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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 48, “can be seen from (1) that the worst-case bit 1” should read as “can be seen from (2) that the worst-case bit 1”.
In paragraph 54, “the worst-case 1-level maybe deducted from 0-level… as shown by (3)”. However, Eq. 3 shows worst-case 0-level being deducted from worst-case 1-level.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to the statutory class of a process.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 1 is copied below, with limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
An eye-diagram index analytic method, comprising:
calculating a transfer function of a plurality of coupled lines;
converting the transfer function into a pulse response;
calculating an eye-diagram index according to the pulse response; and
correcting the eye diagram index according to peak distortion analysis.
The limitation underlined can be considered to describe a mathematical concept, namely a series of calculations to determine an eye-diagram index. The lack of specific equation in the claim merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible appropriate equations for accomplishing this purpose in all possible systems.
The additional limitation of “plurality of coupled lines” only limits the abstract idea to a field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea.
Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Dependent Claims 2-10 are similarly ineligible. Dependent Claim 2 adds the recited “S-parameter matrix” to the abstract idea limitations discussed above. Claim 2 additionally recites “an electronic element between transmission lines” which is a generic component. Dependent Claim 3 additionally recites “a double data rate memory circuit”. The double data rate memory circuit does not perform any of the steps in the eye-diagram index analytic method and only limits the field of use. Dependent Claim 4 adds the recited “insertion loss response and far-end crosstalk response” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 5 adds the recited “insertion loss response and far-end crosstalk response” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 6 adds the recited “a worst eye height, a worst eye width, a worst center eye height, and a box eye width” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 7 adds the recited “peak distortion analysis of a clock signal” to the abstract idea limitations. Dependent Claim 8 additionally recites “a computer readable recording medium, comprising a computer program” which does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer see (ALICE CORP. v. CLS BANK INT’L 573 U. S. 208 (2014)). Dependent Claim 9 additionally recites “an electronic apparatus, comprising a processor and a storage element” which does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer. Dependent Claim 10 additionally recites “an input/output interface” which is a generic computer component used for insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). None of these dependent claims recite any further additional elements which would cause the claim as a whole to integrate the recited abstract idea into a particular practical application at Prong 2, or provide significantly more than the recited abstract idea at Step 2B. Claims 2-10 are therefore rejected as ineligible under 35 USC 101 as well.
Claim 8 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a "computer readable recording medium, comprising a computer program" is signals per se. It is suggested that claim 8 be amended to recite a “non-transitory” computer readable recording medium to overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-2 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 7505512 B1) in view of Taub (US 20210073452 A1) and further in view of Dmitriev-Zdorov (US 20180123840 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Anderson teaches an eye-diagram index analytic method (Abstract: “method and apparatus for combining statistical eye channel compliance methods”), comprising:
calculating a transfer function (Col 9 Line 46: “transfer function of the channel”) of a plurality of coupled lines (backplane 112 Fig. 1; Col 4 Lines 32-45: “the first circuit board 116a contains a transmitter 120 and the second circuit board contains a receiver 122 for communication along the backplane 112”);
converting the transfer function into a pulse response (Col 9 Lines 50-52: “The transfer function is extracted and fast convolution techniques are used to find the pulse response”).
Anderson does not explicitly teach calculating an eye-diagram index according to the pulse response; and correcting the eye diagram index according to peak distortion analysis.
Taub teaches calculating an eye-diagram index according to the pulse response (Fig. 2; Para 30: “method for computing an eye diagram based on input pulse responses”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the invention of Anderson with the eye diagram calculation of Taub by using the pulse response of Anderson to calculate an eye diagram using the method of Taub. Doing so would allow for better analysis of signal integrity.
Dmitriev-Zdorov teaches correcting the eye diagram index according to peak distortion analysis (Para 24: “performing peak distortion analysis often includes generation of a “worst-case input pattern” that, when input to the channel, would create a most-stressed or most-pessimistic prediction for an eye diagram”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the invention of Anderson in view of Taub with the peak distorition analysis of Dmitriev-Zdorov by applying the peak distortion analysis of Dmitriev-Zdorov to the eye-diagram index of Anderson in view of Taub. Doing so would allow for analysis of worst case eye-diagrams.
Regarding Claim 2, Anderson in view of Taub and Dmitriev-Zdorov teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Anderson further teaches wherein the transfer function comprises an S-parameter matrix (Col 9 Lines 46-48: “it is necessary to have the transfer function of the channel. This involves the calculation of the S-parameters”), and the S-parameter matrix is used to describe a frequency domain characteristic (The examiner notes that s-parameters describe frequency characteristics) of an electronic element between transmission lines (Backplane 112 Fig. 1; Col 5 Lines 16-18: “In order to determine if the channel is compliant, S-parameters are measured”).
Regarding Claim 8, Anderson in view of Taub and Dmitriev-Zdorov teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Anderson further teaches a computer readable recording medium (data storage device 2168 Fig. 19), comprising a computer program (computer program 2190 Fig. 19), enabling a computer to execute the eye-diagram index analytic method according to claim 1 after executing the computer program (Fig 19; Col 13 Lines 55-59: “The computer program 2190 comprise instructions which, when read and executed by the controller 2100 of FIG. 19, causes the controller system 2100 to perform the steps necessary to execute the steps or elements of the present invention”).
Regarding Claim 9, Anderson in view of Taub and Dmitriev-Zdorov teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Anderson further teaches an electronic apparatus, comprising a processor (processor 2196 Fig. 19) and a storage element (data storage 2168 Fig. 19), the storage element storing a computer program (computer program 2190 Fig. 19), enabling the processor to execute the eye-diagram index analytic method according to claim 1 after executing the computer program (Fig 19; Col 13 Lines 55-59: “The computer program 2190 comprise instructions which, when read and executed by the controller 2100 of FIG. 19, causes the controller system 2100 to perform the steps necessary to execute the steps or elements of the present invention”).
Regarding Claim 10, Anderson in view of Taub and Dmitriev-Zdorov teaches the limitations of claim 1, but Anderson does not explicitly teach further comprising an output/input interface for receiving a circuit parameter and outputting an eye diagram calculated using the eye-diagram index analytic method.
Dmitriev-Zdorov teaches an output/input interface (input devices 121 and output devices 123 Fig. 1) for receiving a circuit parameter and outputting an eye diagram calculated using the eye-diagram index analytic method (Para 16: “The input devices 121 may include, for example, a keyboard, a pointing device (such as a mouse, touchpad, stylus, trackball, or joystick), a scanner, a camera, and a microphone. The output devices 123 may include, for example, a monitor display, a printer and speakers”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the invention of Anderson in view of Taub and Dmitriev-Zdorov with the input/output interface of Dmitriev-Zdorov by adding the input/output interface of Dmitriev-Zdorov to the controller system of Anderson in view of Taub and Dmitriev-Zdorov. Doing so would allow for a user to input and receive information on the eye-diagram.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Taub and Dmitriev-Zdorov as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Zhao (US 20200025824 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Anderson in view of Taub and Dmitriev-Zdorov teach the limitations of claim 2, but Anderson, Taub, and Dmitriev-Zdorov do not explicitly teach wherein the electronic element is an electronic element in a double data rate memory circuit.
Zhao teaches the electronic element is an electronic element in a double data rate memory circuit (DIMM 12 Fig. 1; Para 39: “double data rate (DDR4) dual in-line memory module (DIMM)/dynamic random-access memory (DRAM) interface 12”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the invention of Anderson in view of Taub and Dmitriev-Zdorov to the double data rate memory circuit of Zhao by applying the eye-diagram index method of Anderson in view of Taub and Dmitriev-Zdorov to the elements in the double data rate circuit of Zhao. Doing so would allow for accurate knowledge of signal quality in the double data rate circuit.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Taub and Dmitriev-Zdorov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wikipedia (“Scattering Parameters” on Wikipedia.org, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattering_parameters, with Wayback Machine Publication date 4/12/23, https://web.archive.org/web/20230412021234/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scattering_parameters).
Regarding Claim 4, Anderson in view of Taub and Dmitriev-Zdorov teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Anderson further teaches wherein the transfer function comprises a transfer function
Anderson does not explicitly teach wherein the transfer function comprise a transfer function of an insertion loss response and a far end crosstalk response.
Wikipedia teaches S-parameters comprise an insertion loss response and a far end crosstalk response (4-port S-parameters: “It includes input differential return loss (SDD11), input differential insertion loss (SDD21), output differential return loss (SDD22) and output differential insertion loss (SDD12)” and “The second and third quadrants are the upper right and lower left 4 parameters respectively. These are also referred to as the cross-mode quadrants”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the invention of Anderson in view of Taub and Dmitriev-Zdorov with the teachings of Wikipedia by having the 4-port S-parameters of Anderson include the insertion loss and crosstalk of Wikipedia. Doing so would allow for improved calculation of the eye-diagram index.
Regarding Claim 5, Anderson in view of Taub and Dmitriev-Zdorov teaches the limitations of claim 1, and Anderson further teaches wherein the pulse response comprises a pulse response
Anderson does not explicitly teach wherein the pulse response comprise a pulse response of an insertion loss response and a far end crosstalk response.
Wikipedia teaches S-parameters comprise an insertion loss response and a far end crosstalk response (4-port S-parameters: “It includes input differential return loss (SDD11), input differential insertion loss (SDD21), output differential return loss (SDD22) and output differential insertion loss (SDD12)” and “The second and third quadrants are the upper right and lower left 4 parameters respectively. These are also referred to as the cross-mode quadrants”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the invention of Anderson in view of Taub and Dmitriev-Zdorov with the teachings of Wikipedia by having the 4-port S-parameters of Anderson include the insertion loss and crosstalk of Wikipedia. Doing so would allow for improved calculation of the eye-diagram index.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson in view of Taub and Dmitriev-Zdorov as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shimanouchi (US 10331827 B1).
Regarding Claim 6, Anderson in view of Taub and Dmitriev-Zdorov teach the limitations of claim 2, but Anderson, Taub, and Dmitriev-Zdorov do not explicitly teach wherein the eye-diagram index comprises at least one of a worst eye height, a worst eye width, a worst center eye height, and a box eye width.
Shimanouchi teaches the eye-diagram index comprises at least one of a worst eye height, a worst eye width, a worst center eye height, and a box eye width (Col 6 Lines 29-31: “investigate various scenarios including best and worst case eye width, eye height, and other scenarios in between”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the invention of Anderson in view of Taub and Dmitriev-Zdorov with the eye-diagram index of Shimanouchi by modifying the worst case eye-diagram of Anderson in view of Taub and Dmitriev-Zdorov to specifically have a worst case height or width. Doing so would allow for improved analysis of signal integrity under various worst case scenarios.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner notes that Claim 7 is distinguishable from the prior art of record.
Regarding Claim 7, Anderson, Taub, and Shimanouchi do not teach peak distortion analysis of a clock signal.
Dmitriev-Zdorov teaches peak distortion analysis (Para 24: “performing peak distortion analysis”) but does not teach peak distortion analysis of a clock signal.
Zhao teaches signal distortion (Para 43) and a clock signal (Para 64). However, Zhao does not teach signal distortion of a clock signal.
He (US 20250004939 A1) teaches that “distortion may represent overshoot or undershoot of a measured signal” (Para 44). He additionally teaches “various encoding and decoding techniques may be used to modify the distortion” (Para 44). However, He does not teach peak distortion analysis of a clock signal.
Fung (US 20180151243 A1) teaches “calibration techniques that reduce duty cycle distortion in DQS” (Para 9) and “The rising and falling edges of the data clock signal may be selectively delayed to correct for duty cycle distortion (Abstract)”. Duty cycle distortion is an analysis of the rise, fall, and timing of a signal. The claimed peak distortion analysis is interpreted as an analysis of the maximum peaks of a clock signal. As such Fung does not teach peak distortion analysis of a clock signal.
Gohshi (US 20120081198 A1) teaches “the distortion compensation means serving as an equalizer at a stage posterior to the waveform shaping device can reproduce an accurate clock having rising and falling with accurate timing”. The claimed invention is directed to worst-case eye-diagram indexes (Specification Para 5: “The eye-diagram index analytic method can effectively find worst-case sequency patterns on multiple transmission lines in multiple channels”). As such the claimed peak distortion analysis is not interpreted to include reduction, compensation, or filtering of clock signal distortions. Under this interpretation, Gohshi does not teach peak distortion analysis of a clock signal.
None of the prior art discloses or fairly suggests “the peak distortion analysis comprises peak distortion analysis of a clock signal”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu (CN 111245530 A) teaches eye diagrams (Para 5) and a testing device for transmission insertion loss and crosstalk (Para 8).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODGER MENSING whose telephone number is (571)270-0129. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at 571-272-2302. 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.
/RODGER STEWART MENSING/ Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights