DETAILED ACTION
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.
2. Claims 1-20 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 being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to one of the four statutory class, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “determining a total noise of the digital input signal over frequency based on the at least one IQ measurement set, determining an instrument noise over frequency, wherein the instrument noise corresponds to noise generated by the measurement instrument and determining a ratio of the instrument noise and the total noise over frequency, thereby obtaining a frequency-dependent scaling factor,” are abstract ideas as they recite limitations that involve mental process. Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “the measurement instrument comprising a signal input, a measurement circuit, and an analysis circuit, comprising:
receiving, by the signal input, a digital input signal from a device under test, capturing, by the measurement circuit, at least one IQ measurement set based on the received input signal, wherein the at least one IQ measurement set comprises a plurality of IQ measurement points,” but said limitations are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity and recitation of general-purpose processor for implementing the identified abstract idea. The claims do not improve the functioning of any circuits and do not improve other technology. At most, the claim is an improvement in the abstract idea of determining a ratio of the instrument noise and the total noise over frequency, thereby obtaining a frequency-dependent scaling factor. However, improved or new abstract ideas are still an abstract idea and not eligible. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “the measurement instrument comprising a signal input, a measurement circuit, and an analysis circuit, comprising:
receiving, by the signal input, a digital input signal from a device under test, capturing, by the measurement circuit, at least one IQ measurement set based on the received input signal, wherein the at least one IQ measurement set comprises a plurality of IQ measurement points,” but said limitations are merely directed to insignificant data collection activity and recitation of general-purpose processor for implementing the identified abstract idea, that are well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, the claims do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al., US-PGPUB 2005/0137814 (hereinafter Kelly) in view of Heuel et al., US-PGPUB 2021/0223301 (hereinafter Heuel)
Regarding Claims 1 and 20. Kelly discloses signal processing method of processing a digital input signal by a measurement instrument, the measurement instrument comprising a signal input, a measurement circuit, and an analysis circuit (Abstract), comprising:
receiving, by the signal input, input signal from a device under test (Fig. 1);
capturing, by the measurement circuit, at least one IQ measurement set based on
the received input signal, wherein the at least one IQ measurement set comprises a plurality of IQ measurement points (Paragraph [0036])
determining, by the analysis circuit, a total noise of the digital input signal over
frequency based on the at least one IQ measurement set (Paragraph [0015], total cold noise), determining, by the analysis circuit, an instrument noise over frequency, wherein
the instrument noise corresponds to noise generated by the measurement instrument (Paragraphs [0010], [0014]-[0015], total hot noise); and determining, by the analysis circuit, a ratio of the instrument noise and the total noise over frequency, thereby obtaining a frequency-dependent scaling factor (Paragraph [0015], noise figure)
Kelly does not disclose receiving a digital input signal from a device under test.
Heuel discloses receiving a digital input signal from a device under test, and includes a digital interface connected to a digital inphase and quadrature phase parameters (Paragraphs [0017]; [0021]-[0022]; [0046]; Figs. 1-5, 8; Paragraphs [0003]-[0006]))
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Heuel in Kelly and have a digital input signal from a device under test, with a digital interface connected to a digital inphase and quadrature phase parameters, so as to accurately perform noise analysis.
Regarding Claim 8. Kelly discloses the instrument noise is determined by connecting at least one at least one calibration standard to the signal input (Paragraphs [0046]-[0047])
Claim 10 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly et al., US-PGPUB 2005/0137814 in view of Heuel et al., US-PGPUB 2021/0223301 and Horng et al., US-PGPUB 2016/0146881 (hereinafter Horng)
Regarding Claim 10. Kelly discloses a signal processing method for processing a digital input signal by a measurement instrument, the measurement instrument comprising a signal input, a measurement circuit, and an analysis circuit, comprising (Abstract):
receiving, by the signal input, from a device under test (Fig. 1), capturing, by the measurement circuit, at least one IQ measurement set based on the received input signal, wherein the at least one IQ measurement set comprises a plurality of IQ measurement points (Paragraph [0036]), determining, by the analysis circuit, a total noise of the digital input signal over frequency based on the at least one IQ measurement set (Paragraph [0015], total cold noise), determining, by the analysis circuit, an instrument noise over frequency, wherein the instrument noise corresponds to noise generated by the measurement instrument (Paragraphs [0010], [0014]-[0015], total hot noise), and determining, by the analysis circuit, a ratio of the instrument noise and the total noise over frequency, thereby obtaining a frequency-dependent scaling factor (Paragraph [0015], noise figure)
Kelly does not disclose receiving a digital input signal from a device under test, determining, by the analysis circuit, an instrument phase noise, wherein the
instrument phase noise corresponds to phase noise generated by the measurement
instrument, adding, by the analysis circuit, the instrument phase noise to the instrument noise, thereby obtaining composite noise; and determining, by the analysis circuit, a ratio of the composite noise and the total noise over frequency, thereby obtaining a frequency-dependent scaling factor.
Heuel discloses receiving a digital input signal from a device under test, and includes a digital interface connected to a digital inphase and quadrature phase parameters (Paragraphs [0017]; [0021]-[0022]; [0046]; Figs. 1-5, 8; Paragraphs [0003]-[0006]))
Chen discloses higher sensitivity to noise to the presence of phase noise
Horng disclose determining, by the analysis circuit, an instrument phase noise, wherein the instrument phase noise corresponds to phase noise generated by the measurement instrument (Abstract; Paragraphs [0020] [0032], Figs. 3-4)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Heuel in Kelly and have a digital input signal from a device under test, with a digital interface connected to a digital inphase and quadrature phase parameters and determine, by the analysis circuit, an instrument phase noise, wherein the instrument phase noise corresponds to phase noise generated by the measurement instrument, add, by the analysis circuit, the instrument phase noise to the instrument noise, thereby obtaining composite noise, and determine, by the analysis circuit, a ratio of the composite noise and the total noise over frequency, thereby obtaining a frequency-dependent scaling factor, so as to accurately perform noise analysis by additionally taking into account other known noise such as phase noise.
Regarding Claim 17. Kelly discloses the instrument phase noise is determined by connecting a known phase noise source to the signal input (Paragraph [0046]-[0047])
Regarding Claim 18. Horng discloses the instrument phase noise is estimated based on a phase noise model, wherein the phase noise model describes the phase noise generated by the measurement instrument (Abstract; Paragraphs [0020] [0032], Figs. 3-4)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chou et al., US-PGPUB 2022/0260634
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights