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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I directed to figure 1 - representing a test and measurement system having multiple remote heads and optical interconnection circuit receiving a signal from each of the multiple remote heads and selecting the to be supplied to a test and measurement instrument in the reply filed on October 13, 2025 is acknowledged. Applicant, in their response, stated that claims 1-7 and 16-20 encompass the elected species, but this is respectfully traversed. Claim 16 includes the limitations:
selecting one of the plurality of electrical test signals to be provided to a test port of a test and measurement instrument;
converting, in the remote head, the selected electrical test signal into a corresponding optical test signal;
These two limitations require that the selection is done before the signal is received by the remote head or inside of the remote head because the conversion of the selected signal is done inside of the remote head. Therefore at least because of these two limitations, this method claim relates to figure 2-3 (as can be seen in figure 2 the RF switch is inside of the remote head, which is a clear different configuration than seen in figure 1). Therefore, claims 16-20 are also withdrawn (17-20 further limit claim 16 and would also be encompassed by figures 2-3). Leaving claims 8-28 withdrawn.
Claims 1-7 are examined below.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinsheimer et al. (US Publication 2022/0187357 cited in IDS filed June 19, 2024) in view of Masuda et al. (US Publication 2015/0253388).
In regard to claim 1, Sinsheimer et al. discloses a test and measurement system (abstract, figure 1), comprising:
one or more remote heads (figure 1 – ATE test head 100), each of the one or more remote heads configured to be coupled to a respective device under test (DUT) (is coupled through electrical connectors 112 to DUTs – 5) to receive an electrical test signal from the DUT (figure 1 electrical connector 112 shown as a two way electrical signal to/from the DUT 5 to test head 100) and each of the one or more remote heads including an electrical-to-optical modulator (EOM) configured to convert the received electrical test signal into an optical test signal (element 110 inside of test head 150 - see paragraph 22, then also the last part of paragraph 25 states that the signal interface board 110 could perform the electrical to optical conversion); and
optical interconnection circuity coupled to receive the optical test signal from the EOM of the one or more remote heads (the fiber optics 114), the optical interconnection circuitry configured to convert an optical test signal into an electrical test signal (paragraph 22, the fiber optic cables have a configuration that can provide this conversion) to be supplied to a test port of a test and measurement instrument (the test signals go back and forth through the processor/servers, fiber optic cables, test head, and electrical conductors to be input to a test part of the test and measurement instrument - DIB – 150 – paragraphs 22 and 23).
Sinsheimer et al. lacks specifically wherein the optical interconnection circuitry is configured, in response to control signals, to select one of the optical test signals and to convert the selected optical test signal into an electrical test signal.
Masuda et al. discloses a testing device (abstract, figure 1) wherein optical interconnection circuitry is configured, in response to control signals, to select one of the optical test signals and to convert the selected optical test signal into an electrical test signal (figure 1 - optical switches/supply sections 230, 240, 250, and 260, are controlled by control section 310 to provide a desired test signal – paragraphs 25, 36-40, and 47).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Sinsheimer et al. to include having switches and more control in the optical interconnection circuitry allowing for control and selection of test signals as taught by Masuda et al. in order to increase the functionality of the device being able to quickly switch to different test signals and different testing configurations so as to provide even more functional testing to all the DUTs.
In regard to claims 2-4, Sinsheimer et al. as modified lacks specifically wherein the optical interconnection circuitry together comprises:
[claim 2] an optical switch including a plurality of optical input ports, each optical input port coupled to receive the optical test signal from the EOM of one of one or more remote heads, the optical switch configured to select the optical test signal on one of the optical input ports responsive to the control signals and to provide the selected optical test signal on an optical output port;
an optical waveguide coupled to the optical output port of the optical switch; and
an optical-to-electrical modulator (OEM) coupled to the optical waveguide to receive the selected optical test signal and convert the selected optical test signal into the electrical test signal to be supplied to the test port of the test and measurement instrument;
[claim 3] wherein the optical waveguide comprises a fiber optic cable;
[claim 4] wherein the OEM comprise a photodiode.
Masuda et al. discloses:
[claim 2] an optical switch including a plurality of optical input ports, each optical input port coupled to receive the optical test signal from the EOM of one of one or more remote heads, the optical switch configured to select the optical test signal on one of the optical input ports responsive to the control signals and to provide the selected optical test signal on an optical output port (figure 1 - optical switches/supply sections 230, 240, 250, and 260, are controlled by control section 310 to provide a desired test signal – paragraphs 25, 36-40, and 47);
an optical waveguide coupled to the optical output port of the optical switch (input section and connections may be a fiber optic waveguide – paragraph 20); and
an optical-to-electrical modulator (OEM) coupled to the optical waveguide to receive the selected optical test signal and convert the selected optical test signal into the electrical test signal to be supplied to the test port of the test and measurement instrument (paragraph 41 - element 270 receives the signal and is able to perform opto electrical conversion noting that the switches, element 270 and the waveguides are all electrically coupled together);
[claim 3] wherein the optical waveguide comprises a fiber optic cable (input section and connections may be a fiber optic waveguide – paragraph 20);
[claim 4] wherein the OEM comprise a photodiode (paragraph 41 – element 270 may include a photodiode).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Sinsheimer et al. to include having optical switches, connected to fiber optic cables, and a photodiode aiding conversion that are all controlled as taught by Masuda et al. in order to increase the functionality of the device being able to quickly switch to different test signals and different testing configurations so as to provide even more functional testing to all the DUTs.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinsheimer et al. (US Publication 2022/0187357 cited in IDS filed June 19, 2024) and Masuda et al. (US Publication 2015/0253388) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Scott et al. (US Publication 2021/0190830).
In regard to claim 5, Sinsheimer et al. as modified lacks specifically wherein each EOM (which is an EOM in one remote head as related to the interpretation of claim 1) comprises a Mach-Zehnder modulator.
Scott et al. discloses in a DUT test instrumentation device, including a Mach-Zehnder modulator to convert electrical signals to optical signals (paragraph 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Sinsheimer et al. as modified to have the converter(s) be specifically Mach-Zehnder modulators as taught by Scott et al. in order to provide an electrical isolation from the signal producing devices and the DUTs (paragraph 28) increasing the safety and functionality of the overall system.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinsheimer et al. (US Publication 2022/0187357 cited in IDS filed June 19, 2024) and Masuda et al. (US Publication 2015/0253388) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Swaim et al. (US Publication 2021/0190830).
Sinsheimer et al. as modified lacks specifically:
[claim 6] a pair of coaxial cables coupled between each DUT and the corresponding one of one or more remote heads, and in which the pair of coaxial cables provide a differential electrical test signal from the DUT to the corresponding remote head; and
[claim 7] wherein each remote head further comprises a differential input amplifier configured to amplify the electrical test signal from the corresponding DUT.
Swaim et al. discloses:
[claim 6] a pair of coaxial cables coupled between each DUT and the corresponding one of one or more probe heads, and in which the pair of coaxial cables provide a differential electrical test signal from the DUT to the corresponding test head (paragraph 20 - the cables connecting the DUT 160 and the base 105 may be coaxial cables – noting that 133a and 133b provide a differential test signal from the DUT);
[claim 7] wherein each remote head further comprises a differential input amplifier configured to amplify the electrical test signal from the corresponding DUT (amplifier 134 is a differential amplifier with two inputs coming from the DUT – paragraph 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application for Sinsheimer et al. as modified to include a differential connection with a coaxial cable to the test head (which is a remote head in Sinsheimer et al.) and a differential amplifier as taught by Swaim et al. in order to provide a versatile connection that allows for removable connections of the elements, while still providing an accurate transmission of signals (paragraph 20) as well as having multiple signals to be passed for more accurate testing (abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Masuda (US Publication 2011/0279109) discloses a test apparatus and test method including signal generators and optical/electric conversion. Ichiyoshi (US Publication 7290192) discloses a test apparatus and test method for testing a plurality of devices with optical/electrical conversion.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Natalini whose telephone number is (571)272-2266. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm, Monday - Friday.
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, John Fristoe can be reached at 571-272-4926. 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.
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights