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 filed 8/16/23 are accepted. See response to arguments.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Examiner has interpreted the term “scheduler” to encompass a processor. This is supported by Applicant’s originally-filed specification at paragraph 27.
Regarding claim 4, Examiner notes that there are still two possibilities in the alternative. Therefore, only one has to be met by a reference in order for the group as a whole to be met. Although the amendment removed one of the option, the other two are still in alternative due to the language of the preamble “...at least one of:”.
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, 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 paragraphs 7 and 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 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 ¶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.
Claim(s) 2 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), in view of Bartko et al. (2021/0014701).
See the foregoing rejection of claim 1, for limitations recited therein.
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 given information (user input; see paragraphs 7 and 9).
Xu does not disclose the highlighted limitations:
wherein the scheduler is configured to control the number of signal measurement paths based on an operations time schedule.
Bartko et al. disclose operations being conducted on a schedule (see paragraph 32).
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 such that the scheduler were configured to control the number of signal measurement paths based on an operations time schedule, similarly to the invention of Bartko et al., 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.
Claim(s) 3-5 and 16 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), in view of Schneider et al. (2018/0046239).
See the foregoing rejection of claim 1, for limitations recited therein.
Regarding claim 3, Xu does not disclose the highlighted limitations:
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.
Schneider et al. disclose a plurality of operating modes, each of which defines which of a plurality of signal processing components (see paragraph 54) of which ones of plural signal measurement paths are to be powered down (see paragraph 54).
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 such that 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, similarly to the invention of Schneider et al., in order to control power consumption, as suggested by Schneider et al. (see paragraph 54).
Regarding claim 4, this combination of references does not teach the highlighted limitations:
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; and
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.
Schneider et al. disclose operating modes specifying that at least one of plural signal measurement paths is to be completely powered down, while at least one of plural signal processing components of at least one of the remaining signal measurement paths is to be powered up (see paragraph 54).
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 such that at least one of the operating modes specifies that 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, similarly to the invention of Schneider et al., 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.
This meets one of the two alternative possibilities, and therefore meets the claim.
Regarding claim 5, this combination of references further teaches 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 Xu, paragraphs 7 and 9).
Regarding claim 16, Xu does not disclose the highlighted limitations:
wherein the scheduler is configured to control the number of signal measurement paths based on a user input, the user input indicating which elements of the signal measurement paths are to be powered down.
Schneider et al. disclose a unit being configured to control a number of signal measurement paths based on a user input (see paragraph 54), the user input indicating which elements of the signal measurement paths are to be powered down (see paragraph 54).
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 such that the scheduler were configured to control the number of signal measurement paths based on a user input, the user input indicating which elements of the signal measurement paths are to be powered down, similarly to the invention of Schneider et al., 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.
Claim(s) 7 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), in view of Mikhailov et al. (2020/0393559).
See the foregoing rejection of claim 1, for limitations recited therein.
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.
Xu does not disclose the highlighted limitations:
an activation command for a user to remotely activate the measurement application device.
Mikhailov et al. disclose remote control of a device (see paragraph 34).
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 such that the activation command were for a user to remotely activate the measurement application device, similarly to the invention of Mikhailov et al., 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
Claim 11 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
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.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 6, 8, 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, "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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 6/18/26, with respect to the drawing objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to figure 8 of the drawings has been withdrawn. Regarding Applicant’s remarks on page 6 of the reply, Applicant states that figure 8 appears as intended. Since the only defect was that it may not appear as intended, this statement from Applicant means there is no error, and Examiner withdraws the objection.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/26, with respect to the 102 rejection of claim 1, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s remarks on page 7 of the reply, first, Examiner submits that, in general, a processor falls within a broad, but reasonable interpretation of "scheduler". Further, Applicant’s specification says the scheduler can be a processor (see paragraph 27 of originally-filed specification). Lastly, paragraph 7 of Xu discloses executing a user-input control of trigger timing of the power-saving function, which would entail processor 3 controlling a timing of an operation, and thus performing a scheduling. Therefore, Examiner disagrees that element 3 of Xu does not correspond to the claimed scheduler, and maintains the rejections.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 6/18/26, with respect to the 102 rejection of claim 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 102 rejection of claim 11 has been withdrawn. Claim 11 is now in form indicated allowable.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/18/26, with respect to the 102 rejection of claim 12, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding Applicant’s remarks on page 7 of the reply, see the foregoing remarks with respect to claim 1, which is similar in scope and remains rejected for similar reasons.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 6/18/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the reference by Bartko et al. Regarding Applicant’s remarks on page 7 of the reply, Examiner agrees that the amendment overcomes the rejection. However, said amendment necessitated further search and consideration, which led to the current rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 6/18/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 3 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the reference by Schneider et al. Regarding Applicant’s remarks on page 7 of the reply, on further consideration, Examiner concedes the Xu reference does not meet these limitations. Therefore, they are rejected on new grounds under 103 in view of the Schneider et al. reference.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 6/18/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 4 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the reference by Schneider et al. Regarding Applicant’s remarks on page 8 of the reply, on further consideration, Examiner agrees that the amendment overcomes the rejection. However, said amendment necessitated further search and consideration, which led to the current rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 6/18/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7 under 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the reference by Mikhalov et al. Regarding Applicant’s remarks on page 8 of the reply, on further consideration, Examiner agrees that the amendment overcomes the rejection. However, said amendment necessitated further search and consideration, which led to the current rejection.
The current rejection is not made final, because the new grounds of rejection of claims 3-5 were not necessitated by amendment.
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
Prosecution Insights