DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following reasons.
Figure 8 has one or more apparent error(s). It is described as a flow diagram of an embodiment of a method. The figure shows a single step with nothing inside it. The corresponding method is described in detail, in paragraphs 175-183 of the specification. Examiner believes more information was meant to be shown here.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The claims recite the term "[a/the] number of signal measurement paths", especially in independent claims 1 and 12. In light of the specification (paragraph 17), Examiner has interpreted this phrase to mean "one or more signal measurement paths", rather than the numerical value of the quantity of signal measurement paths.
Similarly, the claims recite the term "a number of operating modes", in independent claims 1 and 12. In light of the specification (paragraph 17), Examiner has interpreted this phrase to mean "one or more operating modes", rather than the numerical value of the quantity of operating modes.
Regarding claim 4, Examiner notes that the three possibilities are in the alternative. Therefore, only one has to be met by a reference in order for the group as a whole to be met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xu (CN2014-25602Y)(The following remarks are made with respect to the English translation, supplied by Applicant, 10/25/24).
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a measurement application device, comprising:
a number of signal measurement paths (the channel through items 4 and 5; see figure 1; and paragraphs 9, 13, and 16), each one of the number of signal measurement paths comprising a plurality of signal processing components (4 and 5; see figure 1; and paragraphs 9, 13, and 16); and
a scheduler (3; see figure 1; and paragraph 13) coupled to the number of signal measurement paths,
wherein the scheduler is configured to selectively control (executing some or all power-saving functions; see paragraphs 7 and 9) at least one of the signal measurement paths depending on a selected one (human-entered parameters; see paragraphs 7 and 9) of a number of operating modes to power down at least one of the signal processing components (supra), or to power up at least one of the signal processing components (optionally opening or closing the switches depending on parameters and conditions; see paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 2, Xu discloses the measurement application device according to claim 1, wherein the scheduler is configured to control the number of signal measurement paths based on at least one of an operations time schedule and a user input (user input; see paragraphs 7 and 9).
Regarding claim 3, Xu discloses the measurement application device according to claim 1, wherein each one of the operating modes defines which of the plurality of signal processing components of which ones of the signal measurement paths are to be powered down (see paragraphs 7 and 9).
Regarding claim 4, Xu discloses the measurement application device according to claim 3, wherein at least one of the operating modes specifies that at least one of (note that this language means the following are alternatives):
at least one of the signal measurement paths is to be completely powered down, while at least one of the signal processing components of at least one of the remaining signal measurement paths is to be powered up;
at least one of the signal measurement paths is to be completely powered down, while at least one of the remaining signal measurement paths is to be completely powered up; and
all of the signal measurement paths are to be completely powered down (this is included under the range of possibilities implied in paragraphs 7 and 9).
Regarding claim 5, Xu discloses the measurement application device according to claim 3, wherein the scheduler is configured to select an operating mode based on at least one of an operations time schedule and a user input (user input; see paragraphs 7 and 9).
Regarding claim 7, Xu discloses the measurement application device according to claim 1, further comprising a communication interface (6; see paragraphs 7, 9, and 16; and figure 1) that is coupled to the scheduler and that is configured to receive an activation command (user input that entails activation; see paragraphs 7 and 9), wherein the scheduler is configured to control the signal measurement paths to power up all the signal processing components based on the activation command (this is included under the range of possibilities implied in paragraphs 7 and 9), or to select an operation mode (user-selected parameters; see paragraphs 7 and 9) indicated by the activation command.
Regarding claim 10, Xu discloses the measurement application device according to claim 1, further comprising a central processing unit (3; see paragraph 16; and figure 1) that is coupled to the signal measurement paths and a display (10; see paragraph 16 and figure 1) that is coupled to the central processing unit,
wherein the scheduler is further configured to control the central processing unit and the display to power down or power up according to the selected operation mode (see paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 12, see the foregoing rejection of claim 1. Claim 12 is essentially just the method version of apparatus claim 1, with clearly corresponding limitations.
Regarding claim 13, Xu discloses the method according to claim 12, further comprising at least one of:
controlling the number of signal measurement paths based on at least one of an operations time schedule and a user input (user input; see paragraphs 7 and 9);
selecting an operating mode (CPU selects one or more energy-saving control switches; see paragraph 9) based on at least one of the operations time schedule and the user input;
controlling the signal measurement paths to power up all signal processing components based on an activation command (a user-entered parameter; see paragraphs 7 and 9) received from a user (this is included under the range of possibilities implied in paragraphs 7 and 9), or selecting an operation mode (user-selected parameter of energy-saving control switch; see paragraphs 7 and 9) indicated by the activation command; and
controlling a central processing unit (3; see paragraphs 7, 9, and 16; and figure 1) of the measurement application device and a display (10; see paragraph 16; and figure 1) of the measurement application device to power down or power up according to the selected operation mode (see paragraphs 7 and 9).
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.
Note that, in the following rejections, the highlighting indicates differences from the exact claim language, or items involved in an obviousness argument.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (CN2014-25602Y)(The following remarks are made with respect to the English translation, supplied by Applicant, 10/25/24).
Regarding claim 9, see the foregoing rejection of claim 1, for limitations recited therein.
Regarding claim 9, Xu does not disclose the highlighted limitations:
a status interface that is configured to output the current operating state of the measurement application device.
Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known and common knowledge to provide a status interface that outputs the current operating state of a device.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of Xu, to include a status interface that is configured to output the current operating state of the measurement application device, because such a modification would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 11, and 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "... scheduling module ... pre-trained based on usage statistics of the measurement application device to define the operating modes and operations time schedules based on usage of the ... device", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 6.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "... one heating element ... configured to controllably heat-up ... one of the signal processing components, wherein the scheduler is configured to control the heating element based on the selected one of the operating modes", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 8.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "wherein the central controller is configured to retrieve usage statistics from the measurement application devices, and ... to receive a user input and to transmit the user input to ... one of the measurement application devices, the user input ... one of an operation mode and an operations time schedule", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 11.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "defining ... one of operating modes and operations time schedules based on a usage of the measurement application device with an artificial intelligence-based scheduling module that is pre-trained based on usage statistics of the measurement application device", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 14.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest, "controllably heating-up ... one of the signal processing components with ... one heating element, and controlling the heating element based on the selected one of the operating modes; and outputting the current operating state of the measurement application device with a status interface", in combination with the remaining claim elements as set forth in claim 15.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schneider et al. (2018/0046239) is cited for disclosing selective powering of portions of amplifiers in a signal analysis block for the purpose of power-saving (see paragraph 26).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY T EVANS whose telephone number is (571)272-2369. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 AM - 5:30 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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/GEOFFREY T EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 2852