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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected. 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.
In Figures 5-8, the block elements should be labeled with its description within its block element.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 1, line 4, it appears the phrase “the correct setup” should be changed to -- a correct setup --.
In claim 2, line 4, the word -- the -- should be inserted after the word “wherein”.
In claim 3, line 4, the word -- the -- should be inserted after the word “wherein”.
In claim 5, line 1, the word -- the -- should be inserted after the word “wherein”. In line 2, the word -- the -- should be inserted after the word “and”. In line 4, it appears the phrase “the correct wiring” should be changed to -- a correct wiring --. In line 5, it appears the phrase “the correct configuration” should be changed to -- a correct configuration --. In line 7, it appears the phrase “the correct configuration” should be changed to -- a correct configuration --. In line 10, it appears the phrase “the correct operation” should be changed to -- a correct operation --.
In claim 6, line 1, the word -- the -- should be inserted after the word “wherein”. In line 4, the word -- the -- should be inserted after the word “wherein”.
In claim 7, line 1, the word -- the -- should be inserted after the word “wherein”.
In claim 8, line 1, the word -- the -- should be inserted after the word “wherein”.
In claim 9, line 1, the word -- the -- should be inserted after the word “wherein”. In lines 1-2, the phrase “the identified components” should be changed to -- the identified functions -- to provide proper antecedent basis. In line 4, the phrase “a user” should be changed to -- the user --.
In claim 10, line 1, the word -- the -- should be inserted after the word “wherein”. In line 4, the word -- the -- should be inserted after the word “wherein”.
In claim 13, line 1, the word -- the -- should be inserted after the word “wherein”.
In claim 14, line 4, it appears the phrase “the correct setup” should be changed to -- a correct setup --.
In claim 15, line 2, the phrase “a central test control unit” should be changed to -- the central test control unit --.
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 13 and 15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 13, line 3, the phrase “the configuration” lack antecedent basis and is not clear on its meaning. What “configuration” of the measurement system? Please clarify. In lines 3-4, the phrase “especially, sharing … a user” is vague and unclear since the word “especially” leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim unclear. Please clarify. In lines 3-4, the phrase “the collaboration platform” is not clear on its meaning such that the phrase has no well-recognized meaning in the field and leaves the reader in doubt as to the meaning of the technical feature to which it refers, thereby rendering the definition of the subject matter of the claim unclear. Please clarify.
In claim 15, line 1, is the phrase “a measurement system” in this claim the same or a different “a measurement system” in claim 14, line 3? Please clarify.
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, 2, 5-7 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 7,539,489 (Alexander).
With regards to claim 1, Alexander discloses a location-based testing for data communication network comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-10, a method for operating a measurement system (e.g. Figures 1,8; column 8, lines 45-67) that comprises at least one measurement application device 10,11,12,13 (e.g. test units; column 4, lines 47-61) and at least one device under test 15 (e.g. system/object under test; column 4, lines 47-61) comprising centrally configuring the measurement system for a test measurements (e.g. column 8, lines 52-53; column 11, lines 17-24); centrally verifying the correct setup of the measurement system (e.g. column 8, lines 52-53); performing the test measurement with the measurement system (e.g. column 11, lines 62-67; Figure 8). (See, column 4, line 47 to column 16, line 61).
With regards to claim 2, Alexander further discloses detecting at least one of measurement application devices present in the measurement system and devices under test present in the measurement system; the centrally configuring comprises configuring at least one of the detected measurement application devices and the detected devices under test. (See, column 10, lines 46-64; column 11, lines 17-24).
With regards to claim 5, Alexander further discloses the at least one of centrally verifying the correct setup of the measurement system and performing the test measurement with the measurement system comprises at least one of verifying the correct wiring of the measurement system; verifying the correct configuration of the at least one measurement application device; verifying the correct configuration of the at least one device under test; controlling the at least one measurement application device; controlling the at least one device under test; monitoring the correct operation of the at least one measurement application device; monitoring the correct operation of the at least one device under test. (See, column 8, lines 45-58; Figure 6).
With regards to claim 6, Alexander further discloses the centrally configuring the measurement system for a test measurement further comprises receiving a selection of a test scenario, the test scenario comprising a list of test cases; the performing the test measurement comprises performing respective test measurements for the list of test cases. (See, column 9, lines 21-27; Figure 6).
With regards to claim 7, Alexander further discloses the centrally configuring the measurement system for a test measurement further comprises identifying test cases the measurement system can perform; providing a user with a list of the test cases the measurement system can perform to select the test cases to be performed with the measurement system. (See, column 9, lines 16-21; Figure 6).
With regards to claim 10, Alexander further discloses the centrally configuring the measurement system for a test measurement further comprises receiving a definition of a test sequence comprising multiple test measurements; the performing the test measurement with the measurement system further comprises performing the multiple test measurements as defined in the test sequence. (See, column 9, lines 21-27; Figure 6).
With regards to claim 11, Alexander further discloses dynamically determining and visualizing at least one of: signal paths in the measurement system; settings of components of the measurement system; and measurement results. (See, column 9, lines 27-29; Figure 6).
With regards to claim 12, Alexander further discloses comprising dynamically determining and visualizing at least one of a block diagram for the measurement system such that the block diagram comprising elements that are missing in the measurement system for the test measurement; a wiring layout for the measurement system. (See, column 9, lines 29-33).
With regards to claim 13, Alexander further discloses the centrally configuring comprises providing a user interface via a collaboration platform; especially sharing the configuration of the measurement system via the collaboration platform where a functionality to comment shared configurations is provided to a user. (See, column 9, lines 11-16; any graphic unit interface GUI is suitable for collaboration).
With regards to claims 14 and 15, Alexander further discloses a controller 14 (e.g. general-purpose computer or central controller; column 4, lines 47-61; Figures 1,7) and the claims are directed to apparatus claims and are commensurate in scope with the above method claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as set forth above.
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 7,539,489 (Alexander) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0196103 (Champoux et al.).
With regards to claim 3, Alexander does not disclose adding at least one of a simulated measurement application device and a simulated device under test to the measurement system; and the centrally configuring further comprises configuring at least one of the simulated measurement application device and the simulated device under test.
Champoux et al. discloses a test equipment system comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-14, a method for operating a measurement system 100 (e.g. automatic test equipment apparatus; Figure 2; paragraph [0043]) that comprises at least one measurement application device 230A-230N (e.g. site module boards; paragraph [0043]) and at least one device under test 220A-220N (e.g. device under test; paragraph [0043]) comprising centrally configuring the measurement system for a test measurements (e.g. paragraphs [0043]-[0047]); centrally verifying the correct setup of the measurement system (e.g. paragraphs [0043]-[0047]; performing the test measurement with the measurement system (e.g. paragraphs [0043]-[0047]); adding at least one of a simulated measurement application device and a simulated device under test to the measurement system (e.g. paragraph [0097]; the centrally configuring further comprises configuring at least one of the simulated measurement application device and the simulated device under test (e.g. paragraph [0097]). (See, paragraphs [0041] to [0149]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have readily recognize the advantages and desirability of employing the concept of adding at least one of a simulated measurement application device and a simulated device under test to the measurement system, and the centrally configuring further comprises configuring at least one of the simulated measurement application device and the simulated device under test as suggested by Champoux et al. to the system of Alexander to have the ability to provide an inexpensive way to re-purpose the test board that can be reprogrammed to allow further functionalities. (See, paragraph [0097] of Champoux et al.).
With regards to claim 4, Champoux et al. further discloses at least one of dynamically switching the measurement system between a simulated measurement application device and a real measurement application device; dynamically switching the measurement system between at least one of a simulated device under test, and a real device under test, and a golden device under test. (See, paragraph [0097]).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 7,539,489 (Alexander) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0264590 (Michi et al.).
With regards to claim 8, Alexander does not disclose the centrally configuring the measurement system for a test measurement further comprises identifying functions that are required for performing the test measurement but that are not present in the measurement system, and providing a user with a list of the identified functions.
Michi et al. discloses a system for automatically configuring a tester comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-3, a method for operating a measurement system comprising the centrally configuring the measurement system for a test measurement further comprises identifying functions that are required for performing the test measurement but that are not present in the measurement system, and providing a user with a list of the identified functions (e.g. paragraph [0034], 2nd and 3rd sentences in paragraph [0034]). (See, paragraphs [0027] to [0047]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have readily recognize the advantages and desirability of employing the centrally configuring the measurement system for a test measurement further comprises identifying functions that are required for performing the test measurement but that are not present in the measurement system, and providing a user with a list of the identified functions as suggested by Michi et al. to the system of Alexander to have the ability to improve the configuration of the tester where an adaption can be automatically or has to be enabled by approval or authorization of a superior control entity. (See, paragraph [0034] of Michi et al.).
With regards to claim 9, Michi et al. further discloses the providing a user with a list of the identified functions further comprises adding at least one of the identified functions to the measurement system automatically or upon request from a user (e.g. paragraph [0034], 4th sentence).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references cited, particularly Glover, Singh, Anton, Minarsky and Rimoni, are related to test systems for mobility measurements for a device under test.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Helen C Kwok whose telephone number is (571)272-2197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:30 to 4:00 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/HELEN C KWOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855