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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the test" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 also recites “a measurement population”. It is not clear what the measurement population refers to as it can be the number of the overall waveform sample data points, number of noise only data points, number of waveforms, or any other population that can be measured. To promote compact prosecution the Examiner will interpret the population to be the population of samples of the overall waveform.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for their dependence on claim 1.
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.
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,
compensate the measured noise component based on a measurement population and a relative amount of noise generated by the test and measurement instrument and a 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 “compensate the measured noise component based on a measurement population and a relative amount of noise generated by the test and measurement instrument and a total noise measurement (calculate compensation)” 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lagler et al. (US 20200132754 A1), hereinafter “Lagler”, in view of Guenther (US 20220299566 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lagler teaches a test and measurement instrument, comprising:
an input configured to receive an input signal from a device under test (DUT) (Lagler [0042] In FIG. 1, a measurement system 10 is shown that is used for identifying the noise figure of a device under test 12, also called DUT, that is part of the measurement system 10. In addition to the device under test 12, the measurement system 10 comprises a signal generator 14, an analyzer 16, and a match 18. Accordingly, the measurement system 10 comprises several components, namely the device under test 12, the signal generator 14, the analyzer 16 and the match 18. These components may generally be, in some embodiments, established by hardware components. Also see [0049] As further illustrated in FIG. 3, the analyzer 16 or rather the measurement application used by the analyzer 16 receives an input signal 22, for instance the processed signal from the device under test 12 or the modulated signal from the signal generator 14, as well as a reference signal 24 that may correspond to the modulated signal. ); and
one or more processors configured to execute code that causes the one or more processors (The disclosure of Lagler is computer implemented) to:
measure a noise component of the input signal (Lagler [0057] Accordingly, the noise contribution of the signal generator 14 and the analyzer 16 is measured in the first measurement setup (step S2) whereas the noise contribution of the signal generator 14, the device under test 12 and the analyzer 16 is measured in the second measurement setup (step S3). In other words, the sums of the individual noise contributions of the respective components used in the respective measurement setups are determined.).
Although the disclosure for Lagler is intended to determine noise for eventual reduction or removal, Lagler is not relied upon to explicitly teach an output display;
compensate the measured noise component based on a measurement population and a relative amount of noise generated by the test and measurement instrument and a total noise measurement, and
produce the compensated measured noise component as a noise measurement on the output display.
Guenther teaches an output display (Guenther [0035] A display/output 290 may be a touchscreen display, accepting both user input and providing instrument output. Or, the display/output 290 may be an output only display. The display/output 290 may be a digital screen, computer monitor, or any other monitor to display test results, timestamps, noise levels, jitter, jitter data, or other results to a user as discussed herein. The display/output 290 may also include one or more data outputs that may or may not be correlated with a visual display. See Fig. 2 290);
compensate the measured noise component based on a measurement population (Guenther [0041] Then, for each matched-template transition of the input signal, the mean slew rate is determined in an operation 306. In an operation 308, the TIE observations for all of the present template-matched transitions are accumulated, and then, in an operation 310, a histogram is created from the TIE observations. Also see [0044] A histogram analyzer/processor 460 may be used to perform analysis on the created histogram. For instance, in an operation 312 (FIG. 3A), the histogram analyzer/processor 460 may compute a mean value of the histogram produced in the operation 310. And [0054] To increase the accuracy of the jitter measurements described herein, operations of FIGS. 3A and 3B may be repeated with other sample populations from the DUT to increase the populations of each of the K histograms. The histogram is based on the sampled points of the waveform and used for noise compensation.) and a relative amount of noise generated by the test and measurement instrument and a total noise measurement (Guenther [0061] a noise compensator structured to individually determine and remove, for each of the extracted portions of the waveform, a component of a jitter measurement caused by random noise of the test and measurement device receiving the test waveform), and
produce the compensated measured noise component as a noise measurement on the output display (Guenther [0035] A display/output 290 may be a touchscreen display, accepting both user input and providing instrument output. Or, the display/output 290 may be an output only display. The display/output 290 may be a digital screen, computer monitor, or any other monitor to display test results, timestamps, noise levels, jitter, jitter data, or other results to a user as discussed herein. The display/output 290 may also include one or more data outputs that may or may not be correlated with a visual display. See Fig. 2 290).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Lagler in view of Guenther to explicitly teach an output display;
compensate the measured noise component based on a measurement population and a relative amount of noise generated by the test and measurement instrument and a total noise measurement, and
produce the compensated measured noise component as a noise measurement on the output display, to explicitly describe the noise components used in the noise compensation and output the compensated noise to a dedicated display.
Regarding Claim 3, Lagler in view of Guenther (as stated above) further teaches in which the measured noise component of the input signal includes noise from the DUT and noise generated by the test and measurement instrument (Lagler [0057] Accordingly, the noise contribution of the signal generator 14 and the analyzer 16 is measured in the first measurement setup (step S2) whereas the noise contribution of the signal generator 14, the device under test 12 and the analyzer 16 is measured in the second measurement setup (step S3). In other words, the sums of the individual noise contributions of the respective components used in the respective measurement setups are determined.).
Regarding Claim 11, Lagler teaches a method of generating a noise measurement in a measurement instrument, comprising:
accepting an input signal from a device under test (DUT) (Lagler [0042] In FIG. 1, a measurement system 10 is shown that is used for identifying the noise figure of a device under test 12, also called DUT, that is part of the measurement system 10. In addition to the device under test 12, the measurement system 10 comprises a signal generator 14, an analyzer 16, and a match 18. Accordingly, the measurement system 10 comprises several components, namely the device under test 12, the signal generator 14, the analyzer 16 and the match 18. These components may generally be, in some embodiments, established by hardware components. Also see [0049] As further illustrated in FIG. 3, the analyzer 16 or rather the measurement application used by the analyzer 16 receives an input signal 22, for instance the processed signal from the device under test 12 or the modulated signal from the signal generator 14, as well as a reference signal 24 that may correspond to the modulated signal. ); and
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 (Lagler [0057] Accordingly, the noise contribution of the signal generator 14 and the analyzer 16 is measured in the first measurement setup (step S2) whereas the noise contribution of the signal generator 14, the device under test 12 and the analyzer 16 is measured in the second measurement setup (step S3). In other words, the sums of the individual noise contributions of the respective components used in the respective measurement setups are determined.).
Although the disclosure for Lagler is intended to determine noise for eventual reduction or removal, Lagler is not relied upon to explicitly teach compensating the measured amount of noise based on the measurement population and a relative amount of noise generated by the measurement instrument to the measured amount of noise.
Guenther teaches compensating the measured amount of noise based on the measurement population and a relative amount of noise generated by the measurement instrument to the measured amount of noise (Guenther [0061] a noise compensator structured to individually determine and remove, for each of the extracted portions of the waveform, a component of a jitter measurement caused by random noise of the test and measurement device receiving the test waveform).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify Lagler in view of Guenther to explicitly teach compensating the measured amount of noise based on the measurement population and a relative amount of noise generated by the measurement instrument to the measured amount of noise, to explicitly describe how the noise components of Lagler are used for noise compensation.
Regarding Claim 12, Lagler in view of Guenther (as stated above) further teaches in which compensating the measured amount of noise comprises removing all of the characterized noise generated by the measurement instrument only when the measured noise component of the input signal is greater than a threshold (Guenther [0061] a noise compensator structured to individually determine and remove, for each of the extracted portions of the waveform, a component of a jitter measurement caused by random noise of the test and measurement device receiving the test waveform All unwanted signal that is considered noise is removed).
The Examiner notes that there are currently no prior art rejections for claims 2, 4-10 and 13-19.
Claim 2: Although it is known that a larger sample size or larger sample rate which leads to a larger sample size will increase the accuracy, the prior art of record, as best understood by the Examiner, does not seem to fairly teach or suggest removing the noise only based on a measurement population. Claims 13 is analogous to claim 2.
Claim 4: Although Guenther teaches curve analysis of the histograms, it would not have been obvious to specifically generate an interpolation curve for noise removal. Claim 14 is analogous to claim 4.
Claim 8: Although using a scaling factor to adjust signals is known, the prior art of record, as best understood by the Examiner, does not seem to fairly teach or suggest to compensate the measured noise component by setting the noise measurement to a scaled value of an instrument variation value. Claim 17 is analogous to claim 8.
Claim 10: Similar to claim 8, although using a scaling factor to adjust signals is known, the prior art of record, as best understood by the Examiner, does not seem to fairly teach or suggest to compensate the measured noise component by setting the noise measurement to
s
c
a
l
e
F
a
c
t
o
r
*
1
2
n
*
σ
-
. Claim 19 is analogous to claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Holmbo et al. (US 5155439 A) discloses a Method Of Detecting And Characterizing Anomalies In A Propagative Medium.
Tan (US 20210263085 A1) discloses a Real-Equivalent-Time Oscilloscope.
Torin et al. (US 20150369898 A1) discloses a Phase Noise Correction System For Discrete Time Signal Processing.
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/Examiner, Art Unit 2863