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 Amendment
The amendments filed 07/17/2026. Claims 1-6, 8-20 remain pending. Claims 1, 4-6, 8-11, & 14-20 have been amended. Claim 7 has been cancelled.
Regarding “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §112”:
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" , filed 07/17/2026, with respect to 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that (page 8 lines 14-18):
“Applicant disagrees with the Office Action to any limitation of the test instrument to only encompass an oscilloscope. As set forth in the present application, applicant has provided numerous examples of test instruments that are capable of carrying out the features of the claimed subject matter. (See, e.g., paragraph [0086] of the present application.) As such, the amended subject matter includes test instruments other than oscilloscopes.”
Examiner respectfully replies:
Based on Applicant’s amendments “wherein the test instrument further comprises a processing circuit, the processing circuit being configured to receive an analysis request, wherein the analysis request comprises information on a measurement to be performed by the test instrument”, and on the Applicant’s arguments, limitations directed towards “test instrument” are for the purposes of examination, interpreted broadly as ‘a device with processing capabilities which can perform tests on some device under test’.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" , filed 07/17/2026, with respect to 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that (page 8 lines 19-23):
“Applicant also disagrees with the Office Action to any requirement of limiting the claims to any particular technique of receiving configuration data or creating such data. As set forth in the present application, applicant has provided numerous examples of techniques and methodologies that are capable of carrying out the features of the claimed subject matter. (See, e.g., paragraphs [0094-99] of the present application.)”
Examiner respectfully replies:
Based on Applicant’s amendments “wherein the processing circuit is configured to generate performance data based on the analysis request and based on the set of correlated configuration data, wherein the performance data is indicative of a performance of the test instrument with respect to the measurement to be performed,” and on the Applicant’s arguments, limitations directed towards “receiving configuration data or creating data” are For the purposes of examination, interpreted broadly as ‘receiving or creating data’, and similarly a “hierarchical data format” is interpreted broadly as ‘data has some structuring’.
Applicant’s amendments & arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" , filed 07/17/2026, with respect to 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 6, & 15-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 6, & 15-20 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101”:
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" , filed 07/17/2026, with respect to 35 USC 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 9 lines 10-11):
“The claimed subject matter is directed to a physical test instrument or a method of generating a model of that test instrument, not to disembodied mathematical concepts.”
& (page 9 lines 17-21):
“The “model database” and the “correlated configuration data” are not claimed as abstract mathematical objects, but as a digital twin of a specific test instrument and measurement setup used to: (i) predict and display performance of the test instrument for a requested measurement, (ii) determine optimized operational parameters, and (iii) automatically adapt instrument settings or guide the user.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
The physical elements of the claim are broadly recited, and as such do not amount to significantly more than indicating a field of use and technological environment corresponding to computing elements of at least CPC symbol G06F 3/00 (see MPEP 2106.05(h): “For claim limitations that generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, examiners should explain in an eligibility rejection why they do not meaningfully limit the claim. For example, an examiner could explain that employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not add significantly more,”)
Regarding “digital twin of a specific test instrument” or data structur[es][ing] such a limitation(s) would not be considered to be within one of the four patentable categories (see MPEP 2106.03(I): “As the courts' definitions of machines, manufactures and compositions of matter indicate, a product must have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of these statutory categories. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348, 111 USPQ2d at 1719. Thus, the Federal Circuit has held that a product claim to an intangible collection of information, even if created by human effort, does not fall within any statutory category. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1720 (claimed "device profile" comprising two sets of data did not meet any of the categories because it was neither a process nor a tangible product). Similarly, software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment.”
The “predict” & “determine optimized” are within the judicial exception abstract idea groupings of either mathematical concepts (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)) or mental processes (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)((C)).
The “display” & “automatically adapt instrument settings or guide the user” are not significantly more than applying the judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Regarding “Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103”:
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" , filed 07/17/2026, with respect to 35 USC 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 11 lines 20-23):
“Amended claim 1 defines a model database that explicitly corresponds to a substitute model of at least the test instrument that is configured to perform measurements on a DUT for assessing a performance of the DUT, and comprises correlated configuration data describing electrical, mechanical, hardware, software and testing properties of the test instrument”
& (page 12 lines 1-6):
“In Kajbaf, the physics-based behavioral models and augmented physical environment are consistently described in terms of modeling the device under test (component, sub-system, system) and the measurement scenario, not the internal configuration of the measurement instrument itself. (Kajbaf, e.g., paragraph [0007]), The models are used to predict DUT parameters and system behavior, and to validate and verify them against physical phenomenon, but they are not presented as a digital twin of the test instrument with its own operational limits,”
& (page 12 lines 15-19):
“but nothing in Kajbaf suggests that the measurement instrument’s own operational properties (e.g., frequency ranges, dynamic ranges, standards met/not met, calibration history) are captured as a substitute model of the instrument and stored as correlated configuration data with explicit interdependencies, as required by Claim 1.”
Examiner respectfully responds:
At least under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a digital twin is a model of a real world device represented in a computer environment, and as such is a collection of data and programming. A reference which teaches physical model(s) which can simulate (or model) a system under test teaches a digital twin. Since the system is simulated both the device under test and the device applying stimulus to that DUT are simulated; otherwise the DUT wouldn’t receive a stimulus.
Applicant’s arguments, see "Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment" , filed 07/17/2026, with respect to 35 USC 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (page 12 lines 20-26):
“As described above, Kajbaf consistently teaches training AI with physics-based DUT models, selecting and augmenting DUT behavioral models with physical measurements, and iteratively validating and verifying DUT parameters, However, Kajbaf does not disclose receiving and analyzing configuration data of the measurement instrument itself to determine interdependencies between its operational properties, nor generating or adapting a digital twin- style model database that corresponds to a substitute model of the test instrument and stores correlated instrument configuration data with those interdependencies. ”
Examiner respectfully responds:
A system which models a device under test and which can adjust parameters includes not only the device under test but also the parameters of the test instrument as well (see Kajbaf Fig. 4-110, para 0080: “In the depicted implementation, the AI 405 governs the model 140 selection and augmentation with parameter measurements captured by the measurement instrument 135 from the physical setup and device under test 110.”). Limitations directed towards a digital twin are not significantly more than that there is a physical model which of the device under test which is being simulated.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Flow diagrams from MPEP 2106(III) and 2106.04(II)(A)
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Claim 1:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “a test instrument” which is a device and within one of the four patentable categories.
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
“the test instrument being configured to perform measurements on a device under test to assess a performance of the device under test”
“a testing circuit, the testing circuit configured to at least one of analyze the measurement signal to assess the performance of the device under test or to generate the test signal to be applied to the device under test;”
“a memory, comprising a model database, wherein the model database corresponds to a substitute model of at least the test instrument, wherein the model database comprises a set of correlated configuration data,”
“wherein the set of correlated configuration data comprises operational parameters and information on interdependencies of the operational parameters, the operational parameters describing electrical properties, mechanical properties, hardware properties, software properties, and/or testing properties of the test instrument,”
“wherein the analysis request comprises information on a measurement to be performed by the test instrument, wherein the processing circuit is configured to generate performance data based on the analysis request and based on the set of correlated configuration data, wherein the performance data is indicative of a performance of the test instrument with respect to the measurement to be performed”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I):
“The mathematical concepts grouping is defined as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.”
&
“It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.”
See MPEP 2106.05(f):
“Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.”
Analysis:
Analyzing and generating signals without a physical medium is no more than analyzing or creating a mathematical function; “testing circuit” amounts to no more disclosure than that testing in the form of mathematical concepts is intended to occur.
“Model data” and “correlated configuration data” consists of equations and data which describe a physical system and as such are within the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts
Conclusion:
Therefore, the claim recites abstract ideas from the abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites the additional imitations of:
“wherein the test instrument further comprises a processing circuit, the processing circuit being configured to receive an analysis request,”
“and wherein the test instrument is configured to display the performance data or to transmit the performance data to another device for visualization.”
The claim recites the additional elements of:
“A test instrument”
“a testing circuit”
“a memory”
“a processing circuit”
“another device”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.05(h): “Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.”
Analysis:
These elements amount to no more than indicating either a computer environment or a field of use corresponding to at least CPC symbol G06F 3/00: “Input arrangements for transferring data to be processed into a form capable of being handled by the computer; Output arrangements for transferring data from processing unit to output unit, e.g. interface arrangements”
Conclusion:
There are no additional elements which would be sufficient to integrate the judicial exception(s) into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
There are no additional elements beyond those addressed in Revised Step 2A – Prong Two (above).
Those elements were not determined to be conventional (though they are), but rather to be field of use limitations. Therefore, they are not further addressed at step 2B.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 2:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “a test instrument” which is a device and within one of the four patentable categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 2 additionally recites:
“wherein the set of correlated configuration data comprises at least one tensor, wherein the at least one tensor describes the interdependencies of at least a subset of the operational parameters.”
Explanation:
The subject matter is directed towards tensors and operational parameters which are within the abstract idea grouping of “mathematical concepts”.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 3:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “a test instrument” which is a device and within one of the four patentable categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 3 additionally recites:
“wherein the operational parameters comprise at least one of a frequency range, an amplitude range, a phase noise range, a dynamic range, a transfer function, a frequency response, an amplitude response, a phase response, a quantity describing a linearity, a compression point, a quantity describing intermodulation, a time resolution, a frequency resolution, an amplitude resolution, a power requirement, a bandwidth, an error vector magnitude as a function of input level, an error vector magnitude as a function of input frequency, a measurement speed, demodulation techniques that can be performed by the test instrument, a calibration technique applicable to the test instrument, a calibration history of the test instrument, standards met by the test instrument, standards not met by the test instrument, or measurement modes of the test instrument.”
Explanation:
The subject matter is directed towards numerical ranges, mathematical functions that can be applied to data, and analysis of data.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 4:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “a test instrument” which is a device and within one of the four patentable categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 4 additionally recites:
“wherein the operational parameters comprise information on electrical properties, mechanical properties, hardware properties, software properties, or testing properties of individual components of the test instrument.”
Explanation:
The subject matter is directed towards numerical values and mathematical relations (functions or models).
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 5:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “a test instrument” which is a device and within one of the four patentable categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 5 additionally recites:
“wherein the operational parameters further comprise information on electrical properties, mechanical properties, hardware properties, software properties, or testing properties of further components being connectable to the test instrument.”
Explanation:
The subject matter is directed towards numerical values/parameters and mathematical relations/information (functions or models).
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 6:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “a test instrument” which is a device and within one of the four patentable categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 6 additionally recites:
“wherein the model database is established as an hierarchical data base having an hierarchical data format.”
Explanation:
The subject matter is directed towards numerical values/parameters and mathematical relations/information (functions or models) and data about such.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 8:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “a test instrument” which is a device and within one of the four patentable categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 8 additionally recites:
“wherein the processing circuit is configured to add further data points to the correlated configuration data or to replace data points of the correlated configuration data, thereby obtaining an augmented set of correlated configuration data.”
Explanation:
The subject matter is directed towards mathematical concepts/computations applied to data.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites the additional elements of:
“processing circuit”
Explanation:
This additional element amounts to no more than indicating a computer environment.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
There are no additional elements beyond those addressed in Revised Step 2A – Prong Two (above).
Those elements were not determined to be conventional (though they are), but rather to be field of use or computer environment limitations. Therefore, they are not further addressed at step 2B.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 9:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “a test instrument” which is a device and within one of the four patentable categories (as inherited from claim 8 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 8 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 9 additionally recites:
“wherein the processing circuit is configured to interpolate the correlated configuration data, extrapolate the correlated configuration data, simulate a measurement performed by the test instrument, or cause the test instrument to perform a measurement in order to obtain the augmented set of correlated configuration data.”
Explanation:
The subject matter is directed towards mathematical concepts/computations applied to data.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Explanation:
This additional limitation of “perform a measurement in order to obtain the augmented set of correlated configuration data” amounts to no more than ‘apply it’ with regard to the judicial exception(s).
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 10:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “a test instrument” which is a device and within one of the four patentable categories (as inherited from claim 9 and thereby from claim 8 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 9 and thereby from claim 8 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 10 additionally recites:
“wherein the processing circuit is configured to interpolate or extrapolate the correlated configuration data only within subsets of the correlated configuration data that correspond to a fixed hardware configuration of the test instrument.”
Explanation:
The subject matter is directed towards mathematical concepts/computations applied to data.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 11:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “a test instrument” which is a device and within one of the four patentable categories (as inherited from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 1.
Claim 11 additionally recites:
“wherein the processing circuit is configured to determine optimized operational parameters of the test instrument based on the analysis request and based on the set of correlated configuration data.”
Explanation:
The subject matter is directed towards mathematical concepts/computations applied to data.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim recites the additional elements of:
“processing circuit”
Explanation:
This additional element amounts to no more than indicating a computer environment.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
There are no additional elements beyond those addressed in Revised Step 2A – Prong Two (above).
Those elements were not determined to be conventional (though they are), but rather to be field of use or computer environment limitations. Therefore, they are not further addressed at step 2B.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 12:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “a test instrument” which is a device and within one of the four patentable categories (as inherited from claim 11 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 11 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 12 additionally recites:
“wherein the processing circuit is configured to generate user instructions for setting the optimized operational parameters.”
Explanation:
Rule:
See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C):
“In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”
Analysis:
The claim is directed towards the judicial exception abstract idea groupings of mathematical concepts or mental processes.
Conclusion:
The subject matter is directed towards mathematical concepts/computations applied to data and/or use of elements from the field of use of computing elements to perform mental processes.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claim 13:
Step
Analysis
Step 1:
Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes;
The claim is directed towards “a test instrument” which is a device and within one of the four patentable categories (as inherited from claim 12 and thereby from claim 11 and thereby from claim 1).
Revised Step 2A Prong One:
Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes;
The claim recites:
The judicial exception(s) as inherited from claim 12 and thereby from claim 11 and thereby from claim 1.
Claim 13 additionally recites:
“wherein the processing circuit is configured to automatically adapt settings of the test instrument based on the determined optimized operational parameters.”
Explanation:
The subject matter is directed towards mathematical concepts/computations applied to data.
Revised Step 2A – Prong Two:
Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Explanation:
This additional limitation of “processing circuit is configured to automatically adapt settings of the test instrument …” amounts to no more than ‘apply it’ with regard to the judicial exception(s).
Step 2B:
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No;
The claim does not recite additional elements.
Conclusion:
Therefore, “Claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101”.
Claims 14-20 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1-6 & 8-13.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-15, & 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230251292 A1(RITTER) in view of US 20210173011 A1(KAJBAF).
Regarding claim 1, Ritter teaches a test instrument, the test instrument being configured to perform measurements on a device under test to assess a performance of the device under test (Fig. 3-321: “The measurement interface”, this interface necessarily implies “assess a performance …”), the test instrument (Fig. 3-320: “measurement device”, para 0027: “If the data analysis system is integrated in a measurement device, like an oscilloscope, the respective segment may be shown to the user of the measurement device on the screen of the measurement device.”) comprising at least one port (Fig. 3-321: “measurement interface”, para 0100: “The measurement interface 321 comprises connectors for coupling the measurement device 320 to a device under test, DUT”, port/(measurement interface with connectors)), the at least one port being configured to receive a measurement signal from a device under test and/or to transmit a test signal to a device under test (para 0100: “The measured signal or time series of data points 323 is provided to an acquisition circuitry 322 in the measurement interface 321”); a testing circuit, the testing circuit being configured to at least one of analyze the measurement signal to assess the performance of the device under test (Fig. 3: device for analyzing a signal to assess performance) or to generate the test signal to be applied to the device under test (Fig. 3-323: “time series of data points”, para 0100: “measuring a time series of data points 323 in the DUT”, measurement signal/(“time series of data”)); and a memory (Fig. 4-452: “memory”),
Ritter does not as explicitly teach a memory comprising a model database, wherein the model database corresponds to a substitute model of at least the test instrument, wherein the model database comprises a set of correlated configuration data, wherein the set of correlated configuration data comprises operational parameters and information on interdependencies of the operational parameters, the operational parameters describing electrical properties, mechanical properties, hardware properties, software properties, or testing properties of the test instrument, and wherein the test instrument further comprises a processing circuit, the processing circuit being configured to receive an analysis request, wherein the analysis request comprises information on a measurement to be performed by the test instrument, wherein the processing circuit is configured to generate performance data based on the analysis request and based on the set of correlated configuration data, wherein the performance data is indicative of a performance of the test instrument with respect to the measurement to be performed, and wherein the test instrument is configured to display the performance data or to transmit the performance data to another device for visualization.
Kajbaf teaches a memory comprising a model database, wherein the model database corresponds to a substitute model of at least the test instrument, wherein the model database comprises a set of correlated configuration data (Fig. 1-160: “physics based DUT model and physical parameters”, system takes into account data about the test instrument/(measurement system) and the device under test/(“DUT”)), wherein the set of correlated configuration data comprises operational parameters and information on interdependencies of the operational parameters (Fig. 5: “System measurement”, operational parameters/(system measurement includes values and measurements of the test instrument), the operational parameters describing electrical properties, mechanical properties, hardware properties, software properties, or testing properties of the test instrument, and wherein the test instrument further comprises a processing circuit (Fig. 3-305: “CPU”), the processing circuit being configured to receive an analysis request (Fig. 3-340: “User Interface”, interface enables the CPU to receive analysis request), wherein the analysis request comprises information on a measurement to be performed by the test instrument (Fig. 4-135: “Measurement Instrument”), wherein the processing circuit is configured to generate performance data based on the analysis request and based on the set of correlated configuration data (Fig. 5-150: “System Measurement”, & “Comparable Results”, correlated configuration data/(“comparable results”)), wherein the performance data is indicative of a performance of the test instrument with respect to the measurement to be performed (Fig. 5-150: “System Measurement”, & “shared Metrics”), and wherein the test instrument is configured to display the performance data or to transmit the performance data to another device for visualization (Fig. 3-340: “User Interface”, para 0079: “The multimedia interface 345 may include one or more still image camera or video camera.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Ritter with the teachings of Kajbaf. One would have added to the “Data Analysis System, Measurement Device, and Method” of Ritter the “Physics-Based Artificial Intelligence Integrated Simulation And Measurement Platform” with models of Kajbaf. The motivation would have been that the combination would reduce the user’s effort to use a testing instrument (see Kajbaf para 0058: “Various Simulation and Measurement Platforms may achieve one or more technical effect. For example, some Simulation and Measurement Platforms may improve a user's ease of access to system simulation. This facilitation may be a result of reducing the user's effort adjusting a device under test model and configuring the device model with a system model in the user's simulation and measurement setup”)
Regarding claim 3, Ritter in view of Kajbaf teaches the test instrument of claim 1,
Ritter further teaches wherein the operational parameters comprise at least one of a frequency range, an amplitude range, a phase noise range, a dynamic range, a transfer function, a frequency response, an amplitude response, a phase response, a quantity describing a linearity, a compression point, a quantity describing intermodulation, a time resolution, a frequency resolution, an amplitude resolution, a power requirement, a bandwidth, an error vector magnitude as a function of input level, an error vector magnitude as a function of input frequency, a measurement speed, demodulation techniques that can be performed by the test instrument, a calibration technique applicable to the test instrument, a calibration history of the test instrument, standards met by the test instrument, standards not met by the test instrument, or measurement modes of the test instrument (Fig. 5-53: “waveform in the frequency domain”).
Regarding claim 4, Ritter in view of Kajbaf teaches the test instrument of claim 1,
Ritter further teaches wherein the operational parameters comprise information on electrical properties, mechanical properties, hardware properties, software properties, or testing properties of individual components of the test instrument (para 0117: “It is understood, that although not explicitly shown, the trigger system 443 may comprise at least one of <configurable voltage comparators for setting the trigger threshold voltage, fixed voltage sources for setting the required slope, respective logic gates like e.g., a XOR gate, and FlipFlops to generate the triggering signal.”, the test instrument has information on properties which are used in the analysis of collected data).
Regarding claim 5, Ritter in view of Kajbaf teaches the test instrument of claim 1,
Kajbaf further teaches wherein the operational parameters further comprise information on electrical properties, mechanical properties, hardware properties, software properties, or testing properties of further components being connectable to the test instrument (Fig. 9-155: “synthesized integrated simulation and measurement environment” & “measurement instrument”. Kajbaf claim 14: “wherein the measurement instrument is selected from the group consisting of current probe, electric probe, magnetic probe, near-field probe, antenna, spectrum analyzer, signal analyzer, vector network analyzer, scalar network analyzer, voltage probe, oscilloscope, data acquisition card, time-domain reflectometer, temperature sensor, and noise figure analyzer”, components being connectable/(“…probe”)).
Regarding claim 6, Ritter in view of Kajbaf teaches the test instrument of claim 1,
Kajbaf further teaches wherein the model database is established as an hierarchical data base having an hierarchical data format (Fig. 9 shows a hierarchical relation between folders in a database).
Regarding claim 8, Ritter in view of Kajbaf teaches the test instrument of claim 1,
Ritter further teaches, wherein the processing circuit is configured to add further data points to the correlated configuration data or to replace data points of the correlated configuration data, thereby obtaining an augmented set of correlated configuration data (Fig. 4-451: “Acquisition Processing”, para 0016: “To this end, the data analysis system comprises a data input interface that receives a time domain signal. It is understood, that the time domain signal may be received in digital form as digital data. Such a time domain signal may be measured or recorded for analysis by the data analysis system e.g., by a measurement device according to the present disclosure.”, system can add further data points and when larger collected data sets are augmented with respect to the set composed of previously gathered data).
Regarding claim 9, Ritter in view of Kajbaf teaches the test instrument of claim 8,
Kajbaf further teaches wherein the processing circuit is configured to interpolate the correlated configuration data, extrapolate the correlated configuration data, simulate a measurement performed by the test instrument, or cause the test instrument to perform a measurement in order to obtain the augmented set of correlated configuration data (Fig. 9: “DUT/Simulation Model”, para 0076: “The AIISMP 125 may augment the model 140 with measurement 145 of parameter 150 to create the synthesized integrated simulation and measurement environment 155.”).
Regarding claim 10, Ritter in view of Kajbaf teaches the test instrument of claim 9,
Ritter further teaches wherein the processing circuit is configured to interpolate or extrapolate the correlated configuration data only within subsets of the correlated configuration data that correspond to a fixed hardware configuration of the test instrument (Fig. 1-109, system identifies subsets/segments to add to the data output where different hardware configurations would require separate analysis).
Regarding claim 11, Ritter in view of Kajbaf teaches the test instrument of claim 1,
Kajbaf further teaches wherein the processing circuit is configured to determine optimized operational parameters of the test instrument based on the analysis request (Fig. 3-340: “User Interface”) and based on the set of correlated configuration data (Fig. 4-405: “AI”, para 0080: “The simulation model 140 of the physical setup and device under test 110 may be generated as a function of the schematic 410 by the AI design 415. In the depicted implementation, the AI 405 governs the model 140 selection and augmentation with parameter measurements captured by the measurement instrument 135 from the physical setup and device under test 110”, the AI model optimizes operational parameters).
Regarding claim 12, Ritter in view of Kajbaf teaches the test instrument of claim 11,
Ritter further teaches wherein the processing circuit is configured to generate user instructions for setting the optimized operational parameters (Fig. 1-101: “data input interface”, para 0087: “The data input interface 101 may be implemented as a function or API or a computer program that is made up of computer readable instructions and implements the function of the data analysis system 100 when the instructions are executed by a processing unit like a CPU”, instructions with an API includes instructions to a user for settings).
Regarding claim 13, Ritter in view of Kajbaf teaches the test instrument of claim 11,
Ritter further teaches wherein the processing circuit is configured to automatically adapt settings of the test instrument based on the determined optimized operational parameters (Fig.4-405: “AI” & Fig. 4-415: “Measurement instrument”, para 0054: “The software may be configured to verify imported data in the imported environment for accuracy and compatibility with physical quantities. In a more advanced scenario, the software may be configured to permit automatically or semi-automatically adjusting simulation setup or measurement instrument settings, if discrepancies are observed.”).
Regarding claim 14, Ritter in view of Kajbaf teaches a method of generating a model of a test instrument the test instrument being configured to perform measurements on a device under test to assess a performance of the device under test (Fig. 3-321: “The measurement interface”, this interface necessarily implies “assess a performance …”)(Fig. 3-320: “measurement device”, para 0027: “If the data analysis system is integrated in a measurement device, like an oscilloscope, the respective segment may be shown to the user of the measurement device on the screen of the measurement device.”),
Ritter does not as explicitly teach the method of generating a model of the test instrument comprising the steps of receiving configuration data relating to operational parameters of the test instrument, wherein the configuration data comprises information on electrical properties, mechanical properties, hardware properties, software properties, and/or testing properties of the test instrument;
Kajbaf teaches the method of generating a model of the test instrument (Fig. 1-160: “physics based DUT model and physical parameters”, system takes into account data about the test instrument/(measurement system) and the device under test/(“DUT”)) comprising the steps of receiving configuration data relating to operational parameters of the test instrument, wherein the configuration data comprises information on electrical properties, mechanical properties, hardware properties, software properties, and/or testing properties of the test instrument (Fig. 1-160: “physics based DUT model and physical parameters”, system takes into account data about the test instrument/(measurement system) and the device under test/(“DUT”)); determining interdependencies of the operational parameters of the test instrument; and generating or adapting a model database corresponding to a substitute model of at least the test instrument, wherein the model database comprises a set of correlated configuration data, wherein the correlated configuration data comprises the operational parameters and information on interdependencies of the operational parameters(Fig. 5: “System measurement”, operational parameters/(system measurement includes values and measurements of the test instrument) ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method taught by Ritter with the teachings of Kajbaf. One would have added to the “Data Analysis System, Measurement Device, and Method” of Ritter the “Physics-Based Artificial Intelligence Integrated Simulation And Measurement Platform” with models of Kajbaf. The motivation would have been that the combination would reduce the user’s effort to use a testing instrument (see Kajbaf para 0058: “Various Simulation and Measurement Platforms may achieve one or more technical effect. For example, some Simulation and Measurement Platforms may improve a user's ease of access to system simulation. This facilitation may be a result of reducing the user's effort adjusting a device under test model and configuring the device model with a system model in the user's simulation and measurement setup”)
Regarding claim 15, Ritter in view of Kajbaf teaches the method of generating a model of the test instrument of claim 14,
Ritter further teaches wherein the operational parameters comprise at least one of a frequency range, an amplitude range, a phase noise range, a dynamic range, a transfer function, a frequency response, an amplitude response, a phase response, a quantity describing a linearity, a compression point, a quantity describing intermodulation, a time resolution, a frequency resolution, an amplitude resolution, a power requirement, a bandwidth, an error vector magnitude as a function of input level, an error vector magnitude as a function of input frequency, a measurement speed, demodulation techniques that can be performed by the test instrument, a calibration technique applicable to the test instrument, a calibration history of the test instrument, standards met by the test instrument, standards not met by the test instrument, or measurement modes of the test instrument (Fig. 5-53: “waveform in the frequency domain”).
Regarding claim 17, Ritter in view of Kajbaf teaches the method of generating a model of the test instrument of claim 14,
Ritter further teaches wherein said generating or adapting a model database corresponding to a substitute model of at least the test instrument further comprises adding further data points to the correlated configuration data or replacing data points of the correlated configuration data, thereby obtaining an augmented set of correlated configuration data (Fig. 4-451: “Acquisition Processing”, para 0016: “To this end, the data analysis system comprises a data input interface that receives a time domain signal. It is understood, that the time domain signal may be received in digital form as digital data. Such a time domain signal may be measured or recorded for analysis by the data analysis system e.g., by a measurement device according to the present disclosure.”, system can add further data points and when larger collected data sets are augmented with respect to the set composed of previously gathered data).
Regarding claim 18, Ritter in view of Kajbaf teaches the method of generating a model of the test instrument claim 17,
Kajbaf further teaches wherein the correlated configuration data is interpolated or extrapolated, a measurement performed by the test instrument is simulated, or a measurement is performed by the test instrument in order to obtain the augmented set of correlated configuration data (Fig. 9: “DUT/Simulation Model”, para 0076: “The AIISMP 125 may augment the model 140 with measurement 145 of parameter 150 to create the synthesized integrated simulation and measurement environment 155.”).
Regarding claim 19, Ritter in view of Kajbaf teaches the method of generating a model of the test instrument claim 14,
Kajbaf further teaches further comprising the steps of receiving an analysis request, wherein the analysis request comprises information on a measurement to be performed by the test instrument (Fig. 3-340: “User Interface”); and determining optimized operational parameters of the test instrument based on the analysis request and based on the set of correlated configuration data (Fig. 4-405: “AI”, para 0080: “The simulation model 140 of the physical setup and device under test 110 may be generated as a function of the schematic 410 by the AI design 415. In the depicted implementation, the AI 405 governs the model 140 selection and augmentation with parameter measurements captured by the measurement instrument 135 from the physical setup and device under test 110”, the AI model optimizes operational parameters).
Regarding claim 20, Ritter in view of Kajbaf teaches … the electronic device being configured to perform the method of of generating a model of the test element of claim 14
Ritter further teaches … an electronic device … (Fig. 3-320: “measurement device”, para 0027: “If the data analysis system is integrated in a measurement device, like an oscilloscope, the respective segment may be shown to the user of the measurement device on the screen of the measurement device.”)).
Claim(s) 2 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20230251292 A1(RITTER) in view of US 20210173011 A1(KAJBAF) in further view of US 11907090 B2(Tan).
Regarding claim 2, Ritter in view of Kajbaf teaches the test instrument of claim 1,
Neither Ritter nor Kajbaf teach wherein the set of correlated configuration data comprises at least one tensor, wherein the at least one tensor describes the interdependencies of at least a subset of the operational parameters.
Tan teaches wherein the set of correlated configuration data comprises at least one tensor, wherein the at least one tensor describes the interdependencies of at least a subset of the operational parameters (Fig. 7-50: “Short Pattern wfm Database Tensor Generator”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Ritter in view of Kajbaf with the teachings of Tan. One would have added to the “Data Analysis System, Measurement Device, and Method” with “Physics-Based Artificial Intelligence Integrated Simulation And Measurement Platform” of Ritter in view of Kajba the analysis on tensor arrays of Tan. The motivation would have been that the use of tensors would speed up the analysis of data (see Tan column 2 lines 15-18: “the embodiments here describe a new method that uses the machine learning to speed up the most time consuming steps in measurements to reduce the overall measurement time.”)
Regarding claim 16, Ritter in view of Kajbaf teaches the method of generating a model of the test instrument of claim 14,
Neither Ritter nor Kajbaf teach wherein said determining interdependencies of the operational parameters of the test instrument comprises determining at least one tensor, wherein the at least one tensor describes the interdependencies of at least a subset of the operational parameters
Tan teaches wherein the step of determining interdependencies of the operational parameters of the test instrument comprises determining at least one tensor, wherein the at least one tensor describes the interdependencies of at least a subset of the operational parameters(Fig. 7-50: “Short Pattern wfm Database Tensor Generator”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device taught by Ritter in view of Kajbaf with the teachings of Tan. One would have added to the “Data Analysis System, Measurement Device, and Method” with “Physics-Based Artificial Intelligence Integrated Simulation And Measurement Platform” of Ritter in view of Kajbaf the analysis on tensor arrays of Tan. The motivation would have been that the use of tensors would speed up the analysis of data (see Tan column 2 lines 15-18: “the embodiments here describe a new method that uses the machine learning to speed up the most time consuming steps in measurements to reduce the overall measurement time.”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8489381 B1 "Method And System For Simulating Test Instruments And Instrument Functions" (Spinner) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 2.
US 8312330 B2 "System And Method For Testing Wireless Devices" (Olgaard) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 3 & Fig. 4.
US 7069526 B2 "Hardware Debugging In A Hardware Description Language" (Schubert) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1A-108: "HDL Description" & Fig. 2.
US 20130218509 A1 "Customizing Operation Of A Test Instrument Based On Information From A System Under Test" (Schroeder) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 6-606.
US 20090112505 A1 "Method And System For Providing Test And Measurement Guidance" (Engel) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 2.
US 12663465 B2 "Test And Measurement Instrument Accessory With Reconfigurable Processing Component" (Case) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1 & Fig. 3.
US 10371733 B2 "Cold Source Based Noise Figure Measurement Using S-parameters And A Vector Signal Transceiver/vector Signal Analyzer/spectrum Analyzer" (Pal) is relevant to the Applicant's disclosure, see Fig. 1.
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 MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-3178. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5:00 pm.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571) 272-7924. 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.
/MARTIN WALTER BRAUNLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights