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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 06/01/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 355 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/01/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6, Applicant states that “removing the instrument noise from the measured noise” is an improvement to a technology or technical field. This is not persuasive because the claim as written does not seem to reflect an improvement in the performance of test and measurement instruments. The claim, as written, analyzes then processes a signal for display.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 06/01/2026, with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, along with amendments, and are persuasive, insofar that the cited prior art of record does not seem to fairly teach or suggest adaptively compensate the measured noise component based on a measurement population of samples of the input signal and a ratio of a relative amount of noise generated by the test and measurement instrument to a total noise measurement to produce a measure of instrument noise. The rejections of claims 1, 3, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A test and measurement instrument, comprising:
an input configured to receive an input signal from a device under test (DUT);
an output display; and
one or more processors configured to execute code that causes the one or more processors to:
measure a noise component of the input signal,
adaptively compensate the measured noise component based on a measurement population of samples of the input signal and a ratio of a relative amount of noise generated by the test and measurement instrument to a total noise measurement to produce a measure of instrument noise,
removing the measure of instrument noise from the total noise measurement, and produce the compensated measured noise component as a noise measurement on the output display.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under the Step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claim is considered to be in a statutory category (machine).
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitations that fall into/recite an abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation, that covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
For example, the step of “adaptively compensate the measured noise component based on a measurement population of samples of the input signal and a ratio of a relative amount of noise generated by the test and measurement instrument to a total noise measurement to produce a measure of instrument noise (calculate compensation based on analysis);
removing the measure of instrument noise from the total noise measurement (subtraction)” is treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical concept grouping, while the steps of “produce the compensated measured noise component as a noise measurement on the output display (share results)” is treated as belonging to mental process grouping.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claim 11.
Next, under the Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The above claims comprise the following additional elements:
Claim 1: A test and measurement instrument, comprising:
an input configured to receive an input signal from a device under test (DUT); an output display; and one or more processors configured to execute code that causes the one or more processors to: measure a noise component of the input signal;
Claim 11: A method of generating a noise measurement in a measurement instrument, comprising: accepting an input signal from a device under test (DUT); measuring an amount of noise in the input signal, in which measuring the amount of noise includes measuring an amount of noise generated by the DUT and an amount of noise generated by the measurement instrument;
The additional element in the preamble of “A test and measurement instrument” or “A method of generating a noise measurement in a measurement instrument” is not qualified for a meaningful limitation because it only generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Receive/accept an input signal from a device under test (DUT) and measure a noise component of the input signal represent mere data gathering steps and only adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. One or more processors with an input and output display (generic processor) are generally recited and are not qualified as particular machines.
In conclusion, the above additional elements, considered individually and in combination with the other claim elements do not reflect an improvement to other technology or technical field, and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to a judicial exception and require further analysis under the Step 2B.
However, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis).
The claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-10 and 12-19 provide additional features/steps which are part of an expanded algorithm, so these limitations should be considered part of an expanded abstract idea of the independent claims.
The Examiner notes that there are currently no prior art rejections, for the reasons stated above.
Conclusion
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 CHRISTIAN T BRYANT whose telephone number is (571)272-4194. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and Alternate Fridays 7:00-4:30.
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, CATHERINE RASTOVSKI can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/CHRISTIAN T BRYANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
