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
In response to the Non-Final Rejection issued on 25-July-2925, Applicant submitted a set of amendments to the claims, which corrected the claims objections to minor informalities list in the Non-Final Rejection.
Response to Arguments
In response to the Non-Final Rejection issued on 25-July-2925, Applicant submitted a set of arguments regarding the Non-Final Rejection. These arguments have been carefully considered and are not found to be persuasive.
Applicant’s primary argument is that the Gesswein art cited in the Non-Final Rejection does not deal with “test data reception methods”. Examiner notes, however that Gesswein describes a method where systems are in communication, and exchange lists of codecs which they are capable of using, and from these lists they choose a common codec to use as their method of exchanging data. Examiner notes, as described in the Non-Final Rejection that a codec is an established method of compressing data, which describes what the “output” of the codec will look like; when the data is received (in this case) the agreed on codec will be used to uncompress the data into its original form. A codec encompasses the algorithms/methods that will be used to compress or decompress the data being operated on (and may be implemented in software, firmware, or specialized circuitry), and inherently describes what compressed data will look like. As such, the method described by Gesswein describes a method for two communicating systems to negotiate a protocol to be used between them to transmit data.
Malisic describes test systems which communicate and exchange test data (as noted in the Non-Final Rejection). The 35 U.S.C.$103 in the Non-Final Asserts that the combination of elements from Gesswein and Malisic teach the limitations of claim 1 as submitted by the Applicant- as a result the claim was rejected, along with its dependent claims.
Applicant further asserts that independent claims 8 and 15 contain essentially the same limitations as those for claim 1 and that they, plus their dependent claims should be allowed. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this conclusion as well.
Any rejections or objections contained in the Non-Final Rejection which are not repeated below are hereby withdrawn.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 20050091392-(Gesswein et al.)-Method and device for codec negotiation-[herein “Gesswein”], in view of U.S. Patent Publication 20200200819-(Malisic et al)-Automated test equipment (ate) support framework for solid state device (ssd) odd sector sizes and protection modes-[herein “Malisic”].
Regarding claim 1 –
Gesswein teaches to obtain a plurality of test data reception methods and a plurality of test data reception formats usable by the first testing device; “An essential idea underlying the invention is that the media gateway controllers not only carry out a negotiation for a link set-up using the administratively pre-established codec list, but also have recourse to a further codec list that they manage themselves, each of which lists contains the codecs actively supported by the assigned media gateway” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]). Examiner notes that selection of a codec includes specifying both a method and a data format of compression/ decompression of data.
Gesswein also teaches translating, at the first testing device, the plurality of test data reception methods and the plurality of test data reception formats into a first content that is readable by a plurality of testing devices; “the administratively pre-established codec list” (P2, [0016]).
Gesswein additionally teaches transmitting, … , the first content from the first testing device to a second testing device; “the controller of the receiving gateway (second gateway controller) establishes a list of the codecs that are included both in the codec list transmitted by the controller of the transmitting gateway (first gateway controller)” (Page 2, paragraph [0017])
In addition, Gesswein teaches accessing a second memory of the second testing device to obtain a plurality of test data transmission methods and a plurality of test data transmission formats, wherein the plurality of test data transmission methods and the plurality of test data transmission formats are usable by the second testing device; defining, at the second testing device, one or more test data transfer methods based on a first intersection of the plurality of test data reception methods and the plurality of test data transmission methods; defining, at the second testing device, one or more test data transfer formats based on a second intersection of the plurality of test data reception formats and from the first content and the plurality of test data transmission formats; “the controller of the receiving gateway (second gateway controller) establishes a list of the codecs that are included both in the codec list transmitted by the controller of the transmitting gateway (first gateway controller) and in the active codec list from the second gateway controller.” (Page 2, paragraph [0017]).
Gesswein also teaches translating, by the second testing device, the one or more test data transfer methods and the one or more test data transfer formats into a second content that is readable by the plurality of testing devices; “the administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Gesswein additionally teaches transmitting, (over the configuration bus), from the second testing device to the first testing device, the second content; “The above list is further transmitted to the first gateway controller. Both controllers store the above list for the duration of the link.” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Gesswein also teaches determining, at the first testing device, a final test data transfer method and a final test data transfer format based on the second content; “switch-over can be made in each case to a codec having the current most favorable transmission parameters” (Page 2, paragraph [0021]).
In addition, Gesswein teaches translating, at the first testing device, the final test data transfer method and the final test data transfer format into a third content that is readable by the plurality of testing devices; transmitting, from the first testing device to the second testing device, the third content; “In a further advantageous embodiment of the present invention, the active codec list contains only codecs that are both currently supported by each gateway and included in each administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0018]) plus “the administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Gesswein does not teach the method comprising: accessing a first memory of a first testing device or a configuration bus, nor does it teach receiving, at the first testing device, test data using the final test data transfer method and the final test data transfer format.
Malisic, however teaches the method comprising: accessing a first memory of a first testing device, (Fig 3, 294 “Tester Processor” and Items 316 – 318 “FPGA”) plus (Fig 6, Step 608 “Tester Processor Communicates with Downstream Port to Read the Test Pattern Data from the DUTs”).
Malisic, additionally teaches a configuration bus, (Fig 3, Items 330 – 332) plus “The tester processor 304 can communicate with each of the FPGAs using a 8 lane high speed serial protocol interface such as PCie as indicated by system buses 330 and 332 in FIG. 3“ (Page 6, Paragraph [0059]).
Malisic also teaches receiving, at the first testing device, test data using the final test data transfer method and the final test data transfer format, (Fig 6, Step 608 “Tester Processor Communicates with Downstream Port to Read the Test Pattern Data from the DUTs”).
Gesswein and Malisic are analogous art because they are both directed to advanced methods of data communication in distributed data system environments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the protocol negotiation techniques of Gesswein with the distributed test environment of Malisic, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of the ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of this combination would provide a predictable result of a system able to flexibly negotiate transmission protocols within a distributed testing environment.
Regarding claim 2 –
The combination of Gesswein and Malisic teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Malisic also teaches wherein the first testing device is signal generation instrument (SGI) that is configured to generate a stimulus for the device under test and the second testing device is a data generation entity (DGE), (Fig 3, 294 “Tester Processor” and Items 316 – 318 “FPGA”).
In addition, Malisic teaches the method further comprising: generating, at the first testing device, a testing stimulus based on the test data; and delivering, to the device under test, the testing stimulus, wherein upon receipt of the testing stimulus, the device under test is stimulated by the test data, (Fig 6, Step 606 “Tester Processor Communicates with Instantiated FPGA Block and Downstream Port to Route the Packets with Test Pattern Data to the DUT s”).
Regarding claim 3 –
The combination of Gesswein and Malisic teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Malisic also teaches wherein the first testing device is a data processing entity (DPE) and the second testing device is a signal acquisition instrument (SAI), the method further comprising: receiving, at the second testing device, a result from the device in response to a stimulus; and transmitting, from the second testing device to the first testing device, the test data, the test data based on the result, (Fig 6, Step 608 “Tester Processor Communicates with Downstream Port to Read the Test Pattern Data from the DUTs”).
Regarding claim 5 –
The combination of Gesswein and Malisic teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Malisic also teaches wherein transmitting the first content from the first testing device to a second testing device comprises: transmitting the first content to an intermediary entity; (Fig 3, Item 304 “Tester Processor”) plus (Fig 5, Step 504 “System controller transmits instructions to the tester processors on the site modules”).
In addition, Gesswein teaches accessing a third memory of the intermediary entity to obtain, a second plurality of test data reception methods and a second plurality of test data reception formats; combining, by the intermediary entity, the one or more test data transfer methods and the one or more test data transfer formats from the first content and the second plurality of test data reception methods and the second plurality of test data reception formats into a third plurality of test data reception methods and a third plurality of test data reception formats; “the controller of the receiving gateway (second gateway controller) establishes a list of the codecs that are included both in the codec list transmitted by the controller of the transmitting gateway (first gateway controller) and in the active codec list from the second gateway controller.” (Page 2, paragraph [0017]).
Gesswein also teaches translating, by the intermediary entity, the third plurality of test data reception methods and the third plurality of test data reception formats into a modified first content, wherein the modified first content is readable by the plurality of testing devices; “In a further advantageous embodiment of the present invention, the active codec list contains only codecs that are both currently supported by each gateway and included in each administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0018]) plus “the administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Gesswein additionally teaches transmitting, from the intermediary entity, the modified first content to the second testing device, “In a further advantageous embodiment of the present invention, the active codec list contains only codecs that are both currently supported by each gateway and included in each administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0018]) plus “the administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 6 –
The combination of Gesswein and Malisic teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Gesswein also teaches wherein transmitting, from the second testing device to the first testing device, the second content comprises: transmitting the second content, “The above list is further transmitted to the first gateway controller. Both controllers store the above list for the duration of the link.” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Malisic also teaches to an intermediary entity; (Fig 3, Item 304 “Tester Processor”) plus (Fig 5, Step 504 “System controller transmits instructions to the tester processors on the site modules”).
Gesswein also teaches accessing a third memory of the intermediary entity to obtain a second plurality of test data transmission methods and test data transmission formats; combining, by the intermediary entity, the one or more test data transfer methods and the one or more test data transfer formats from the second content and the second plurality of test data transmission methods and test data transmission formats to form a third plurality of test data transfer methods and a third plurality of test data transfer formats; “the controller of the receiving gateway (second gateway controller) establishes a list of the codecs that are included both in the codec list transmitted by the controller of the transmitting gateway (first gateway controller) and in the active codec list from the second gateway controller.” (Page 2, paragraph [0017]).
In addition, Gesswein teaches translating, by the intermediary entity, the third plurality of test data transfer methods and the third plurality of test data transfer formats into a modified second content; “In a further advantageous embodiment of the present invention, the active codec list contains only codecs that are both currently supported by each gateway and included in each administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0018]) plus “the administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Gesswein also teaches transmitting the modified second content to the first testing device, “The above list is further transmitted to the first gateway controller. Both controllers store the above list for the duration of the link.” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 7 –
The combination of Gesswein and Malisic teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Malisic also teaches wherein transmitting the third content comprises: transmitting the third content to an intermediary entity by the first testing device; (Fig 3, Item 304 “Tester Processor”) plus (Fig 5, Step 504 “System controller transmits instructions to the tester processors on the site modules”).
Gesswein teaches determining a modified final test data transfer method and format by the intermediary entity; and translating the modified final test data transfer method and format into a modified third content that is readable by the plurality of testing devices, “In a further advantageous embodiment of the present invention, the active codec list contains only codecs that are both currently supported by each gateway and included in each administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0018])plus “the administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]) plus “switch-over can be made in each case to a codec having the current most favorable transmission parameters” (Page 2, paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 8 –
Gesswein teaches configured to perform operations comprising: accessing a first memory of an SGI to obtain a plurality of test data reception methods and a plurality of test data reception formats usable by the SGI; “An essential idea underlying the invention is that the media gateway controllers not only carry out a negotiation for a link set-up using the administratively pre-established codec list, but also have recourse to a further codec list that they manage themselves, each of which lists contains the codecs actively supported by the assigned media gateway” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Gesswein also teaches translating, at the SGI, the plurality of test data reception methods and the plurality of test data reception formats into a first content that is readable by a plurality of testing devices; “the administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Additionally, Gesswein teaches determining, at the SGI, a final test data transfer method and a final test data transfer format based on a second content; “The above list is further transmitted to the first gateway controller. Both controllers store the above list for the duration of the link.” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Additionally, Gesswein teaches translating, at the SGI, the final test data transfer method and the final test data transfer format into a third content that is readable by the plurality of testing devices; transmitting, from the SGI to the DGE, the third content; Gesswein – “In a further advantageous embodiment of the present invention, the active codec list contains only codecs that are both currently supported by each gateway and included in each administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0018]) plus “the administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Gesswein also teaches wherein the DGE is configured to perform operations comprising: accessing a second memory of the DGE to obtain a plurality of test data transmission methods and a plurality of test data transmission formats, wherein the plurality of test data transmission methods and the plurality of test data transmission formats are usable by the DGE; “An essential idea underlying the invention is that the media gateway controllers not only carry out a negotiation for a link set-up using the administratively pre-established codec list, but also have recourse to a further codec list that they manage themselves, each of which lists contains the codecs actively supported by the assigned media gateway” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Gesswein additionally teaches defining, at the DGE, one or more test data transfer methods based on a first intersection of the plurality of test data reception methods and the plurality of test data transmission methods; defining, at the DGE, one or more test data transfer formats based on a second intersection of the plurality of test data reception formats and from the first content and the plurality of test data transmission formats; “the controller of the receiving gateway (second gateway controller) establishes a list of the codecs that are included both in the codec list transmitted by the controller of the transmitting gateway (first gateway controller) and in the active codec list from the second gateway controller.” (Page 2, paragraph [0017]).
Gesswein also teaches translating, by the DGE, the one or more test data transfer methods and the one or more test data transfer formats into the second content that is readable by the plurality of testing devices; “In a further advantageous embodiment of the present invention, the active codec list contains only codecs that are both currently supported by each gateway and included in each administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0018]) plus “the administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
In addition, Gesswein teaches transmitting, (over a configuration bus), from the DGE to the SGI, the second content, “the controller of the receiving gateway (second gateway controller) establishes a list of the codecs that are included both in the codec list transmitted by the controller of the transmitting gateway (first gateway controller)” (Page 2, paragraph [0017]).
Gesswein does not teach a data generation entity (DGE); and a signal generation instrument (SGI) configured to stimulate a device under test, nor does it teach receiving, at the SGI, test data using the final test data transfer method and the final test data transfer format; or generating, at the SGI, a testing stimulus based on the test data; and delivering, to a device under test, the testing stimulus, wherein upon receipt of the testing stimulus, the device under test is stimulated by the test data, or over a configuration bus.
Malisic, however teaches a data generation entity (DGE); (Fig 6, Step 606 “Tester Processor Generates Test Pattern Data for Packets to be routed to DUTs”
and a signal generation instrument (SGI) configured to stimulate a device under test Malisic – (Fig 3, Items 316 – 318 “FPGA”).
Malisic also teaches receiving, at the SGI, test data using the final test data transfer method and the final test data transfer format; (Fig 6, Step 608 “Tester Processor Communicates with Downstream Port to Read the Test Pattern Data from the DUTs”).
In addition, Malisic teaches generating, at the SGI, a testing stimulus based on the test data; and delivering, to a device under test, the testing stimulus, wherein upon receipt of the testing stimulus, the device under test is stimulated by the test data, (Fig 6, Step 606 “Tester Processor Communicates with Instantiated FPGA Block and Downstream Port to Route the Packets with Test Pattern Data to the DUT s”)I.
Malisic also teaches over a configuration bus, (Fig 3, Items 330 – 332) plus “The tester processor 304 can communicate with each of the FPGAs using a 8 lane high speed serial protocol interface such as PCie as indicated by system buses 330 and 332 in FIG. 3“ (Page 6, Paragraph [0059]).
Gesswein and Malisic are analogous art because they are both directed to advanced methods of data communication in distributed data system environments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the protocol negotiation techniques of Gesswein with the distributed test environment of Malisic, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of the ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of this combination would provide a predictable result of a system able to flexibly negotiate transmission protocols within a distributed testing environment.
Regarding claim 9 –
The combination of Gesswein and Malisic teaches all the limitations of claim 8 above.
Malisic also teaches wherein each of the test data transfer methods involves one or more of (aExaminer is presented with a choice of options and selects: “socket”: “FIG. 1 is a schematic block diagram of a conventional automatic test equipment body 100 for testing certain typical DUTs e.g. a semiconductor memory device such as a DRAM. The ATE includes an ATE body 100 with hardware bus adapter sockets ll0A-ll0N” (Page 1, Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 10 –
The combination of Gesswein and Malisic teaches all the limitations of claim 8 above.
Malisic also teaches wherein each of the test data reception methods involves one or more of (aExaminer is presented with a choice of options and selects: “socket”: “FIG. 1 is a schematic block diagram of a conventional automatic test equipment body 100 for testing certain typical DUTs e.g. a semiconductor memory device such as a DRAM. The ATE includes an ATE body 100 with hardware bus adapter sockets ll0A-ll0N” (Page 1, Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 12 –
The combination of Gesswein and Malisic teaches all the limitations of claim 8 above.
Malisic also teaches wherein transmitting, over the configuration bus, from the DGE to the SGI, the second content, comprises: transmitting, from the DGE the second content to an intermediary entity; (Fig 3, Item 304 “Tester Processor”) plus (Fig 5, Step 504 “System controller transmits instructions to the tester processors on the site modules”).
Gesswein also teaches accessing a third memory of the intermediary entity to obtain, a second plurality of test data reception methods and a second plurality of test data reception formats; combining, by the intermediary entity, the one or more test data transfer methods and the one or more test data transfer formats from the first content and the second plurality of test data reception methods and the second plurality of test data reception formats into a third plurality of test data reception methods and a third plurality of test data reception formats; “An essential idea underlying the invention is that the media gateway controllers not only carry out a negotiation for a link set-up using the administratively pre-established codec list, but also have recourse to a further codec list that they manage themselves, each of which lists contains the codecs actively supported by the assigned media gateway” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
In addition, Gesswein teaches translating, by the intermediary entity, the third plurality of test data reception methods and the third plurality of test data reception formats into a modified second content, wherein the modified second content is readable by the plurality of testing devices; “In a further advantageous embodiment of the present invention, the active codec list contains only codecs that are both currently supported by each gateway and included in each administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0018]) plus “the administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Gesswein also teaches transmitting, from the intermediary entity, the modified second content to the SGI, “The above list is further transmitted to the first gateway controller. Both controllers store the above list for the duration of the link.” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 13 –
The combination of Gesswein and Malisic teaches all the limitations of claim 8 above.
Malisic also teaches wherein transmitting the third content comprises: transmitting the third content to an intermediary entity by the first testing device; (Fig 3, Item 304 “Tester Processor”) plus (Fig 5, Step 504 “System controller transmits instructions to the tester processors on the site modules”).
Gesswein also teaches determining a modified final test data transfer method and format by the intermediary entity; “The above list is further transmitted to the first gateway controller. Both controllers store the above list for the duration of the link.” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
In addition, Gesswein teaches translating the modified final test data transfer method and format into a modified third content that is readable by the plurality of testing devices, “In a further advantageous embodiment of the present invention, the active codec list contains only codecs that are both currently supported by each gateway and included in each administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0018]) plus “the administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 14 –
The combination of Gesswein and Malisic teaches all the limitations of claim 8 above.
Gesswein also teaches wherein the second intersection comprises one or more common formats between the plurality of test data reception formats and from the first content and the plurality of test data transmission formats, “the controller of the receiving gateway (second gateway controller) establishes a list of the codecs that are included both in the codec list transmitted by the controller of the transmitting gateway (first gateway controller) and in the active codec list from the second gateway controller.” (Page 2, paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claim 15 –
Gesswein teaches obtaining a plurality of test data reception methods and a plurality of test data reception formats usable by the DPE; “An essential idea underlying the invention is that the media gateway controllers not only carry out a negotiation for a link set-up using the administratively pre-established codec list, but also have recourse to a further codec list that they manage themselves, each of which lists contains the codecs actively supported by the assigned media gateway” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Gesswein also teaches translating the plurality of test data reception methods and the plurality of test data reception formats into a first content that is readable by a plurality of testing devices; “the administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Gesswein additionally teaches determining a final test data transfer method and a final test data transfer format based on a second content; “switch-over can be made in each case to a codec having the current most favorable transmission parameters” (Page 2, paragraph [0021]).
In addition, Gesswein teaches translating the final test data transfer method and the final test data transfer format into a third content that is readable by the plurality of testing devices; “the administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Gesswein also teaches transmitting, to the SAI, the third content; “the controller of the receiving gateway (second gateway controller) establishes a list of the codecs that are included both in the codec list transmitted by the controller of the transmitting gateway (first gateway controller)” (Page 2, paragraph [0017]).
Gesswein additionally teaches wherein the SAI is configured to perform operations comprising: accessing a memory of the SAI to obtain a plurality of test data transmission methods and a plurality of test data transmission formats, wherein the plurality of test data transmission methods and the plurality of test data transmission formats are usable by the SAI; “An essential idea underlying the invention is that the media gateway controllers not only carry out a negotiation for a link set-up using the administratively pre-established codec list, but also have recourse to a further codec list that they manage themselves, each of which lists contains the codecs actively supported by the assigned media gateway” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Gesswein also teaches defining, at the SAI, one or more test data transfer methods based on a first intersection of the plurality of test data reception methods and the plurality of test data transmission methods; defining, at the SAI, one or more test data transfer formats based on a second intersection of the plurality of test data reception formats and from the first content and the plurality of test data transmission formats; “the controller of the receiving gateway (second gateway controller) establishes a list of the codecs that are included both in the codec list transmitted by the controller of the transmitting gateway (first gateway controller) and in the active codec list from the second gateway controller.” (Page 2, paragraph [0017]).
In addition, Gesswein teaches translating, by the SAI, the one or more test data transfer methods and the one or more test data transfer formats into the second content that is readable by the plurality of testing devices; “In a further advantageous embodiment of the present invention, the active codec list contains only codecs that are both currently supported by each gateway and included in each administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0018]) plus “the administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Gesswein also teaches transmitting, (over a configuration bus) and to the DPE, the second content; “the controller of the receiving gateway (second gateway controller) establishes a list of the codecs that are included both in the codec list transmitted by the controller of the transmitting gateway (first gateway controller)” (Page 2, paragraph [0017]).
Gesswein does not teach the system comprising: a signal acquisition instrument (SAI); and a data processing entity (DPE), nor does it teach receiving, from the SAI and from the device under test, a result using the final test data transfer method and the final test data transfer format, or over a configuration bus or receiving a result from a device under test, or wherein the device under test is stimulated by an external device.
Malisic, however teaches the system comprising: a signal acquisition instrument (SAI); and a data processing entity (DPE), (Fig 3, 294 “Tester Processor” and Items 316 – 318 “FPGA”) plus (Fig 6, Step 608 “Tester Processor Communicates with Downstream Port to Read the Test Pattern Data from the DUTs”).
Malisic also teaches receiving, from the SAI and from the device under test, a result using the final test data transfer method and the final test data transfer format, (Fig 6, Step 608 “Tester Processor Communicates with Downstream Port to Read the Test Pattern Data from the DUTs”).
In addition, Malisic teaches over a configuration bus, (Fig 3, Items 330 – 332) plus “The tester processor 304 can communicate with each of the FPGAs using a 8 lane high speed serial protocol interface such as PCie as indicated by system buses 330 and 332 in FIG. 3“ (Page 6, Paragraph [0059]).
Malisic also teaches receiving a result from a device under test, (Fig 6, Step 608 “Tester Processor Communicates with Downstream Port to Read the Test Pattern Data from the DUTs”).
Malisic also teaches wherein the device under test is stimulated by an external device; (Fig 6, Step 606 “Tester Processor Communicates with Instantiated FPGA Block and Downstream Port to Route the Packets with Test Pattern Data to the DUT s”).
Malisic also teaches transmitting the result to the DPE, (Fig 6, Step 608 “Tester Processor Communicates with Downstream Port to Read the Test Pattern Data from the DUTs”).
Gesswein and Malisic are analogous art because they are both directed to advanced methods of data communication in distributed data system environments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the protocol negotiation techniques of Gesswein with the distributed test environment of Malisic, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of the ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of this combination would provide a predictable result of a system able to flexibly negotiate transmission protocols within a distributed testing environment.
Regarding claim 16 –
The combination of Gesswein and Malisic teaches all the limitations of claim 15 above.
Malisic also teaches wherein the final test data transfer method involves one or more of (aExaminer is presented with a choice of options and selects: “socket”: “FIG. 1 is a schematic block diagram of a conventional automatic test equipment body 100 for testing certain typical DUTs e.g. a semiconductor memory device such as a DRAM. The ATE includes an ATE body 100 with hardware bus adapter sockets ll0A-ll0N” (Page 1, Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 17 –
The combination of Gesswein and Malisic teaches all the limitations of claim 15 above.
Malisic also teaches wherein each of the plurality of test data reception methods involves one or more of (aExaminer is presented with a choice of options and selects: “socket”: “FIG. 1 is a schematic block diagram of a conventional automatic test equipment body 100 for testing certain typical DUTs e.g. a semiconductor memory device such as a DRAM. The ATE includes an ATE body 100 with hardware bus adapter sockets ll0A-ll0N” (Page 1, Paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claim 19 –
The combination of Gesswein and Malisic teaches all the limitations of claim 15 above.
Malisic also teaches wherein transmitting, over the configuration bus, and to (Fig 3, Item 304 “Tester Processor”) plus (Fig 5, Step 504 “System controller transmits instructions to the tester processors on the site modules”).
Gesswein also teaches accessing a third memory of the intermediary entity to obtain, a second plurality of test data reception methods and a second plurality of test data reception formats; combining, by the intermediary entity, the one or more test data transfer methods and the one or more test data transfer formats from the first content and the second plurality of test data reception methods and the second plurality of test data reception formats into a third plurality of test data reception methods and a third plurality of test data reception formats; “An essential idea underlying the invention is that the media gateway controllers not only carry out a negotiation for a link set-up using the administratively pre-established codec list, but also have recourse to a further codec list that they manage themselves, each of which lists contains the codecs actively supported by the assigned media gateway” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Gesswein additionally teaches translating, by the intermediary entity, the third plurality of test data reception methods and the third plurality of test data reception formats into a modified second content, wherein the modified second content is readable by the plurality of testing devices; “In a further advantageous embodiment of the present invention, the active codec list contains only codecs that are both currently supported by each gateway and included in each administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0018]) plus “the administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Gesswein also teaches transmitting, from the intermediary entity, the modified second content to the DPE, “The above list is further transmitted to the first gateway controller. Both controllers store the above list for the duration of the link.” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 20 –
The combination of Gesswein and Malisic teaches all the limitations of claim 15 above.
Malisic also teaches transmitting the third content to an intermediary entity by the first testing device; Malisic – (Fig 3, Item 304 “Tester Processor”) plus (Fig 5, Step 504 “System controller transmits instructions to the tester processors on the site modules”).
Gesswein also teaches determining a modified final test data transfer method and format by the intermediary entity; “switch-over can be made in each case to a codec having the current most favorable transmission parameters” (Page 2, paragraph [0021]).
Gesswein also teaches translating the modified final test data transfer method and format into a modified third content that is readable by the plurality of testing devices, “In a further advantageous embodiment of the present invention, the active codec list contains only codecs that are both currently supported by each gateway and included in each administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0018]) plus “the administratively pre-established codec list” (Page 2, paragraph [0016]).
Claims 4, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 20050091392-(Gesswein et al.)-Method and device for codec negotiation-[herein “Gesswein”], in view of U.S. Patent Publication 20200200819-(Malisic et al)-Automated test equipment (ate) support framework for solid state device (ssd) odd sector sizes and protection modes-[herein “Malisic”], and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication 20060282545-(Arwe et al.)-Method and apparatus for application or protocol version negotiation-[herein “Arwe”].
Regarding claim 4 –
The combination of Gesswein and Malisic teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
The combination of Gesswein and Malisic does not teach further comprising: determining that (i) the first intersection comprises zero methods or (ii) the second intersection comprises zero formats; and responsive to the determining, sending an error message.
Arwe, however teaches further comprising: determining that (i) the first intersection comprises zero methods or (ii) the second intersection comprises zero formats; and responsive to the determining, sending an error message, (Fig 1) plus "The client receives the response message from the server, interprets the communicated version and checks to see if the client supports the communication protocol version sent by the server 145 ... If the client does not support the server-proposed communication protocol version, the connection between the initiating entity or client and the receiving entity or server is terminated 150, and the communication session ends" (Page 3, Paragraph [0019]). Examiner notes that terminating a connection will typically result in a log or message on a client-server connection.
Gesswein, Malisic and Arwe are analogous art because they are all directed to advanced methods of data communication in distributed data system environments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the protocol negotiation techniques of Gesswein with the distributed test environment of Malisic and the error case handling of Arwe, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of the ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of this combination would provide a predictable result of a system able to flexibly negotiate transmission protocols within a distributed testing environment, including handling cases where common protocols do not exist.
Regarding claim 11 –
The combination of Gesswein and Malisic teaches all the limitations of claim 8 above.
The combination of Gesswein and Malisic does not teach determining that (i) the first intersection comprises zero methods or (ii) the second intersection comprises zero formats; and responsive to the determining, sending an error message.
Arwe, however teaches determining that (i) the first intersection comprises zero methods or (ii) the second intersection comprises zero formats; and responsive to the determining, sending an error message, (Fig 1) plus "The client receives the response message from the server, interprets the communicated version and checks to see if the client supports the communication protocol version sent by the server 145 ... If the client does not support the server-proposed communication protocol version, the connection between the initiating entity or client and the receiving entity or server is terminated 150, and the communication session ends" (Page 3, Paragraph [0019]). Examiner notes that terminating a connection will typically result in a log or message on a client-server connection.
Gesswein, Malisic and Arwe are analogous art because they are all directed to advanced methods of data communication in distributed data system environments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the protocol negotiation techniques of Gesswein with the distributed test environment of Malisic and the error case handling of Arwe, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of the ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of this combination would provide a predictable result of a system able to flexibly negotiate transmission protocols within a distributed testing environment, including handling cases where common protocols do not exist.
Regarding claim 18 –
The combination of Gesswein and Malisic teaches all the limitations of claim 15 above.
The combination of Gesswein and Malisic does not teach determining that (i) the first intersection comprises zero methods or (ii) the second intersection comprises zero formats; and responsive to the determining, sending an error message.
Arwe, however teaches determining that (i) the first intersection comprises zero methods or (ii) the second intersection comprises zero formats; and responsive to the determining, sending an error message, (Fig 1) plus "The client receives the response message from the server, interprets the communicated version and checks to see if the client supports the communication protocol version sent by the server 145 ... If the client does not support the server-proposed communication protocol version, the connection between the initiating entity or client and the receiving entity or server is terminated 150, and the communication session ends" (Page 3, Paragraph [0019]). Examiner notes that terminating a connection will typically result in a log or message on a client-server connection.
Gesswein, Malisic and Arwe are analogous art because they are all directed to advanced methods of data communication in distributed data system environments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the protocol negotiation techniques of Gesswein with the distributed test environment of Malisic and the error case handling of Arwe, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of the ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of this combination would provide a predictable result of a system able to flexibly negotiate transmission protocols within a distributed testing environment, including handling cases where common protocols do not exist.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MATTHEW W WAHLIN whose telephone number is (408)918-7572. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7-4:30 PT.
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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at 571-270-3750. 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