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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because boxes “100” (Fig. 1), “300” (Fig. 3), “400” (Fig. 4) should be provided with descriptive text labels, respectively (see MPEP 608.02(b)(II) FP 6.22).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “130” has been used to designate both a “Cloud/Network” (Fig. 1) and “Remote Commands/Interface” (Fig. 1).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "130” (Fig. 1) and "113" (specification, paragraph 0017, line 4) have both been used to designate a “remote interface”.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:”250” (specification, paragraph 0028, line 2).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the acquisition memory handler (claim 1), “rasterizer” (claim 1), display driver (claim 10), second display driver (claim 11) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 5-7 and 18 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 5, “which the values of the digital samples stored in the histogram” (lines 2-3) is indefinite because the limitation appears to be in conflict with claim 1. In claim 1, the digital samples are stored in the acquisition memory (see claim 1, lines 3-4). Examiner suggests deleting “stored” before “in the histogram”.
Claim 6, “the placement of the series of digital samples in the histogram” (lines 2-3) lacks antecedent basis. “[T]he placement of” (lines 2-3) should be deleted.
Clams 7 and 18, “from up to all” is indefinite since “all” does not represent a definite amount. “F]from/for up to all” (claim 7, line 2; claim 18, line 1) should be deleted.
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 1-9 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, claim 1 recites an abstract idea of “generate a histogram of values of the digital samples prior to or simultaneously with the values being stored in the acquisition memory (mathematical concept, claim 1),
Under step 2A, prong 2, in claim 1, the claim limitations are not integrated into a practical application. In claim 1, an input for accepting an input signal and storing the input signal are directed to insignificant extra solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Under step 2B, in claim 1, an input for accepting an input signal and storing the input signal are well-understood, routine and conventional activities known in the industry, have been found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the claimed judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d)).
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 2 and 3 are directed to insignificant extra solution activities.
Claims 4-9 are directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-9 are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Note Regarding 35 USC § 101
Under step 2A, prong 2, in claim 15, the claim limitations are integrated into a practical application including “generating a raster display from the histogram”. Thus, the histogram is used/applied in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)).
Under step 2B, in claim 10, “increment a corresponding bin value of a two-dimensional histogram for each selected digital sample in portion of the series of digital samples at least as fast as a rate at which the input samples are received from the DUT” is directed to an additionally element that is significantly more.
Accordingly, claims 10 and 15 their dependent claims 11-14 and 16-20 are patent eligible 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lim et al. (US 2024/0027497).
Regarding claim 1, Lim et al. discloses a test and measurement instrument (Fig. 1), comprising:
an input (input of 12) configured to accept an input signal from a Device Under Test (10, Fig. 1);
an acquisition memory handler (Fig. 1) structured to store the input signal as a series of digital samples in an acquisition memory (14) (paragraph 0015, lines 3-4); and
a rasterizer (GPU) structured to generate a histogram of values of the digital samples (Abstract, lines 4-7) simultaneously with the values being stored in the acquisition memory (values are stored in the acquisition memory while the GPU rasterizes waveforms to form waveform histogram, paragraph 0015, lines 9-16).
It is noted that generate a histogram of values of the digital samples prior to the values being stored in the acquisition memory is an alternative limitation because it is recited in the alternative form.
Regarding claim 2, Lim et al. discloses a raster memory (22), and in which the histogram is stored in the raster memory (22, paragraph 0015, lines 13-17).
Regarding claim 3, Lim et al. discloses the series of digital samples are stored in the acquisition memory (14) and the histogram is stored in the raster memory (22) simultaneously (digital samples are stored in the acquisition memory 14 while the histogram is stored in the raster memory 22).
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, 7, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. in view of Etheridge et al. (US 2004/0008160).
Regarding claim 4, Lim et al. does not disclose the rasterizer is structured to generate the histogram based on a trigger result
Etheridge et al. discloses a rasterizer is structured to generate the histogram (time sliced histogram) based on a trigger result (Abstract) for displaying waveform data per time slice.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Lim et al. with a rasterizer is structured to generate the histogram (time sliced histogram) based on a trigger result as disclosed by Etheridge et al. for the purpose of displaying waveform data per time slice.
Regarding claim 7, Lim et al. does not disclose the rasterizer is structured to generate the histogram from up to all of the series of digital samples.
Etheridge et al. discloses a rasterizer is structured to generate the histogram from up to all of the series of digital samples (Abstract) for displaying digital sample data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Lim et al. with a rasterizer is structured to generate the histogram from up to all of the series of digital samples as disclosed by Etheridge et al. for the purpose of displaying digital sample data.
Regarding claim 15, Lim et al. discloses a method in a test and measurement instrument (Fig. 1), comprising:
generating a series of digital samples from an input signal (paragraph 0015, lines 1-2; Fig. 1);
storing the series of digital samples in a buffer (paragraph 0015, lines 3-4);
generating a histogram from the at least some of the series of digital samples (Abstract, lines 4-7);
generating a raster display from the histogram (Abstract, lines 12-14, 5-6); and
simultaneously storing the series of digital samples in an acquisition memory and storing the raster display in a raster memory (digital samples are stored in the acquisition memory 14 while the histogram is stored in the raster memory 22).
Lim et al. does not disclose retrieving/storing at least some of the series of digital samples from the ring buffer based on a trigger condition for displaying raster data.
Etheridge et al. discloses retrieving/storing at least some of the series of digital samples from the ring buffer based on a trigger condition (paragraph 0004; Abstract) for displaying raster data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Lim et al. with retrieving at least some of the series of digital samples from the ring buffer based on a trigger condition as disclosed by Etheridge et al. for the purpose of displaying raster data.
Regarding claim 18, Lim et al. does not disclose the raster display is generated for up to all of the series of digital samples (Abstract).
Etheridge et al. discloses a raster display is generated for up to all of the series of digital samples (Abstract) for displaying digital samples.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Lim et al. with a raster display is generated for up to all of the series of digital samples as disclosed by Etheridge et al. for the purpose of displaying digital samples in a grid format.
.
Regarding claim 19, Lim et al. discloses displaying the raster display on the test and measurement instrument (Abstract, lines 12-14).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. in view of Ando (US 2019/0370596).
Regarding claim 9, Lim et al. does not disclose the histogram is two-dimensional.
Ando discloses a histogram is two-dimensional (paragraph 0065, lines 2-5) for displaying waveform information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Lim et al. with a two-dimensional histogram as disclosed by Ando for the purpose of displaying waveform information.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. in view of Etheridge et al. as applied to claims 15 and 19 above, and further in view of Ross et al. (US 2014/0149811).
Regarding claim 20, Lim et al. as modified by Etheridge et al. does not disclose displaying a waveform display from the series of digital samples, the waveform display separate from the raster display.
Ross et al. discloses displaying a waveform display (waveform displays, paragraph 0061, lines 5-7) from the series of digital samples (sample signals), the waveform display separate from the raster display (waveform displays, raster-type displays, paragraph 0061, lines 5-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide Lim et al. as modified with a waveform display separate from a raster display as disclosed by Ross et al. for the purpose of displaying waveform.
Prior Art Note
Claims 5, 6, and 8 do not have prior art rejections.
The combination as claimed wherein a test and measurement instrument comprising the values of the digital samples stored in the histogram are offset in the ring buffer from the trigger result (claim 5) or particular of the series of digital samples that would not affect the appearance of the raster display are not represented in the histogram (claim 8) is not disclosed, suggested, or made obvious by the prior art of record.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 10-14 are allowed.
Reasons For Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The combination as claimed wherein a test and measurement instrument, comprising increment a corresponding bin value of a two-dimensional histogram for each selected digital sample in portion of the series of digital samples at least as fast as a rate at which the input samples are received from the DUT (claim 10) or retrieving the at least some of the series of digital samples is based on an offset to a location of the trigger (claim 16) 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.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Etheridge et al. discloses a rasterizer is structured to generate the histogram (time sliced histogram) based on a trigger result (paragraph 0004), the stored data is aligned with the triggering event (paragraph 0004), and storing the series of digital samples in a ring buffer (Abstract).
However, Etheridge et al. does not disclose the values of the digital samples stored in the histogram are offset in the ring buffer from the trigger result.
Lim et al. discloses the histogram is used to generate a raster display (Abstract, lines 12-14, 5-6).
However, Lim et al. does not disclose which particular of the series of digital samples that would not affect the appearance of the raster display are not represented in the histogram.
Lim et al. discloses to reduce blind time, the instrument can capture the waveform at a higher rate with a shorter trigger hold-off period and display it at a higher display refresh rate (paragraph 0004). However, Lim et al. does not disclose increment a corresponding bin value of a two-dimensional histogram for each selected digital sample in portion of the series of digital samples at least as fast as a rate at which the input samples are received from the DUT.
Etheridge et al. discloses the stored data is aligned with the triggering event (paragraph 0004).
However, Etheridge et al. does not disclose retrieving the at least some of the series of digital samples is based on an offset to a location of the trigger.
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 October 27, 2025