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 January 28, 2026 has been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: claims 10 and 20, “SCPI” is not defined. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: source device (claim 11), configuration device (claim 11), computer algebra system (claim 17).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
B) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “source device” (claim 1, 11) and “computer algebra system” (claim 17) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. There are no corresponding structures for the source device and the computer algebra system that are discussed or shown. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Examiner interprets the source and computer algebra system to be processor/computer-based devices.
The remaining claims are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), for being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 non-statutory subject matter
Pursuant to the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP 2106), the following analysis is made:
Under step 1 of the Guidance, the claims fall within a statutory category.
Under step 2A, prong 1, claims 1 and 11 recite an abstract idea of “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” (mental process), 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” (mental process), “updating, if according to the evaluation the at least one of the constraints or dependencies is fulfilled, 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” (mental process).
The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor (source deice/configuration device) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (III)).
Under step 2A, prong 2, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I)).
Providing a configuration device coupled to a measurement application system for receiving data are is directed to insignificant extra solution activities (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(A)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claims do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea.
Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are directed to insignificant extra solution activities.
Claims 2-6, 8-10, and 12-20 are directed to an abstract idea/data.
Claims 7 and 17 are recitations of a generic processor (computer algebra system) does not take the claim limitation out of the abstract idea.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 11 and their respective dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar et al. (US 2018/0129515).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, 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).
Regarding claim 11, Kunar further discloses a source device (display/ user interace 11) configured to provide a system description data structure (user-selectable configuration options, Abstract, lines 8-10).
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; and
updating, if according to the evaluation the at least one of the constraints or dependencies is fulfilled, a configuration of the one or more measurement application devices according to the updated system description data structure
are contingent limitations (see MPEP 2111.04).
The condition that the at least one of the constraints or dependencies is fulfilled is not required by the claims. Accordingly, the updating steps are also not required.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, 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).
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 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kumar in view of Navarro et al. (US 2016/0299771).
Regarding claim 14, Kumar discloses the configuration device is configured to process the description data structure (user selectable input, Abstract, lines 7-10).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Kumar 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 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, 9, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Kumar 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 claims 8 and 18, Kumar 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 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 claims 9 and 19, Kumar as modified by 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.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dumar in view of Frackelton et al. (US 2018/0278489).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, 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 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 with a SCPI command as disclosed by Frackelton et al. for the purpose of changing a configuration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 28, 2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b), Applicants argue “[w]ithout taking a position on whether the claim terms invoke 112(f), Applicant's specification … does disclose corresponding structure for the source device and configuration device (see paragraphs 0125, 0126).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) of the configuration device have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 USC 112(b) of the configuration device has been withdrawn.
However, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) of the source device, the specification discloses “a configuration device 101 that is coupled to a source device 102. In the measurement application system configuration system 100, the source device 102 is optionally provided in a measurement application system 190 that comprises at least one measurement application device 191” (paragraph 0125; Fig. 6). The measurement application devices 191 are communicatively coupled to the source device 102 (Fig. 6). The source device 102 may collect the relevant information e.g., respective sub- sections of the system description data structure from the single measurement application devices 191, and provide the full system description data structure to the configuration device 101 (paragraph 0125). Accordingly, there is no corresponding structure f1or the source device, i.e., which corresponding structure(s) does the source device comprise?
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) of the computer algebra system, Applicants argue “regarding the "computer algebra system," the Specification states: [0135] In the measurement application system configuration system 300, the configuration device 301 comprises a computer algebra system 306 for solving a system of equations that is generated based on the constraints and dependencies that are provided in the system description data structure.”
Examiner’s position is that paragraph 0135 does not disclose corresponding structure for the computer algebra system, i.e., which corresponding structure(s) does the computer algebra system comprise?
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 101, Applicants argue “[c]onfiguration of the measurement application devices is a practical application that is required prior to performing a measurement.”
Examiner’s position is that the claims do not recite configuration of the measurement application devices. Instead, for example, the claims recite “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”, “updating …at the configuration device the system description data structure …” and “updating, if according to the evaluation the at least one of the constraints or dependencies is fulfilled, a configuration of the one or more measurement application devices”. The steps are directed to an abstract idea, as discussed above. Further, 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 …; and
updating, if according to the evaluation the at least one of the constraints or dependencies is fulfilled, a configuration of the one or more measurement application devices according to the updated system description data structure …
are contingent limitations (see MPEP 2111.04).
The condition that the at least one of the constraints or dependencies is fulfilled is not required by the claims. Accordingly, the updating steps are also not required.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103 are made in view of Kumar (US 2018/0129515) and Richter et al. (US 20230385006), as discussed above.
Prior Art Note
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 12, 13, 15, and 17 do not have prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein a method and system for configuring a measurement application system comprising an expression regarding one of the properties, that during the evaluation evaluates to true or false (claims 2, 12) or a determination rule for at least one of the properties that determines a value for the respective property (claims 5, 15) or a computer algebra system to the constraints and dependencies (claims 7, 17) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Richter et al. (US 2023/0385006) discloses a method and system for configuring a measurement application system (Fig. 1), the method comprising:
providing to a configuration device (112) that is communicatively coupled to the
measurement application system (Fig. 1) a system description data structure (user input 109) that defines, for one or more measurement application devices that are present in the measurement application system (measurement devices can be selected, paragraph 0138, lines 1-2), properties and at least one of constraints for at least one of the properties (user provides measurement device configuration input, paragraph 0138, lines 1-3), and dependencies of at least one of the properties that depends on at least another one of the properties (setting, options based on the configuration, paragraph 0066, lines 5-10);
receiving at the configuration device (112) for at least one of the properties a user input (109) comprising a value to be set for the respective property (settings, options, paragraph 0066; configuration input, paragraphs 0138);
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 (112 generating, measurement-related data based on user input 109, paragraph 0137).
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 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 May 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights