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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/25, regarding the 35 USC § 101, have been fully
considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the amended claims now recite obtaining a demodulated measurement signal (e.g., from a physical RF signal received at an input terminal), determining a frequency response of an equalizer function by calculating an error vector magnitude for that measurement signal with respect to a reference signal, applying a trigger mask to the resulting processed signal, and evaluating whether the processed signal creates a trigger event. This is not a mathematical relationship in the abstract, but a concrete method for analyzing signal quality in test instrumentation. The term "deriving a processed signal" does not constitute unspecified mathematical processing. The claims now specify that deriving comprises determining an equalizer function's frequency response through error vector magnitude (EVM) calculation. EVM is a measurement metric in digital communications that quantifies the difference between an actual received signal and an ideal reference signal, encompassing multiple types of signal distortions. Using EVM calculation to determine an equalizer frequency response is a specific technical approach within the field of signal processing, not a generic mathematical formula.
Importantly, the phrase "determining a frequency response ... by calculating an error vector magnitude" recites an integrated process in which EVM calculation is the means by which the frequency response is determined. The EVM calculation is not merely a post-processing measurement, but rather guides which equalizer (and thus which frequency response) is selected or adapted for signal analysis. This functional relationship between EVM calculation and frequency response determination is what enables the enhanced distortion detection described in the specification. The amended claims integrate any mathematical concepts into the practical application of test and measurement instrumentation through several specific features.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because:
The recited obtaining a demodulated signal; deriving a processed signal
by calculating EVM and determining a frequency response of an equalizer “by calculating EVM”; applying a trigger mask; and evaluating whether a trigger event occurs, each of these is a mathematical operation and/or data comparison performed on measurement data. The Courts have held that collecting/deriving/processing and evaluating data is an abstract idea. See e.g., Electric Power Group (data collection/analysis/display).
There is no integration into a practical application. The applicant argues
that the method is concrete because it pertains to test instrumentation and analyzing signal quality. But the claim does not recite a particular machine or an improvement to the functioning of the instrument. The “demodulated measurement signal” may come from anywhere; there is no claimed hardware that produces the demodulated signal. Nor any specific equalizer architecture, specific EVM algorithm, or hardware enforcement of the mask recited. As drafted, the claim merely applies math to data and decides whether a condition is met, i.e., filed-of-use and result oriented limitation that do not integrate the exception into a practical application.
The claim recites only generic processing of data, there is no unconventional hardware arrangement, no asserted improvement in instrument operation.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that EVM “guides which equalizer is
selected or adapted” is result-oriented and still mathematical optimization/selection; the claim does not recite any particular equalizer structure or how that alleged guidance improves the instrument’s operation.
“Trigger mask” and “evaluate trigger event” are data comparison; absent
a concrete hardware trigger controlling acquisition, these remain abstract decision rules.
The applicant further argues that Application with a particular machine, e.g.,
EVM calculation applied to demodulated measurement signals obtained from actual RF signals received at an input terminal of a test instrument: Claim 18 explicitly recites "a test instrument comprising circuitry configured to" perform the claimed method and claim 19 specifies that the test instrument is a vector signal analyzer. The EVM-based equalizer determination is not performed on abstract data, but on actual measurement signals obtained by test instrumentation for the specific purpose of enabling enhanced triggering functionality.
Transformation of physical signals: The claims involve a progression that transforms a physical RF signal through specific processing stages: obtaining a demodulated measurement signal, determining an equalizer frequency response via EVM calculation, deriving a processed signal from that determination, applying a trigger mask, and evaluating for trigger events. Each stage has technical meaning in the field of signal analysis and test instrumentation.
Improvement to technology: The specification (page 1) explains that conventional frequency mask triggers "have limitations, for example regarding their adaptability to different applications or circumstances," and that "a received signal may have properties that are not (at least not fully or directly) characterized by the frequency spectrum of the signal." The specification (page 4) further explains that considering an equalizer function and its frequency response "can provide an enhanced level of control over the detection of specific distortions" and that applying a trigger mask to a frequency response magnitude derived from an equalizer function "allows triggering if the demodulated measurement signal includes a specific and/or particularly strong distortion."
This represents a concrete improvement in test instrumentation capability. Rather than triggering merely based on power levels or frequency content (as in conventional approaches), the claimed method enables detection and triggering based on the presence and characteristics of signal distortions as revealed through equalizer frequency response analysis. This addresses a real limitation in existing test equipment and provides enhanced analytical capabilities.
Ordered combination performing a specific function: The amended claims recite an ordered combination of steps, namely obtaining a specific type of signal (demodulated measurement signal), performing a specific analysis (determining equalizer frequency response by calculating EVM), deriving a processed signal from that analysis, and using that processed signal for automated triggering. This ordered combination performs the specific function of enabling distortion-based triggering in test instrumentation, which the specification indicates was not adequately achievable with conventional triggering approaches.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because:
Regarding “Particular machine” (claims 18-19):
Reciting a “test instrument comprising circuitry configured to…” or naming
the instrument a “vector signal analyzer” does not, by itself, integrate an abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h). The claims still recite calculating EVM, determining a frequency response, applying a mask, and evaluating a condition, i.e., mathematical processing and data evaluation, without any specific, non-generic hardware architecture, nor a concrete improvement to the analyzer’s operation (see Electric Power Group).
Regarding “Transformation of physical signals”:
Merely stating that data originated from a physical RF input does not satisfy
§ 101. The claims operate on a demodulated measurement signal and then perform mathematical operations (EVM calculation, inferring an “equalizer frequency response” mask comparison). The Courts held that processing/analyzing measured data, even when derived from physical phenomena, is abstract (see Electric Power Group (grid sensor data)). No recited transformation of an article to a different state or thing occurs; the steps analyze and decide, the do not control or alter the instrument’s functioning or the signal path in any technically specific way.
Regarding “Improvement to technology”:
The specification’s statement about limitations of “frequency mask trigger”
and advantages of “equalizer frequency response” are attorney argument, not claimed technical implementation. The claims lack any specific equalizer structure, any hardware trigger engine details, or any quantified performance improvement. Under Enfish/McRO, eligibility turns on a specific improvement computer functionality recited in the claims; here, the claims remain result-oriented (“determining frequency response by calculating EVM…apply mask…evaluate trigger”) and read on conventional processing (see MPEP 2106.05(a). Improvement must be to technology, not just data quality.
Regarding “Ordered combination performing a specific function”:
Arranging abstract steps in an “ordered combination” does not cure § 101
when the steps themselves are mathematical concepts and data comparisons executed at high level of generality. The combination here still amounts to: obtain data [Wingdings font/0xE0] do math (EVM; infer response) [Wingdings font/0xE0] compare to mask [Wingdings font/0xE0] decide trigger. The claim does not specify how the equalizer response is computed in a non-conventional way, no recitation on how the mask is implemented in hardware, or how the trigger drives acquisition control beyond generic evaluation.
The applicant further argues that the claims also include significantly more than any abstract concept. The amended claims require obtaining not generic data but specifically a demodulated measurement signal, e.g., an I/Q baseband signal derived from an actual RF input received at a test instrument terminal. The claims then require determining an equalizer frequency response specifically by calculating error vector magnitude for this measurement signal with respect to a reference signal. This is not generic data processing applied at a high level of generality, but specialized signal analysis using techniques specific to digital communications and signal quality measurement.
The combination of EVM-based equalizer frequency response determination, processed signal derivation based on that determination, and trigger mask application represents an ordered combination that, taken together, performs significantly more than abstract mathematical processing. The ordered combination transforms a physical RF signal into actionable trigger events based on signal quality characteristics, improving test instrumentation capabilities in a manner that the specification indicates was not adequately achievable with conventional approaches.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because:
Most of these arguments are addressed in the paragraphs numbered 2.5 through 2.8 above.
The claim still recites nothing more than mathematical processing and data evaluations: obtaining a demodulated measurement signal; calculating EVM, “determining a frequency response of an equalizer function by calculating EVM”; applying a mask; and evaluating if a trigger event occurs. The Courts consistently held that collecting/measuring data, performing mathematical analysis, and applying decision rules are abstract (see Electric Power Group).
The claim lacks “significantly more”, the claim does not recite any unconventional hardware, non-routine data structures or specific algorithm details (e.g., an identified equalizer structure with a particular coefficient-update law, specific mask evaluation hardware) that would transform the abstract idea.
The applicant further argues that the Examiner has not established that the specific combination of determining an equalizer frequency response by calculating EVM and then applying a trigger mask to the resulting processed signal is well-understood, routine, or conventional.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument because:
Under step 2B, the claim adds no additional element that amounts to
“Significantly more” than the abstract idea. All the limitations are generic signal processing operations performed at high level of generality on unspecified “circuitry configured to”, i.e., a conventional computer/instrument performing its ordinary functions (MPEP 206.05(d) and (e)). Without specific hardware, the claim recites only what is desired, not how it is achieved in a non-conventional manner.
In conclusion: as drafted, the claims remain directed to mathematical analysis and evaluation of measurement data without a particular machine implementation or claimed technical improvement. The 35 USC § 101 is therefore proper.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed 12/17/25, with respect to
claims 1-4 and 8-19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC § 102(b) and the 35 USC § 103 rejection of the claims has 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a process (claim 1, a method) or manufacture (claim 18, a non-transitory computer readable medium) or machine (claim 18, a test instrument), which are statutory categories.
4.1 However, evaluating claim 1, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea using the grouping of a mathematical relationship. The limitations include:
deriving a processed signal from the demodulated measurement signal, ; wherein the deriving comprises determining a frequency response of an equalizer function by calculating an error vector magnitude for the demodulated measurement signal with respect to a reference signal applying a trigger mask to the processed signal; and evaluating if the processed signal creates a trigger event with respect to the trigger mask.
Next, Step 2A, Prong Two evaluates whether additional elements of the claim “integrate the abstract idea into a practical application” in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, Claims is directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B, consideration is given to additional elements that may make the abstract idea significantly more. Under Step 2B, there are no additional elements that make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional element of “obtaining a demodulated measurement signal” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity of obtaining data that is not sufficient to integrate the claim into a particular practical application. The act of data gathering is considered insufficient to elevate the claim to a practical application.
The limitations have been considered individually and as a whole and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-16 do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The claim merely extends (or narrow) the abstract idea which do not amount for "significant more" because it merely adds details to the process which forms the abstract idea as discussed above.
4.2. Claims 17 and 18 are rejected 35 USC § 101 for the same rationale as in claim 1.
The elements of “a computer-readable storage medium” and “an electronic circuit” (claim 17) are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l 573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 U.S.P.Q.2d 1976 (2014)).
The limitations have been considered individually and as a whole and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claim 19 does not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The additional element such as “a vector signal analyzer” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Examiner’s Notes
Clams 1-19 distinguish over the prior art of record.
Regarding claim 1, none of the prior art of record teaches or fairly suggests a
method for analyzing a demodulated measurement signal, the method comprising: deriving a processed signal from the demodulated measurement signal, wherein the deriving comprises determining a frequency response of an equalizer function by calculating an error vector magnitude for the demodulated measurement signal with respect to a reference signal, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Regarding claim 17, none of the prior art of record teaches or fairly suggests a
computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions which, when executed by an electronic circuit, cause the electronic circuit to perform the steps of: deriving a processed signal from the demodulated measurement signal, wherein the deriving comprises determining a frequency response of an equalizer function by calculating an error vector magnitude for the demodulated measurement signal with respect to a reference signal, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
Regarding claim 18, none of the prior art of record teaches or fairly suggests a
test instrument comprising circuity configured to: derive a processed signal from the demodulated measurement signal, wherein the deriving comprises determining a frequency response of an equalizer function by calculating an error vector magnitude for the demodulated measurement signal with respect to a reference signal, in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
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.
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to MOHAMED CHARIOUI whose telephone number is (571)272-2213. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Mohamed Charioui
/MOHAMED CHARIOUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857