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 The rejections from the Office Action of 7/3/2025 are hereby withdrawn. New grounds for rejection are presented below.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of a mental activity algorithm for identifying that signal data looks similar to other signal data and (i.e., Claims 6 and 7 for example) a mental activity and/or mathematical algorithm for determining signal matching [See instant Fig. 4 of the Drawings]. A combination of abstract ideas is an abstract idea [See 2106.05(I) – "Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no particular underlying device is recited in the Claims.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited hardware components amount to the recitation of the components of a general-purpose computer and do not serve to amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)). Acquiring the data needed for the algorithm would be necessary in implementing the algorithm and amounts to mere extra-solution activity. Displaying the algorithm results in a non-specific manner also amounts to mere extra-solution activity. Permitting user control of the algorithm, including the selection of data, is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the operation of a general-purpose computer [See Paragraphs [0035], [0039], and [0047] of US 20140236539 A1. See Column 5 lines 11-19 of US 6947043 B1.] and does not serve to amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehane et al. (US 20140236539 A1)[hereinafter “Lehane”] and Klingman et al. (US 6947043 B1)[hereinafter “Klingman”].
Regarding Claims 1, 13, and 17, Lehane discloses a test and measurement instrument (and corresponding method and corresponding computer-readable medium storing processing instructions [See Paragraphs [0006]-[0007]])[Paragraph [0001] – “A digital measurement instrument is used to measure and/or observe electrical signal properties. As an example, a digital oscilloscope can be used to capture and display a snapshot of an electrical signal in order to allow a user to observe features such as signal shape, amplitude, and so on.”], comprising:
an input for accepting an input signal from a Device Under Test (DUT)[Abstract – “A measurement instrument receives an analog input signal from a measurement target”Paragraph [0050] – “device under test”];
acquisition memory for storing a sampled waveform derived from the input signal; an output display [Paragraph [0003] – “ADC 110 receives the analog input signal from signal conditioner 105 and samples and digitizes the signal to produce a digital input signal. ADC 110 then stores the digital input signal in memory 115 for subsequent presentation on display 125. … Display 125 then presents a portion of the digital input signal in response to the detected trigger event.”]; and
one or more processors [Paragraph [0003] – “Processor 120 performs any required post-processing on the stored digital input signal.”] configured to:
display at least a portion of the sampled waveform on the output display [Paragraph [0003] – “Display 125 then presents a portion of the digital input signal in response to the detected trigger event.”];
accept a portion of the sampled waveform as a search portion [See Fig. 5 and Paragraph [0046] – “Referring to FIG. 5, the input signal is illustrated by a waveform labeled "Wave". The input signal is digitized to produce a sequence of digital values, labeled "Digital Value". During typical operation, a matching unit, such as that illustrated in FIG. 3 or 4, analyzes the digital values to detect the presence of a signature pattern defined by a regular expression. These functions of the matching unit can be implemented by a deterministic FSM that uses a combination of a regular expression ranges to specify low and high values. Each of these ranges requires the value must be between `0` and some low threshold or above a certain high threshold.”],
search the sampled waveform for portions similar to the search portion [Paragraph [0047] – “Individual steps used to identify the signature pattern are shown in FIG. 5 by a "use case" description, labeled "Usecase". An example regular expression is shown below the use case description. In the example regular expression, a range expression [0-20] specifies the maximum and minimum voltage a low value can take and the sequence modifier `+` specifies that a matching pattern can have `one or more` of these `lows`, resulting in a range expression [0-20]+. … In certain alternative embodiments, the FSM may transition back to an initial state without firing and again search for the range expression [0-20]+. In other words, in some embodiments the trigger may eventually fire in response to a pattern match rather than a pattern mismatch.”], and
visually indicate, on the output display, those portions of the sampled waveform that are similar to the search portion as matched portions [Paragraph [0035] – “In certain embodiments described below, hardware based triggers are configured to fire based on measurements related to waveform shape and/or the matching of waveforms to predetermined shapes. A user could, for example, select a trigger to match a waveform having a certain frequency, peak-to-peak value, and a particular shape and inherent noise level. Where the trigger fires, the user may be able to observe a certain type of noise or other property of interest.”].
Lehane fails to disclose that the one or more processors are configured to accept a user-selected portion of the displayed portion of the sampled waveform as a search portion.
However, Klingman teaches a method by which a user can select a user-selected portion of a displayed portion of a sampled waveform as a search portion [Column 5 lines 11-19 – “Alternatively, the user can use the pointing device or cursors to sketch a trigger template that highlights features of interest of the two waveforms. The user can sketch the shape of the waveform of interest on the display, using the display of infrequent events as a pattern or guide. The processor can determine time values and voltage levels from the sketch and automatically adjust the acquisition parameters to acquire only waveforms that satisfy these parameters.”].
It would have been obvious to utilize such a scheme to allow a user to lock on to features of interest in waveform data for display because doing so would have allowed a user to find the waveform data with the specific features they are interested in viewing.
Regarding Claim 2, Lehane discloses that a degree of similarity to the search portion that the portions of the sampled waveform exceed to be considered matched portions is user controllable [Paragraph [0035] – “In certain embodiments described below, hardware based triggers are configured to fire based on measurements related to waveform shape and/or the matching of waveforms to predetermined shapes. A user could, for example, select a trigger to match a waveform having a certain frequency, peak-to-peak value, and a particular shape and inherent noise level. Where the trigger fires, the user may be able to observe a certain type of noise or other property of interest.”].
Regarding Claim 3, Lehane discloses that the one or more processors are configured to accept a portion of the waveform between two user-controllable cursors as the search portion [Paragraph [0047] – “Individual steps used to identify the signature pattern are shown in FIG. 5 by a "use case" description, labeled "Usecase". An example regular expression is shown below the use case description. In the example regular expression, a range expression [0-20] specifies the maximum and minimum voltage a low value can take and the sequence modifier `+` specifies that a matching pattern can have `one or more` of these `lows`, resulting in a range expression [0-20]+. … In certain alternative embodiments, the FSM may transition back to an initial state without firing and again search for the range expression [0-20]+. In other words, in some embodiments the trigger may eventually fire in response to a pattern match rather than a pattern mismatch.”The “cursors” being 0 and 20.].
Regarding Claim 4, Lehane discloses that the one or more processors configured to visually indicate portions of the sampled waveform as matched portions are configured to highlight the matched portions on the output display [See Fig. 9.Paragraph [0054] – “in FIG. 9, a match occurs only with respect to the curve "5".”Paragraph [0059] – “Where one instance of the templates is successfully tracking the waveform, curve "5", the measurement instrument arms the instance of the expression and disregards all the others”].
Regarding Claim 5, Lehane discloses that the search portion is selected from a list of stored search portions [See the “Expressions” of Fig. 5.Paragraph [0047] – “In the example regular expression, a range expression [0-20] specifies the maximum and minimum voltage a low value can take and the sequence modifier `+` specifies that a matching pattern can have `one or more` of these `lows`, resulting in a range expression [0-20]+. Within the FSM, a repeated transition to this `low` state will be taken where an incoming value is equal to a value between 0 and 20. Otherwise, where the value is not between 0 and 20, the FSM will transition to a next state and evaluate the value with respect to the next range expression >{0,5}.”].
Regarding Claims 6, 15, and 19, Lehane discloses that the one or more processors configured to search the sampled waveform for portions similar to the search portion are configured to generate a correlation value for one or more portions of the sampled waveform [Paragraph [0037] – “Collectively, the samples taken over the designated period form a binary data sequence labeled "Binary". In the binary data sequence, each sample is assigned a first value (e.g., "1" or "high") where the waveform is greater than a predetermined threshold, and is assigned a second value (e.g., "0" or "low") where the waveform is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold.”Paragraph [0038] – “Once the binary data sequence has been captured, it can be matched against one or more signatures using any of several matching procedures. … In the example of FIG. 3, the matching is performed by first dividing the sequence into units of eight bits, as indicated by the label "Align", encoding the eight bit units as hexadecimal values (e.g., 70, C3, F8), and passing the encoded bits to a hardware based matching unit, labeled "Matcher". The matching unit determines whether the encoded bits match one or more of several designated signatures, and it generates one or more triggers upon identifying one or more corresponding matches.”Paragraph [0059] – “Where one instance of the templates is successfully tracking the waveform, curve "5", the measurement instrument arms the instance of the expression and disregards all the others”].
Regarding Claims 7, 16, and 20, Lehane discloses that the one or more processors are configured to visually indicate a matched portion [See Fig. 9.Paragraph [0054] – “in FIG. 9, a match occurs only with respect to the curve "5".”Paragraph [0059] – “Where one instance of the templates is successfully tracking the waveform, curve "5", the measurement instrument arms the instance of the expression and disregards all the others”] when the correlation value for a particular one of the one or more portions of the sampled waveform are correlated to the search portion above a threshold correlation value [Paragraph [0037] – “Collectively, the samples taken over the designated period form a binary data sequence labeled "Binary". In the binary data sequence, each sample is assigned a first value (e.g., "1" or "high") where the waveform is greater than a predetermined threshold, and is assigned a second value (e.g., "0" or "low") where the waveform is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold.”Paragraph [0038] – “Once the binary data sequence has been captured, it can be matched against one or more signatures using any of several matching procedures. … In the example of FIG. 3, the matching is performed by first dividing the sequence into units of eight bits, as indicated by the label "Align", encoding the eight bit units as hexadecimal values (e.g., 70, C3, F8), and passing the encoded bits to a hardware based matching unit, labeled "Matcher". The matching unit determines whether the encoded bits match one or more of several designated signatures, and it generates one or more triggers upon identifying one or more corresponding matches.”].
Regarding Claim 9, Lehane discloses that the one or more processors are configured to search the sample waveform for portions similar to the search portion only after being requested to perform the search by a user [Paragraph [0039] – “In general, the matching procedure may use an exact matching approach or a flexible matching approach, according to user specification or design.”].
Regarding Claims 14 and 18, Lehane discloses accepting an input signal from a Device Under Test (DUT)[Abstract – “A measurement instrument receives an analog input signal from a measurement target”Paragraph [0050] – “device under test”]; generating the sampled waveform derived from the input signal; and storing the sampled waveform on the test and measurement instrument [Paragraph [0003] – “ADC 110 receives the analog input signal from signal conditioner 105 and samples and digitizes the signal to produce a digital input signal. ADC 110 then stores the digital input signal in memory 115 for subsequent presentation on display 125.”].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehane et al. (US 20140236539 A1)[hereinafter “Lehane”], Klingman et al. (US 6947043 B1)[hereinafter “Klingman”], and Herbordt et al. (US 20160070461 A1)[hereinafter “Herbordt”].
Regarding Claim 8, Lehane fails to disclose that the one or more processors configured to visually indicate portions of the sampled waveform as matched portions are configured to simultaneously visually indicate portions of the sampled waveform in a main display as well as in an overview display that includes the entire sampled waveform.
However, Herbordt discloses displaying oscilloscope data in such a manner [See Figs. 5B and 5C]. It would have been obvious to display the data in such a manner because doing so would have allowed for more easily viewing data of interest relative to the entire data set.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lehane et al. (US 20140236539 A1)[hereinafter “Lehane”], Klingman et al. (US 6947043 B1)[hereinafter “Klingman”], and Bristol (US 4567405 A).
Regarding Claim 10, Lehane fails to disclose a second input for accepting a second input signal, in which the acquisition memory is configured to store a second sampled waveform derived from the second input signal, and in which the one or more processors are configured to visually indicate matched portions on a display showing the second sampled waveform.
However, Bristol discloses an oscilloscope that can accept multiple signal inputs [Column 2 lines 28-33 – “In the present device, plural input signals are received at terminals 20 and 22 and coupled via vertical preamplifiers 26 and 28 to vertical multiplexer 30 which selects between the vertical input signals and supplies a selected output to delay means 32.”Column 2 lines 42-45 – “Vertical multiplexer 30 and trigger circuit 36 are under the control of display sequencer 38 which may comprise a switch for selecting between the input signals applied at terminals 20 and 22.”]. It would have been obvious to duplicate the steps of Lehane for a second signal in order to allow for separately analyzing a second signal.
Regarding Claim 11, Lehane fails to disclose that the one or more processors are configured to: accept a portion of the second sampled waveform as a second search portion, search the second sampled waveform for portions similar to the second search portion, and visually indicate, on the output display, those portions of the sampled waveform and/or portions of the second sampled waveform that are similar to the second search portion as second matched portions.
However, Bristol discloses an oscilloscope that can accept multiple signal inputs [Column 2 lines 28-33 – “In the present device, plural input signals are received at terminals 20 and 22 and coupled via vertical preamplifiers 26 and 28 to vertical multiplexer 30 which selects between the vertical input signals and supplies a selected output to delay means 32.”Column 2 lines 42-45 – “Vertical multiplexer 30 and trigger circuit 36 are under the control of display sequencer 38 which may comprise a switch for selecting between the input signals applied at terminals 20 and 22.”]. It would have been obvious to duplicate the steps of Lehane for a second signal in order to allow for separately analyzing a second signal.
Regarding Claim 12, Lehane discloses that the one or more processors are configured to visually indicate matches only when portions of the sampled waveform are similar to the search portion [Paragraph [0035] – “In certain embodiments described below, hardware based triggers are configured to fire based on measurements related to waveform shape and/or the matching of waveforms to predetermined shapes. A user could, for example, select a trigger to match a waveform having a certain frequency, peak-to-peak value, and a particular shape and inherent noise level. Where the trigger fires, the user may be able to observe a certain type of noise or other property of interest.”], but fails to disclose also doing so when portions of the second sampled waveform are similar to the second search portion.
However, Bristol discloses an oscilloscope that can accept multiple signal inputs [Column 2 lines 28-33 – “In the present device, plural input signals are received at terminals 20 and 22 and coupled via vertical preamplifiers 26 and 28 to vertical multiplexer 30 which selects between the vertical input signals and supplies a selected output to delay means 32.”Column 2 lines 42-45 – “Vertical multiplexer 30 and trigger circuit 36 are under the control of display sequencer 38 which may comprise a switch for selecting between the input signals applied at terminals 20 and 22.”]. It would have been obvious to duplicate the steps of Lehane for a second signal in order to allow for jointly analyzing a second signal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
406
866
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim(s) recite(s) the abstract idea of a mental activity algorithm for identifying that signal data looks similar to other signal data and (i.e., Claims 6 and 7 for example) a mental activity and/or mathematical algorithm for determining signal matching [See instant Fig. 4 of the Drawings]. Figuring out the type of data that one is interested in seeing and then identifying the data that is similar to the type of data one is interested in seeing can be performed entirely in the human mind while looking at a data display.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image2.png
256
861
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
258
857
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 1 does not recite specialized instrumentation but rather recites an input, memory, a display, and processors (i.e., a general-purpose computer). Claim 1 does not recite an oscilloscope.
Permitting user control of the algorithm, including the selection of data, is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the operation of a general-purpose computer [See Paragraphs [0035], [0039], and [0047] of US 20140236539 A1. See Column 5 lines 11-19 of US 6947043 B1.] and does not serve to amount to the recitation of significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
No solution to the problem of identifying signal features is recited in Claim 1. Rather, Claim 1 merely recites identifying signal features and then displaying them.
Applicant argues:
Lehane fails to disclose the new limitations of the amended claims.
Examiner’s Response:
The Examiner agrees. New grounds for rejection are presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 10320955 B1 – Method For Decoding Data Packets
US 20110292990 A1 – MULTIPLE-INPUT, ON-CHIP OSCILLOSCOPE
US 5586114 A – Multiplexing Instrumentation Preamplifier
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ROBERT QUIGLEY whose telephone number is (313)446-4879. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at (571) 272-2619. 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.
/KYLE R QUIGLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857