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 2/20/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please see response below:
In response to application argument, the present application teaches the use of a user program and/or a script, i.e., a set of executable pre-written instructions for setting up the test protocols, particularly to automate and speed up the testing process. On the other hand, Chew exclusively teaches "human intervention" for setting up the test session (i.e., requires skilled personnel in conjunction with the test setup). Hence, in the context of automation, Chu teaches away from the present claimed subject matter (Examiner respectfully disagree with the Applicant, Chew teaches the amended claimed limitations “setting up the test protocols with the aid of a user program and/or a script, wherein the user program and/or the script is configured as a plug-in” (see Chew’s para. 31-32, user program/script to test with a computing device with a browser plug-in)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 5,7-10 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chew et al. (US 2014/0321285 A1, hereinafter “Chew”).
Regarding claim 1, Chew discloses a method for compliance testing a device under test (see Figure 2, para. 0035, DUT 290), wherein the device under test is provided with more than one communication interface for a wireless and/or a wire-bound protocol (see para. 0035-0037,one or more ports, communication link may be wired or wireless), wherein the communication interfaces are configured for at least two different communication protocols (see para. 0037 and 0039, Ethernet , WiFi, WiMax), the method comprising the steps of: assigning a test protocol to each of the communication interfaces (see para. 0039, test protocol such as Ethernet, WiFi, ZigBee or Bluetooth), automatically executing, at least once, each of the test protocols wherein the communication interfaces are configured for at least two different communication protocols (see para. 0039-41, programmable devices to generate test data; para. 0054, test head to communicate with each protocol; para. 0069, test a device) and setting up the test protocols with the aid of a user program and/or a script, wherein the user program and/or the script is configured as a plug-in (see Chew’s para. 31-32, user program/script to test with a computing device with a browser plug-in).
Regarding claim 2, Chew discloses wherein the test protocols are executed at one test cycle, especially the same test cycle (see para. 0069, test cycle).
Regarding claim 3, Chew discloses wherein the method further comprises the step of repeatedly executing at least a part, preferably each, of the test protocols (see para. 0069, may be repeated).
Regarding claim 5, Chew discloses wherein the method further comprises the step of setting up the respective speed during corresponding run time with respect to at least a part, preferably each, of the test protocols with the aid of a user program and/or a script (see para. 0069, time periods define the run time for the test).
Regarding claim 7, Chew discloses wherein compliance testing comprises or is PHY compliance testing and/or Ethernet compliance testing (see para. 0025, Ethernet; para. 0077, layer 2 or layer 3).
Regarding claim 8, Chew discloses wherein executing at least a part, preferably each, of the test protocols comprises applying at least one of different signal characteristics, preferably different test signal frequencies and/or different test signal levels, different disturbing signals, preferably different random disturbing signals and/or different pre-defined disturbing signals, different standards, preferably different communication standards and/or different IEEE standards (see para. 0037, different standards).
Regarding claim 9, Chew discloses wherein the method further comprises the steps of: switching to at least one further device under test especially in an automated manner, and performing at least one of the steps to said at least one further device under test (see para. 0065, request for specific test).
Regarding claim 10, Chew discloses wherein the method further comprises the step of creating a central report comprising the corresponding test results from at least a part, preferably each, of the test protocols (see para. 0065, summarize the test data and present to a user).
Regarding claim 13, Chew discloses a computing device being configured to perform at least one of the steps of the method according to claim 1 (see para. 0036, test equipment 200).
Regarding claim 14, Chew discloses a measurement device for compliance testing a device under test, the measurement device comprising a computing device according to claim 13 and a wireless and/or wired interface being connectable to device under test (see Figures 2 and 3, para. 0036 and 0039).
Regarding claim 15, Chew discloses wherein the wireless and/or wired interface is connectable to at least one further device under test, and/or wherein the measurement device further comprises at least one further wireless and/or wired interface being connectable to at least one further device under test (see Figure 2 and 3, para. 0039, DUT).
Regarding claim 16, Chew discloses wherein the method further comprises the step of creating a central report comprising the corresponding test results from at least one test with respect to the at least on further device under test, preferably at least a part or each further test protocols (see para. 0061-0065, test module collect test data).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chew in view of Hicks et al. (US 2004/0064760 A1, hereinafter “Hicks”).
Regarding claim 11, Chew discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention explicitly wherein the method further comprises the step of performing a statistical analysis, preferably a statistical analysis comprising at least one graph especially visualizing at least a part of said statistical analysis, more preferably a statistical analysis comprising at least one pie chart especially visualizing at least a part of said statistical analysis, most preferably a statistical analysis comprising at least one graph and/or at least one pie chart for a synopsis of the corresponding test results of the central report, on the basis of the central report. However, Hicks from a similar field of endeavor discloses further comprises the step of performing a statistical analysis, preferably a statistical analysis comprising at least one graph especially visualizing at least a part of said statistical analysis (see para/ 0130, utilization statistics), more preferably a statistical analysis comprising at least one pie chart especially visualizing at least a part of said statistical analysis (see para. 0130-0131, the graph field includes pie charts), most preferably a statistical analysis comprising at least one graph and/or at least one pie chart for a synopsis of the corresponding test results of the central report, on the basis of the central report (see para. 0118, a graphical chart). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Hicks graphical representation into Chew test data scheme. The method can be implemented the interface. The motivation of doing this is to represent the performance of the device under test.
Regarding claim 12, Chew discloses all the subject matter but fails to mention wherein the method further comprises the steps of: displaying the statistical analysis, preferably the statistical analysis comprising at least one graph especially visualizing at least a part of said statistical analysis, more preferably the statistical analysis comprising at least one pie chart especially visualizing at least a part of said statistical analysis, most preferably the statistical analysis comprising at least one graph and/or at least one pie chart for a synopsis of the corresponding test results of the central report, especially with the aid of a display unit and/or a graphical user interface, and/or updating the statistical analysis, preferably the statistical analysis comprising at least one graph especially visualizing at least a part of said statistical analysis, more preferably the statistical analysis comprising at least one pie chart especially visualizing at least a part of said statistical analysis, most preferably the statistical analysis comprising at least one graph and/or at least one pie chart for a synopsis of the corresponding test results of the central report, especially in real time. However, Hicks from a similar field of endeavor discloses wherein the method further comprises the steps of: displaying the statistical analysis, preferably the statistical analysis comprising at least one graph especially visualizing at least a part of said statistical analysis (see para. 0118 and 0138, graphical and tabular representation), more preferably the statistical analysis comprising at least one pie chart especially visualizing at least a part of said statistical analysis, most preferably the statistical analysis comprising at least one graph and/or at least one pie chart for a synopsis of the corresponding test results of the central report (see para. 0131, pie chart), especially with the aid of a display unit and/or a graphical user interface, and/or updating the statistical analysis, preferably the statistical analysis comprising at least one graph especially visualizing at least a part of said statistical analysis, more preferably the statistical analysis comprising at least one pie chart especially visualizing at least a part of said statistical analysis (see para. 0131, GUI with pie chart representation of statistics(, most preferably the statistical analysis comprising at least one graph and/or at least one pie chart for a synopsis of the corresponding test results of the central report, especially in real time (see para. 0118 and 0138, graphical representation of test results). Thus, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to include Hicks graphical representation into Chew test data scheme. The method can be implemented the interface. The motivation of doing this is to represent the performance of the device under test.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD S ANWAR whose telephone number is (571)270-5641. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6-5 EST.
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, Asad Nawaz can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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 S. ANWAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/MOHAMMAD S ANWAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463