DETAILED ACTION
Final Rejection
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 12/09/2025 to claims are accepted. In this amendment, claims 1-20 have been amended.
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.
Step 1
Each of claims1-21 falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP § 2106.03. Each of claim 1-9 falls within category of machine, i.e., a “concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348–49, 111 USPQ2d at 1719 (quoting Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650, 657 (1863)); For example, each of claims 10-20 fall within category of process; For example,
Regarding Claims 1-9
Step 2A – Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of receive a prediction for a measurement.
The abstract idea is set forth or described by the following italicized limitations:
1. A test and measurement instrument, comprising:
one or more ports configured to receive a signal from one or more devices under test (DUT); and
one or more processors configured to execute code that causes the one or more processors to:
acquire a waveform from the signal by receiving the signal from the DUT and sampling the signal to acquire the waveform;
derive a pattern waveform from the waveform;
extract a linear response from the pattern waveform;
present one or more data representations including a data representation of the extracted linear response to a machine learning system comprising one or more neural networks trained to predict one or more measurements from the data representations; and
receive a predicted measurement from the machine learning system;
passing or failing the DUT based upon the predicted measurement.
The italicized limitations above represent a combination of mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea) and mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment) . Therefore, the italicized limitations fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in Section I of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
For example, the limitations “extract a linear response [..]” is mathematical concept (i.e., a process that can be performed by mathematical relationships or rules or idea), see 2106.04(a)(2).
For example, the limitations “present one or more data representations [..]predict one or more measurements[..]” are mental step (i.e., a process that can be performed by can be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper or a mental judgment), see 2106.04(a)(2). Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)).
.
Step 2A – Prong 2
Claims 1 does not include additional elements (when considered individually, as an ordered combination, and/or within the claim as a whole) that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
For example, first additional first element is “ one or more ports configured to receive a signal from one or more devices under test (DUT); acquire a waveform from the signal by receiving the signal from the DUT and sampling the signal to acquire the waveform; derive a pattern waveform from the waveform; receive a predicted measurement from the machine learning system’; passing or failing the DUT based upon the predicted measurement” to be performed, at least in-part, these additional elements appear to only add insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., data gathering) and only generally link the abstract idea to a particular field. Therefore, this element individually or as a whole does not provide a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g)
For example, 2nd additional first element is “A test and measurement instrument; a device under test (DUT); input port; one or more processors configured to execute code that causes the one or more processors to:”. This element amounts to mere use of a generic device with computer components, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).
The 3rd additional element of “a machine learning system comprising one or more neural networks trained” in limitations are at best mere instructions to “apply” the abstract ideas, which cannot provide an inventive concept and it is recited a computer component at a high level of generality. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The 4th additional element of “passing or failing the DUT based upon the predicted measurement” in limitations are at best mere instructions to a post solution activity which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892).
In view of the above, the four “additional elements” individually do not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the “additional elements” in combination amount to a generic DUT data collection system with computer component with software, where such computers and software amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer(s) and/or mere use of a generic computer component(s) as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Therefore, these elements in combination do not provide a practical application. The combination of additional elements does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and for this additional reason, the combination of additional elements does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea.
.
Step 2B
Claims1 does not include additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For example, the limitation of Claim 1 contains additional elements that are, i.e. A test and measurement instrument, input port; processor, DUT”, generic devices, which are well understood, routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and MPEP 2106.05(d))The reasons for reaching this conclusion are substantially the same as the reasons given above in § Step 2A – Prong 2. For brevity only, those reasons are not repeated in this section. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(g) and MPEP §§2106.05(II).
.
Dependent Claims 2-9
Dependent claims 2-9 fail to cure this deficiency of independent claim 1 (set forth above) and are rejected accordingly. Particularly, claims 2-9 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Regarding Claims 10-20
Claims 10-20 contains language similar to claims 1-9 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 10-20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101(abstract idea). claims 10-20 recite limitations that represent (in addition to the limitations already noted above) either the abstract idea or an additional element that is merely extra-solution activity, mere use of instructions and/or generic computer component(s) as a tool to implement the abstract idea, and/or merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect 101 rejection, specially claim 1, the applicant did not agree with it, see pages 6-7.The Applicant argus that “Applicant has amended claim 1 to specifically refer to the one or more neural networks trained to predict measurements from the linear response inputs as discussed in several places in the specification including, but not limited to, paragraphs 0019-0020, and 0022-0025. Applicant has further amended claim 1 to clarify that the two deep learning networks are trained to predict the measurements, and the one or more processors determine if the DUT passes or fails based upon the measurement”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagree because current 101 rejection based on 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (examples 47-49). outputting the result from the “ a machine learning” is mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05.
Furthermore, reciting “using the trained machine learning to a prediction ” provide nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer component with high level of generality and “receive a prediction[..]”, this element amounts to mere use of data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (“whether the limitation is significant”). In addition, all uses of the recited judicial exceptions require such data gathering and output, and, as such, these limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. These limitations amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. See MPEP 2106.05. furthermore, “passing or failing the DUT based upon the predicted measurement. ”. This element amounts to mere use of post solution activity, which is well understood routine and conventional (see background of current discloser and IDS and PTO 892) and this element individually does not provide a practical application. In view of the above, the “additional element” individually or combine does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. see MPEP 2106.05(d).In view of the above “additional elements” individually does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. See, MPEP §§2106.05(a) . See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. The trained machine learning is used to generally apply the abstract idea without placing any limits on how the machine learning functions. Rather, these limitations only recite the outcome of “predicting” or “analyzing it” and do not include any details about how the “predicting” and “analyzing” are accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As such 101 rejection is maintained.
Regarding 102 Rejection, the Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to claim(s) have been considered and withdrawn.
Examiner Notes
Three is no prior art rejection over claim 1, however there is 101 rejection. Closes prior arts fail to teach the limitations of “extract a linear response from the pattern waveform; present one or more data representations including a data representation of the extracted linear response to a machine learning system comprising one or more neural networks trained to predict one or more measurements from the data representations”
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Cai et al. (SST: Software Sonic Thermometer on Acoustic-Enabled IoT Devices, IEEE, 2021).
b) Lee (An In-situ Machine Health Monitoring Method Against Operational Stress Conditions toward Deep Learning-Based Diagnosis: A Case Study of Direct- Energy Deposition, 2022).
c) Peeters Weem (US 2019/0285666) disclose The management device 220 can be configured to receive the request information from the request device 222 and can generate instructions to cause the optical switch 212 to switch to the port associated with the DUT 214 identified in the request so that the test and measurement instrument 202 can capture the waveform also requested in the request. As will be discussed in more detail below, the management device 220 may be configured to generate instructions to configure the test and measurement instrument 202, or any other configurable component of the test and measurement system 200, to capture the measurement and/or waveform requested. The test and measurement instrument 202 may process the waveform or measurement itself, or the test and measurement instrument 202 may transmit the captured waveform or measurement to the test processor 218 associated with the DUT 214 to free resources for the next measurement in a request queue.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD K ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-0328. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/MOHAMMAD K ISLAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857