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 .
Status of the claims
The amendment received on December 17, 2025 has been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1 and 10 are amended. Claims 2-4 and 7-9 are cancelled. Thus, Claims 1, 5-6, and 10-17 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on December 17, 2025 with respect to claims 1, 5-6, and 10-17 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but they are not persuasive.
On the page 5 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that “the claimed approach integrates any alleged abstract ideas in the claimed subject matter into a practical application because it employs a particular machine or machines (e.g., a measurement instrument comprising a signal input, a measurement circuit, and an analysis circuit) and represents a technological improvement over conventional apparatus.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant has argued that the abstract idea itself is significant. However, an abstract idea itself is just that, abstract, and whether such feature is or is not significant does not preclude it from being considered abstract. An abstract idea by itself, whether it or not it has a benefit, does not reasonably overcome a 101 rejection because it is still an abstract idea. Applicant has not, respectfully, demonstrated with evidence why the abstract idea itself would amount to more than an abstract idea. Therefore, the above advantages relate to abstract idea limitations which are not considered. The Improvements in the abstract idea are not qualified as improvements indicating a practical application. The pending claims are not patent eligible since a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(a).I) and an improvement in the abstract idea itself is not an improvement in technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a).II : Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology include: iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48)). Further, the additional elements such as a measurement instrument comprising a signal input, a measurement circuit, and an analysis circuit are recited at a high-level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(d)) and do not include the additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on prior art of record (Engholm, Herbordt). Therefore, the amended claim is not patent subject matter for 101 rejection.
Applicant’s amendments filed on December 17, 2025 with respect to claims 1, 5-6, and 10-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Thus, the rejection of under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A signal processing method of processing a digital input signal by a measurement instrument, the measurement instrument comprising a signal input, a measurement circuit, and an analysis circuit, the signal processing method comprising the steps of:
receiving, by the signal input, a digital input signal from a device under test;
capturing, by the measurement circuit, a first number N1 = N of IQ measurement sets S(meas, i) based on the received digital input signal, wherein each IQ measurement set comprises a plurality of IQ measurement points;
determining, by the analysis circuit, an IQ average over the N IQ measurement sets based on the captured IQ measurement sets, thereby obtaining an averaged signal S(avg, N) according to
S
(
a
v
g
,
N
)
=
1
N
∑
J
I
N
S
(
m
e
a
s
,
j
)
;
determining, by the analysis circuit, a second number N2 = N of noise vectors n (corrected, i) based on the averaged signal S(avg, N) and based on the captured IQ measurement sets S(meas, i) according to N(corrected, i) = W(est, corr
N
N
-
1
(S(meas, i) - S(avg, N), wherein W(est, corr) is a weighting factor,
wherein the first number N1 is equal to the second number N2, each being equal to N; and
averaging, by the analysis circuit, over the determined noise vectors, thereby obtaining an averaged noise vector, wherein the noise vectors and the averaged noise vector correspond to a noise contribution of the device under test.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Step 1: under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Step 2A, Prong One: under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the groupings of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts - mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, step of “capturing, by the measurement circuit, a first number N1 = N of IQ measurement sets S(meas, i) based on the received digital input signal, wherein each IQ measurement set comprises a plurality of IQ measurement points (see step 2)” is mathematical expression for mathematical calculations. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation (see MPEP 2016.04(a)(2)C). Further, steps of “determining, by the analysis circuit, an IQ average over the N IQ measurement sets based on the captured IQ measurement sets, thereby obtaining an averaged signal S(avg, N) according to
S
(
a
v
g
,
N
)
=
1
N
∑
J
I
N
S
(
m
e
a
s
,
j
)
(see step S3),” “determining, by the analysis circuit, a second number N2 = N of noise vectors n (corrected, i) based on the averaged signal S(avg, N) and based on the captured IQ measurement sets S(meas, i) according to N(corrected, i) = W(est, corr
N
N
-
1
(S(meas, i) - S(avg, N), wherein W(est, corr) is a weighting factor, wherein the first number N1 is equal to the second number N2, each being equal to N (see step S4),” and “averaging, by the analysis circuit, over the determined noise vectors, thereby obtaining an averaged noise vector, wherein the noise vectors and the averaged noise vector correspond to a noise contribution of the device under test (S5)” as drafted, are a mathematical concepts. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)C.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 13 and 16.
Step 2A, Prong Two: under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, none of the additional elements indicate a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B:
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
In Claim 1: a signal processing method of processing a digital input signal by a measurement instrument, the measurement instrument comprising a signal input, a measurement circuit, and an analysis circuit (preamble); receiving, by the signal input, a digital input signal from a device under test;
In Claim 13: a measurement instrument, the measurement instrument comprising a signal input, a measurement circuit, and an analysis circuit, the measurement instrument being configured to perform a signal processing method according to claim 1 (preamble); and
In Claim 16: measurement system, comprising a measurement instrument according to claim 13 (preamble).
The additional element of “a signal processing method of processing a digital input signal by a measurement instrument, the measurement instrument comprising a signal input, a measurement circuit, and an analysis circuit” is recited at a high-level of generality (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Further, note that the additional element of “receiving, by the signal input, a digital input signal from a device under test” is insignificant (data gathering) extra-solution activity that cannot reasonably integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on prior art of record (Engholm, Herbordt (US 2020/0200801 A1)). For example, Engholm and Herbordt teaches a signal processing method of processing a digital input signal by a measurement instrument, the measurement instrument comprising a signal input, a measurement circuit, and an analysis circuit (Fig. 2, 205, 210, paras. [0011], [0017] of Engholm; Fig. 1 and paras. [0011], [0024]-[0026] of Herbordt). Further, Engholm and Herbordt teach receiving, by the signal input, a digital input signal from a device under test (para. [0011]; para. [0017] of Engholm; paras. [0035], [0054] of Herbordt). Therefore, independent claims 1, 13, and 16 are not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5
The additional element of “noise vectors are free of noise generated by the measurement instrument at least up to a power-suppressed contribution, and/or wherein the averaged noise vector is free of noise generated by the measurement instrument at least up to a power-suppressed contribution” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (page 15, lines 26-30 of lan (JPH0669820 A); paras. [0015]-[0022] of Lagler et al. (US 2020/0132754 A1)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 6
The additional element of “each noise vector determined is associated with one of the captured IQ measurement sets” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (page 4, lines 23-27 of lan; paras. [0160]-[0163] of Dark (US 2014/0241410 A1)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 10
The additional element of “the weighting factor depends on at least one of the first number N1, a root means square (RMS) of a total noise, a RMS noise of an analysis path of the measurement instrument, or a RMS noise of a signal generator path of the measurement instrument” is mathematical calculations (page 5, lines 3-6 of instant application).
Regarding claim 11
The additional element of “amplitudes of the noise vectors are averaged in order to determine the averaged noise vector” is mathematical calculations (page 5, lines 13-14 of instant application).
Regarding claim 12
The additional element of “a corrected signal is determined based on the averaged signal and based on the averaged noise vector, wherein the corrected signal comprises noise generated by the device under test” is mathematical calculations (page 13, lines 19-27 of instant application).
Regarding claim 14
The additional element of “the measurement instrument is established as a vector network analyzer, as a signal analyzer, as a spectrum analyzer, or as an oscilloscope” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (paras. [0028] of Engholm; paras. [0002], [0033], [0036], [0040] of Pal et al. (US 2018/0188306 A1)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 15
The additional element of “the measurement instrument is a calibrated measurement instrument, such that a noise contribution of the measurement instrument is known” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (paras. [0011], [0017] of Engholm; paras. [0040]-[0045] of Stockton (US 2006/0223440 A1)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 17
The additional element of “comprising a device under test, wherein a signal port of the device under test is connected with the signal input” is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record (paras. [0011], [0018] of Engholm; paras. [0014]-[0020] of LI (US 2012/0041706 A1)). Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these additional elements/steps are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the relevant based on the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 1, 5-6, and 10-17, no prior art rejection is applied. The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as outlined 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANGKYUNG LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3669. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571)270-5628. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SANGKYUNG LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858