DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/08/2026 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-6, 8-23 is/are now pending in the application. Claim(s) 13-17, 21, 22 is/are withdrawn in the application. Applicant's amendments have addressed all informalities as previously set forth in the non-final action mailed on 03/12/2026.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-12, 18-20, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more (See 2019 Update: Eligibility Guidance).
Independent Claim(s) 1, 20 recites
generating a first dataset indicating voltages of a signal detected at the input port over a time period;
generating a first portion of the first dataset graphically,
wherein
the first portion corresponds to a first interval that is a subset of the time period;
generating a second dataset indicating values of a derived characteristic of the signal over the time period;
generating the second dataset graphically;
receiving a selection of a second portion of the second dataset that corresponds to a second interval of the time period that is distinct from the first interval;
and
generating a third portion of the first dataset in response to receiving the selection,
wherein
the third portion of the first dataset and the second portion of the second dataset correspond to the second interval
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
In combination with Independent Claim(s) 1, Claim(s) 2-6, 8-12, 18-19, 23 recite(s)
generating the first portion of the first dataset comprises:
generating a first part of the first dataset;
and
replacing the first part with a second part of the first dataset that chronologically follows the first part.
receiving a command;
and
causing the replacing the first part to stop in response to receiving the command.
generating the second dataset comprises:
generating a first part of the second dataset;
and
replacing the first part with a second part of the second dataset that chronologically follows the first part.
receiving an additional selection of a part of the first dataset,
wherein
generating the second dataset comprises
generating the second dataset in response to receiving the selection.
receiving the selection comprises
receiving a command to move a cursor such that the cursor is aligned with the second portion of the second dataset.
receiving the selection comprises
receiving a touchscreen gesture at a position at which the second portion of the second dataset is displayed.
the voltages are instantaneous voltages of the signal.
generating the second dataset comprises
generating the second dataset simultaneously with generating the first portion of the first dataset.
the derived characteristic is a duty cycle of the signal, a pulse width of the signal, a period of the signal, an average value of the signal, a DC voltage of the signal, a root mean square (RMS) value of the signal, or a frequency of the signal.
generating a third dataset indicating second values of a second derived characteristic of the signal over the time period;
and
generating the third dataset graphically.
generating the third dataset comprises generating the third dataset simultaneously with generating the first portion of the first dataset.
generating the first dataset comprises generating the first dataset
[Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation] and/or [Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion)].
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (i.e. An instrument comprising: an input port; a display; a user interface; one or more processors; and a computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the instrument to perform functions comprising; an analog-to-digital converter; wherein the analog-to-digital converter receiving the signal);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) (i.e. generic/conventional computer functions (e.g., selecting (user input via a cursor/touchscreen) and displaying (with a display) different data individually/concurrently; generic data acquisition/output); or
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)) (e.g., dataset indicating voltages of a signal detected at the input port over a time period).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. The additional elements simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) (i.e. See Alice Corp. and cited references for evidence of additional elements (i.e., generic computer structure)).
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) 1-6, 11, 12, 18-20, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MACKINLAY ET AL. (US 20170293415 A1) (hereinafter “MACKINLAY”) in view of MANN (US 20170356771 A1).
With respect to Claim(s) 1, 20, MACKINLAY teaches ‘A process builds a view of a dataset. The process displays a graphical user interface window, including: a schema display region; a visualization region; and a shelf region that includes multiple shelves. The process detects user input to place a data field icon from the schema display region into the visualization region. Upon ceasing to detect the user input, the process associates the data field icon with a first shelf according to its data type and data types corresponding to other data field icons, if any, previously associated with the shelves, and then places the first data field icon within the first shelf. The method further includes determining a view type based on the data field icon and the association of the data field icon with the first shelf, and generating a graphical representation in the visualization region in accordance with the determined view type’ and the BRI of:
An instrument comprising: an input port; a display; a user interface; one or more processors; and a computer readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the instrument to perform functions (See, e.g., Fig(s). 1)
comprising:
generating a first dataset over a time period; displaying a first portion of the first dataset graphically on the display, wherein the first portion corresponds to a first interval that is a subset of the time period; generating a second dataset over the time period; displaying the second dataset graphically on the display; receiving, via the user interface, a selection of a second portion of the second dataset that corresponds to a second interval of the time period that is distinct from the first interval; and displaying a third portion of the first dataset on the display in response to receiving the selection, wherein the third portion of the first dataset and the second portion of the second dataset correspond to the second interval (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 8A-8I).
However, MACKINLAY is lacking the explicit language of:
a first dataset indicating voltages of a signal detected at the input port; a second dataset indicating values of a derived characteristic of the signal over the time period.
MANN teaches ‘Useful and meaningful machine characteristic information may be derived through analysis of oversampled digital data collected using dynamic signal analyzers... Such data have generally been discarded in prior art systems. In addition to peak values and decimated values, other oversampled values are used that are associated with characteristics of the machine being monitored and the sensors and circuits that gather the data. This provides more useful information than has previously been derived from oversampled data within a sampling interval.’ and the BRI of:
a first dataset indicating voltages of a signal detected at the input port; a second dataset indicating values of a derived characteristic of the signal over the time period (See, e.g., ¶ 0261; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2-18).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MACKINLAY to include a first dataset indicating voltages of a signal detected at the input port; a second dataset indicating values of a derived characteristic of the signal over the time period.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify MACKINLAY because it would be beneficial to improve analysis of oversampled digital data collected using dynamic signal analyzers. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 2, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
MACKINLAY further teaches the BRI of:
displaying the first portion of the first dataset comprises:
displaying a first part of the first dataset; and replacing the first part within the display with a second part of the first dataset that chronologically follows the first part (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 8A-8I).
With respect to Claim(s) 3, 5, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
MACKINLAY further teaches the BRI of:
receiving a command via the user interface; and causing the replacing the first part within the display to stop in response to receiving the command (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 8A-8I).
With respect to Claim(s) 4, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
MACKINLAY further teaches the BRI of:
displaying the second dataset comprises:
displaying a first part of the second dataset; and replacing the first part within the display with a second part of the second dataset that chronologically follows the first part (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 8A-8I).
With respect to Claim(s) 6, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
MACKINLAY further teaches the BRI of:
receiving, via the user interface, an additional selection of a part of the first dataset, wherein generating the second dataset comprises generating the second dataset in response to receiving the selection (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 8A-8I).
With respect to Claim(s) 11, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
MACKINLAY further teaches the BRI of:
displaying the second dataset comprises
displaying the second dataset simultaneously with displaying the first portion of the first dataset (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 8A-8I).
With respect to Claim(s) 12, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
MANN further teaches the BRI of:
the derived characteristic is a duty cycle of the signal, a pulse width of the signal, a period of the signal, an average value of the signal, a DC voltage of the signal, a root mean square (RMS) value of the signal, or a frequency of the signal (See, e.g., ¶ 0261; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2-18).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MACKINLAY to include the derived characteristic is a duty cycle of the signal, a pulse width of the signal, a period of the signal, an average value of the signal, a DC voltage of the signal, a root mean square (RMS) value of the signal, or a frequency of the signal.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify MACKINLAY because it would be beneficial to improve analysis of oversampled digital data collected using dynamic signal analyzers. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 18, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
MACKINLAY further teaches the BRI of:
generating a third dataset indicating second values; and displaying the third dataset graphically on the display (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 8A-8I).
MANN further teaches the BRI of:
a second derived characteristic of the signal over the time period (See, e.g., ¶ 0261; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 2-18).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MACKINLAY to include a second derived characteristic of the signal over the time period.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify MACKINLAY because it would be beneficial to improve analysis of oversampled digital data collected using dynamic signal analyzers. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 19, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
MACKINLAY further teaches the BRI of:
displaying the third dataset comprises displaying the third dataset simultaneously with displaying the first portion of the first dataset (See, e.g., ¶ ABSTRACT; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 8A-8I).
With respect to Claim(s) 23, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
MANN further teaches the BRI of:
an analog-to-digital converter, wherein generating the first dataset comprises generating the first dataset via the analog-to-digital converter receiving the signal (See, e.g., ¶ 0261, 0262, 0272; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MACKINLAY to include an analog-to-digital converter, wherein generating the first dataset comprises generating the first dataset via the analog-to-digital converter receiving the signal.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify MACKINLAY because it would be beneficial to improve analysis of oversampled digital data collected using dynamic signal analyzers. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) in view of PATEL ET AL. (US 20170285902 A1) (hereinafter “PATEL”).
With respect to Claim(s) 8, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
MACKINLAY teaches the BRI of:
the second portion of the second dataset.
However, MACKINLAY is lacking the explicit language of:
receiving the selection comprises receiving a command to move a cursor within the display such that the cursor is aligned.
PATEL teaches ‘methods, systems, and program products that include presenting, by electronic device, a user interface on a display of the electronic device. The user interface includes a trace of a first waveform, an element that presents multiple properties of the first waveform or a channel on which the first waveform was acquired, a trace of a second waveform, and a second user interface element that presents multiple properties of the second waveform or a channel on which the second waveform was acquired. The electronic device can receive user input that selects the first user interface element and then selects the second user interface element. The electronic device can apply one or more settings of the trace of the first waveform to the trace of the second waveform’ and the BRI of:
receiving the selection comprises receiving a command to move a cursor within the display (See, e.g., ¶ 0024, 0043, 0064; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-13).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MACKINLAY to include receiving the selection comprises receiving a command to move a cursor within the display.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify MACKINLAY because it would be beneficial to improve presenting, by electronic device, a user interface on a display of the electronic device. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to Claim(s) 9, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
MACKINLAY teaches the BRI of:
the second portion of the second dataset is displayed.
However, MACKINLAY is lacking the explicit language of:
receiving the selection comprises receiving a touchscreen gesture at a position within the display at which.
PATEL teaches ‘methods, systems, and program products that include presenting, by electronic device, a user interface on a display of the electronic device. The user interface includes a trace of a first waveform, an element that presents multiple properties of the first waveform or a channel on which the first waveform was acquired, a trace of a second waveform, and a second user interface element that presents multiple properties of the second waveform or a channel on which the second waveform was acquired. The electronic device can receive user input that selects the first user interface element and then selects the second user interface element. The electronic device can apply one or more settings of the trace of the first waveform to the trace of the second waveform’ and the BRI of:
receiving the selection comprises receiving a touchscreen gesture at a position within the display (See, e.g., ¶ 0024, 0043, 0064; See also, e.g., Fig(s). 1-13).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MACKINLAY to include receiving the selection comprises receiving a touchscreen gesture at a position within the display.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify MACKINLAY because it would be beneficial to improve presenting, by electronic device, a user interface on a display of the electronic device. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) in view of ASHTON (US 20120112774 A1).
With respect to Claim(s) 10, the cited reference(s) of the parent claim(s) teaches the BRI of the parent claim(s).
MANN teaches the BRI of:
the voltages.
However, MACKINLAY is lacking the explicit language of:
instantaneous voltages of the signal.
ASHTON teaches ‘A device and method of determining a capacitance of a device is provided, which in one embodiment includes connecting a first terminal of a capacitor having a known capacitance to the first terminal of the device, applying an AC voltage to the first terminal of the device and the first terminal of the capacitor, measuring a current through the capacitor, measuring a current through the device, determining a first voltage across the device as a function of time, computing a capacitance of the device as a function of time by multiplying the capacitance of the capacitor by the ratio of the current through the device to the current through the capacitor, determining a capacitance of the device as a function of voltage based on the capacitance as a function of time and the first voltage across the device as a function of time, and outputting data of the first capacitance of the device as a function of voltage’ and the BRI of:
instantaneous voltages of a signal (See, e.g., ¶ 0022, 0035).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify MACKINLAY to include instantaneous voltages of a signal.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify MACKINLAY because it would be beneficial to improved derivations of voltage. Further, it would be obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, simply substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results, use known techniques to improve similar devices in the same way, and/or apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments, filed on 06/08/2026, have been entered and fully considered. In light of the applicant’s amendments changing the scope of the claimed invention, the rejection(s) have been withdrawn or updated. However, upon further consideration, a new or updated ground(s) of rejection(s) have been made, and applicant's argument(s)/remark(s) pertaining to the amended language have been rendered moot.
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 10-14, filed 06/08/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“101: Alice Step I
Representative claims 1 and 20 are patent eligible subject matter because they satisfy the Alice test. To satisfy § 101, a claim must satisfy step 1 of the Alice test and at least one of step 2A prong one, step 2A prong two, or step 2B of the Alice test. MPEP § 2106(111). Step 1 of the Alice test requires that the claim is directed to a process, a machine, a manufacture, or a composition of matter. MPEP § 2106(). The Examiner agreed that all pending claims satisfy Alice step 1. Office Action at 3.”.
Examiner agrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
-Applicant states
“101: Alice Step 2A Prong Two
Prong Two of Step 2A involves determining "whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application." MPEP § 2106.04(d). (emphasis added). Courts have held that "an improvement to [a] technology or [a] technical field" can represent an integration of an abstract idea into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.04(d) (I). Representative claims 1 and 20, which involve displaying a time period of the voltage data that corresponds to a user selection of the same time period of the derived characteristic data, represent the integration of any alleged abstract idea into an improvement in the technology of display-capable diagnostic instruments and/or an improvement in computer functionality. The method of claim 1 helps isolate, identify, and display anomalies in captured voltage data that may otherwise go unidentified. The Specification explicitly discloses this problem and how the user selecting a portion of the derived characteristic data to isolate and display anomalous voltage data addresses this problem:
Some instruments include a digital oscilloscope mode as well as a graphing multimeter mode. If a user notices an anomaly while in graphing multi-meter mode, the user may wish to see the voltage signal that gave rise to [the] anomaly. In this instance, the user can switch to oscilloscope mode, but if the anomaly is intermittent, it may not be possible to capture in oscilloscope mode.
for example, the instrument can be used to monitor and graphically display a voltage signal in a first area of the display and calculate and graphically display a frequency, a duty cycle, or a pulse width of the signal in a second area of the display. Typically, the first area of the display will be refreshed at a higher frequency than the second area of the display. Thus, a user may be able to visually identify an anomaly of the derived characteristic of the signal in the second area of the display and operate the instrument to display the portion of the signal that produced the anomaly in the first area.
Figure 4 again shows the display 108 of the instrument 100. As shown, the user interface 110 of the instrument receives a selection of a portion 222 of the second dataset 122... .
In response to receiving the selection, the instrument 100 updates the display 108 to display a portion 224 of the first dataset 120 that corresponds in time to the portion 222 of the second dataset 122. . . . For example, a user might notice that the second dataset 122 exhibits an anomaly (e.g., a pulse width sharply increases then sharply decreases) at the portion 222 and operate the instrument 100 to display the portion 224 of the first dataset 120 (e.g., the voltage signal itself) that corresponds to the portion 222 of the second dataset 122. As shown, the portion 224 of the first dataset 120 exhibits an anomaly 233 in pulse width that shows in a different form in the second dataset 122 within the portion 222. Prior to receiving the selection, the instrument 100 displays a nonanomalous portion of the first dataset 120 that corresponds to a portion 225 of the second dataset 122 (e.g., a portion that does not exhibit an anomaly). .. .
... When a pixel of the second dataset 122 is selected as a reference for zoomed display of the first dataset 120, the corresponding [waveform ID] WID for the selected pixel is used to retrieve the underlying data from the first buffer 128....
Specification at [0002], [0026], [0049]-[0051].
Claim 1 involves the aforementioned display of "a first dataset indicating voltages of a signal" and display of "a second dataset indicating values of a derived characteristic of the signal," such as a frequency, a duty cycle, or a pulse width of the signal. The following features of claim 1 are the embodiment of the aforementioned technical improvement:
receiving, via the user interface, a selection of a second portion of the second dataset that corresponds to a second interval ... that is distinct from the first interval [of the displayed first portion of the first dataset]; and
displaying a third portion of the first dataset on the display in response to receiving the selection, wherein the third portion of the first dataset and the second portion of the second dataset correspond to the second interval.
Thus, the device receives a selection of a particular time interval of the derived characteristic data, which may correspond to anomalous voltage data, and responsively displays voltage data corresponding to the selected time interval which is different from the time interval of the voltage data previously being displayed.
Claim 1 as amended is similar to the claims held to be eligible subject matter in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The claims in that case were held eligible because they were "directed to an improved user interface for computing devices, not to [an] abstract idea. . . . Although the generic idea of summarizing information certainly existed prior to the invention, these claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices." Slip Opinion at 9 (emphasis added).1 The MPEP lists this opinion as an example of claims that are patent eligible via an improvement in computer functionality: "An improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application." MPEP j 2106.05(a) (I) (x) (citation omitted).
Claim 1 as amended is also similar to claim 1 of USPTO example 37, which is patent eligible subject matter via Step 2A prong two. This example claim is also directed to an improved user interface for electronic devices in the form of a method for displaying icons at various positions within a graphical user interface based on their relative frequency of use. This
"provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices." Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas at 2-3.2
Courts have also held that the following is an indicator that a claim incorporates an abstract idea into a practical application: "Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception." MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I).
Claim 1 as amended does not monopolize all methods that involve generating data for signal voltages detected at an input port and generating data for values of a derived characteristic of the signal. Claim 1 only reads on uses of that data that include receiving a user interface selection of a portion of the derived characteristic data and responsively updating the display of the voltage data to include the voltage data that corresponds with the selected portion of the derived characteristic data.
For at least the above reasons, representative claims 1 and 20 satisfy step 2A prong two of the Alice test.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
Examiner’s BRI of the claimed inventions is generic computer structure being used as a tool to generically acquire data corresponding to electrical parameters, generate a plurality of dataset from the generically acquired data, generate a plurality of graphical representations based on the plurality of datasets, and generically selecting and displaying the graphical representations individually/concurrently.
When examining step 2A Prong 1, Examiner determines if there is an abstract idea present. One skilled in the art can at least perform the identified abstract idea utilizing Mathematical Concepts – mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations or mathematical calculation. One skilled in the art can at least perform the identified abstract idea utilizing Mental Processes - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion). The arguments, in light of the specification, fail to convince the Examiner that utilizing Mathematical Concepts and/or Mental Processes does not fit within the scope of the identified abstract limitations.
When examining step 2A Prong 2, Examiner examines the additional elements to determine if the identified abstract idea has been practically applied in a particular way in a particular technology. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination with the identified abstract idea, do not add anything beyond mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, adding generic ‘apply it’ language, and generically linking the identified abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use.
Examiner relies on the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (2-Prong Analysis) and precedential cases utilizing said guidance. Any remarks pertaining to case law not utilizing the most current Patent Eligibility Guidance is moot. Any remarks pertaining to non-precedential case law is also moot.
For the sake of argument:
Applicant compares the claimed invention to Court Decision Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 125 USPQ2d 1436 (January 25, 2018). In contrast to the claimed invention, the Core Wireless courts found the invention to be patent eligible because “The asserted claims in this case are directed to an improved user interface for computing devices…these claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices…These limitations disclose a specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a computer…This language clearly indicates that the claims are directed to an improvement in the functioning of computers, particularly those with small screens”. Examiner interprets ‘generically selecting and displaying graphical representations of datasets individually/concurrently’ to be a conventional computer function, therefore not viewed as an improvement in the functioning of computers, particularly those with small screens.
Further,
Applicant compares the claimed invention to claim 1 of Example 37. In contrast to the claimed invention, Claim 1 of Example 37 was found the invention to be patent eligible because “The claim recites the combination of additional elements of receiving, via a GUI, a user selection to organize each icon based on the amount of use of each icon, a processor for performing the determining step, and automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of use. The claim as a whole integrates the mental process into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception.”. Examiner interprets ‘generically selecting and displaying graphical representations of datasets individually/concurrently’ to be a conventional computer function, therefore not viewed as a specific improvement over prior systems.
-Applicant states
“101: Alice Step 2B
Representative claims 1 and 20 satisfy Step 2B of the Alice test for the same reasons as discussed above. Courts have found that "[i]mprovements to the functioning of a computer" and "[i]mprovements to [a] technology or [a] technical field" can represent significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A). The recited features of claims 1 and 20 reflect the aforementioned improvement in the technology of display-capable diagnostic instruments and/or an improvement in computer functionality.
Another indication that a claim recites significantly more than any alleged abstract idea is that the claim includes "a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application. MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A). Representative claims 1 and 20 involve the display of a particular range of voltage data performed in response to receiving a selection of a corresponding portion derived characteristic data. These features are not "well-understood, routine, [or] conventional," but are instead "unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application."
For at least the above reasons, representative claims 1 and 20 satisfy step 2B of the Alice test.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
When examining step 2B, Examiner examines the additional elements to determine if they amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The only additional element(s) is/are the generic computer structure being used as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
-Applicant states
“101: Conclusion
Recent USPTO guidance states that:
Examiners are reminded that if it is a "close call" as to whether a claim is eligible, they should only make a rejection when it is more likely than not (i.e., more than 50%) that the claim is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. A rejection of a claim should not be made simply because an examiner is uncertain as to the claim's eligibility. In order to make a rejection of a claim under any of the statutory bases (i.e., 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, 112), unpatentability must be established by a preponderance of the evidence.
Representative claims 1 and 20 do not meet the preponderance of the evidence standard for at least Step 2A prong two or Step 2B. For the above reasons, the § 101 rejections should be withdrawn.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
See response above.
See updated rejection(s) necessitated by amendment.
Applicant's argument(s)/remark(s), see page(s) 15-17, filed 06/08/2026, with respect to the art rejection(s) has/have been fully considered.
-Applicant states
“103
Applicant herewith amends claim 1 to incorporate subject matter similar to that of now cancelled claim 7. The § 103 rejections of all claims should be withdrawn for at least the reason that the cited art fails to teach or suggest the following features of claim 1 as amended:
displaying a first portion of the first dataset . . ., wherein the first portion corresponds to a first interval ... ;
receiving, via the user interface, a selection of a second portion of the second dataset that corresponds to a second interval ... that is distinct from the first interval; and
displaying a third portion of the first dataset on the display in response to receiving the selection, wherein the third portion of the first dataset and the second portion of the second dataset correspond to the second interval.
In rejecting claim 7, the Examiner cited Figure 3 and paragraphs [0057] and [0060] of Barthel:
(see paragraph 0026: rotary knob or any other kind of input device for receiving a user selection, i.e. a user interface for receiving a command; and see Fig. 3 and paragraphs 0057 and 0060: display shows a generated second data 121 set corresponding to a zoom selection of the first dataset, i.e. a selection of a part of the first dataset, and a generated first dataset 120 with a common portion of the time period).
Office Action at 10 (emphasis added).
Figure 3 of Barthel is reproduced below:
Paragraphs [0058]-[0060] of Barthel below appear to be the entirety of Barthel's description of Figure 3:
FIG. 3 shows an alternative representation 100 generated by a measurement apparatus 1 according to an embodiment. As can be seen in FIG. 3, further to the first view 110 of the acquired measurement signal, an additional overview 111 of a further measurement signal is provided. The additional measurement signal may be a further measurement signal acquired by measurement device 11. Additionally, or alternatively, it may be also possible to derive a further signal based on the acquired measurement signal.
For example, the further signal may be derived by applying a demodulation or any other operation on the acquired measurement signal.
Accordingly, in addition to the horizontally zoomed measurement signal in the second view 120, a corresponding horizontal zooming 121 of the further signal may be provided. For this purpose, a same zoom factor may be applied to the acquired measurement signal and the further signal.
As noted above, claim 1 as amended requires display of a first time interval of a first dataset, and receiving a selection of a second distinct time interval of a second dataset that causes display of a different portion of the first dataset that corresponds to the distinct time interval. Instead of these features of claim 1, Barthel teaches that the cursor 130 and the zoom window 131 define a smaller but non-distinct time window for displaying a portion of the same data in the horizontally zoomed windows 120 and 121. In contrast, claim 1 recites receiving a selection of derived characteristic data that determines which portion of the voltage data is displayed.
Ashton fails to remedy the deficiencies of Barthel. Ashton fails to teach a graphical user interface capable of receiving a selection of displayed data, let alone the more detailed steps of claim 1.
Wurth, Frankovitch, Villa, and Amano fail to overcome the deficiencies of Barthel and Ashton. Claim 20 recites subject matter similar to that of claim 1. For at least the above reasons, all § 103 rejections should be withdrawn. New claim 23 should be allowed at least for its dependence on claim 1.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the underlined argument(s)/remark(s).
After further search and consideration, examiner has found better prior and has updated the rejections, necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYMOND NIMOX whose telephone number is (469)295-9226. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 10am-8pm CT.
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.
RAYMOND NIMOX
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/RAYMOND L NIMOX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit
Prosecution Insights