DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed on August 24, 2026 has been considered.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 24, 2026 has been entered.
Withdrawal of Allowability
The indicated allowability of claims 2, 3, 5, and 7 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Chang (US 2023/0015705). Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 10 and 20, “SCPI” is not defined; SCPI should be replaced with -- Standard Commands for Programmable Instruments ((SCPI) --. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kumar et al. (US 2018/0129515) in view of Chang (US 20230015705).
Regarding claim 1, Kumar et al. discloses a method and system for configuring a measurement application system (Fig. 2), the method comprising:
providing to a configuration device (12) that is communicatively coupled to the
measurement application system (12 is coupled to measurement system, Fig. 2) a system description data structure (measurement features needed for measurements selected by user, Abstract, lines 7-10) that defines, for one or more measurement application devices (16-1, 16-2, 16-3) that are present in the measurement application system (Fig. 2), properties and at least one of constraints for at least one of the properties (measurement features needed for measurements selected by user, Abstract, lines 7-10), and dependencies of at least one of the properties that depends on at least another one of the properties (user-selectable configuration options, Abstract, line 10; configuration settings, paragraph 0031, lines 1-2);
receiving at the configuration device (12) for at least one of the properties a user input (user-selection, Abstract, line 10) comprising a value to be set for the respective property (user-selected options, Abstract, line 10);
evaluating at the configuration device at least one of the constraints or dependencies based on the at least one value received via the user input (paragraph 0054, lines 22-25).
It is noted that
updating, if according to the evaluation the at least one of the constraints or dependencies is fulfilled, at the configuration device the system description data structure according to the at least one value received via the user input; the system description data structure further comprising currently set values of the properties that are not set by the user is a contingent limitation (see MPEP 2111.04).
The condition that the at least one of the constraints or dependencies is fulfilled is not required by the claim. Accordingly, the updating step is also not required.
Kumar et al. does not disclose determining, based on the evaluation, that the at
least one of the constraints or dependencies is fulfilled, and, in response, updating a configuration of the one or more measurement application devices according to the
updated system description data structure via a data communication interface of the
one or more measurement application devices, wherein at least one of the constraints
and the dependencies comprises an expression regarding one of the properties, that during the evaluation evaluates to true or false.
Chang discloses determining, based on the evaluation, that the at least one of the constraints or dependencies is fulfilled (determining that a specific condition is met, paragraph 0169, lines 1-3), and, in response, updating a configuration of the one or more measurement application devices (updating the first configuration data and sending the first configuration data to the network device only when the specific condition is met, paragraph 0169, lines 1-6) according to the updated system description data structure (the configuration is according to the updated first configuration data, paragraph 0169, lines 1-6) via a data communication interface of the one or more measurement application devices (the network device is in the second network (paragraph 0169, line 8), wherein at least one of the constraints and the dependencies comprises an expression regarding one of the properties (expression that the specific condition is met, paragraph 0169, lines 1-3), that during the evaluation evaluates to true (specific condition is met, paragraph 0169, line 3).
It is noted that an expression regarding one of the properties, that during the evaluation evaluates to false is an alternative limitation because it recited in the alternative form.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Kumar with determining that the at least one of the constraints or dependencies is fulfilled as disclosed by Chang for the purpose of updating a configuration of the one or more measurement application devices.
Regarding claim 3, Kumar et al. does not disclose the expression comprises links or
relations to other properties.
Chang discloses the expression comprises relations to other properties (a condition is equal to specific condition, where specific condition is met, paragraph 0169, line 1-3).
It is noted that the expression comprises links is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Kumar with expression comprises relations to other properties as suggested by Chang for the purpose of updating a configuration of the one or more measurement application devices.
Regarding claim 5, Kumar et al. does not disclose a determination rule for at least one
of the properties that determines a value for the respective property.
Chang discloses a determination rule for at least one of the properties that determines a value for the respective property (a condition is equal to specific condition, where specific condition is met, paragraph 0169, line 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Kumar with determining a value for the respective property as suggested by Chang for the purpose of updating a configuration of the one or more measurement application devices.
Regarding claim 6, Kumar discloses a definition of external parameters that are to be provided by a user (user-selectable configuration options input, Abstract, line 10); and
wherein prior to or during the evaluating the user is prompted to input the external parameters (configuration screen contains a plurality of user-selectable configuration options, Abstract, lines 9-10); and
wherein evaluating is further performed based on the provided external parameters (configurator 12 determines what configuration option is selected, Abstract, line 10; Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Kumar et al. does not disclose evaluating comprises applying a
computer algebra system to the constraints and dependencies.
Chang discloses applying a computer algebra system to the constraints and dependencies (an equation where a condition is equal to specific condition, where specific condition is met, paragraph 0169, line 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Kumar with applying a computer algebra system to the constraints and dependencies as suggested by Chang for the purpose of updating a configuration of the one or more measurement application devices.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kumar et al. in view of Chang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Navarro et al. (US 2016/0299771).
Regarding claim 4, Kumar as modified by Chang does not disclose the system description data structure is provided as a structured document provided in a markup language.
Navarro et al. discloses a system description data structure (configuration data) is provided as a structured document provided in a markup language (paragraph 0007, lines 1-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Kumar as modified with a structured document provided in a markup language as disclosed by Navarro et al. for the purpose of providing a configuration data.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kumar et al. in view of Chang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Richter et al. (US 2023/0385006).
The applied reference (Richter e al. US 2023/0385006) has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claim 8, Kumar as modified by Chang does not disclose the system description data structure further comprises at least one action definition that defines an action to be triggered in a respective measurement application device.
Richter et al. discloses the system description data structure further comprises at least one action definition that defines an action to be triggered in a respective measurement application device and generate respective control commands for the one or more measurement application devices (measurement device control instruction, paragraph 0138, lines 3-4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Kumar as modified with an action definition to be triggered in a respective measurement application device as suggested by Richter et al. for the purpose of controlling a respective measurement application device.
Regarding claim 9, Kumar as modified by Chang and Richter et al. discloses measurement device configuration data to configure the measurement device (Abstract, lines 6-7).
Thus, it would have been obvious to transmit measurement device configuration data to the measurement device to configure measurement device based on the configuration data.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to transmit the system description data structure to the one or more measurement application devices that are present in the measurement application system (transmit measurement device configuration data to the measurement device) and perform the actions defined in the system description data structure in the one or more measurement application devices (configure measurement device based on the configuration data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Kumar as modified with measurement device configuration data for the purpose of configuring the measurement device.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kumar et al. in view of Chang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frackelton et al. (US 2018/0278489).
Regarding claim 10, Kumar discloses
receiving the user input for at least one of the properties (receiving user inputs, Abstract, lines 7-10);
parsing the received input (determining configurable options from the user inputs); and
setting the at least one of the properties according to the user input (set user-selectable configuration options to configure measurement features needed for measurement, Abstract, lines 6-10).
Kumar as modified by Chang does not disclose the user input is a SCPI command.
Frackelton et al. discloses that a user command can be a SCPI command for changing a configuration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide Kumar as modified with a SCPI command as disclosed by Frackelton et al. for the purpose of changing a configuration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 24, 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are traversed in view of the grounds of rejection in view of Kumar and Chang discussed above.
For instance, regarding the amendment to claim 1, Chang discloses determining, based on the evaluation, that the at least one of the constraints or dependencies is fulfilled (determining that a specific condition is met, paragraph 0169, lines 1-3), and, in response, updating a configuration of the one or more measurement
application devices (updating the first configuration data and sending the first configuration data to the network device only when the specific condition is met, paragraph 0169, lines 1-6) according to the updated system description data structure (the configuration is according to the updated first configuration data, paragraph 0169, lines 1-6) via a data communication interface of the one or more measurement application devices (the network device is in the second network (paragraph 0169, line 8), wherein at least one of the constraints and the dependencies comprises an expression regarding one of the properties (expression that the specific condition is met, paragraph 0169, lines 1-3), that during the evaluation evaluates to true (specific condition is met, paragraph 0169, line 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 13-20 are allowed.
Reasons For Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The combination as claimed wherein a method and system for configuring a measurement application system comprising determine, based on the evaluation, that the at least one of the constraints or dependencies is fulfilled, and, in response, update
the system description data structure according to the at least one value received via the user input (claim 11) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Nghiem whose telephone number is (571) 272-2277. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F.
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 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).
/MICHAEL P NGHIEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 September 25, 2026
