 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 Smith et al..
Regarding claims 8 and 27, Dobyns et al. discloses locations of the first spectrogram (100), the second spectrogram (second large spectrum/small spectrum 104), first spectrum display (display 60 of 100), and the second spectrum display (display 60 of second large spectrum/small spectrum) are independently positionable on the display (the first spectrogram, first spectrum display, Fig. 9, are displayed independently from the second spectrogram, second spectrum display, Fig. 9) by a user via 106, 108).
Claims 9 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dobyns et al. in view of Holcomb et al. (US 2023/0140131).
Regarding claims 9 and 28, Dobyns et al. does not 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.
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 Dobyns et al. 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..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 29 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.
Reasons For Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The combination as claimed wherein a test and measurement instrument comprising 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 (claims 10, 29) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 16, 2026 and June 17, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 112(a) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejections12(a) under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Dobyns et al. (US 2012/0036947), as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dobyns et al. discloses a test and measurement instrument (Abstract, line 1). Dobyns et al. further discloses a first channel input for accepting a first input signal (18) (Fig. 1), a second channel input for accepting a second input signal (18) (Fig. 1), and a display (60) for simultaneously showing the first spectrogram (100) and the second spectrogram (second spectrum, Fig. 9) vertically stacked on the display (first and second spectrums are vertically stacked, Fig. 9). However, Dobyns et al. does not disclose a spectrum display generated from a combination of individual spectrums but not including an individual spectrum from the first input signal (claims 10, 29).
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 July 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights