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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites the limitation "the second test signal" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The antecedent basis is provided from claim 5 and not claim 4.
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, 8-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo et al (US 2021/0,399,811) in view of Pickerd et al (US 2008/0,052,028).
Regarding claim 1 and 11, Endo disclose a test and measurement device (25, 27) and method of testing and adaptive system under test (100) (Figs. 1, 4B), comprising:
a signal generator (26a) to generate a test signal (test signal) (¶ [0068]; Fig. 4B);
a signal analyzer (27) to receive (via 6a, 6b) a response signal from an adaptive system under test (100) (¶ [0068]; Figs. 2, 4B);
one or more communications ports (communication ports of antennas 6a, 6b, 19) to allow reception of the response signal (¶ [0049]; Fig. 2); and one or more processors (26c, 26b) configured to execute code that causes the one or more processors to:
generate a signal to the signal generator (26a) to cause the signal generator (26a) to generate a first test signal (Fig. 4B; ¶ [0068]);
receive a response signal from the signal analyzer (27); (Fig. 4B); ¶ [0068]);
measure (via 26b; Fig. 4B) performance of the response signal with respect to the first test signal (test signal generated by 26a); and report the performance to at least one of the SUT (100) and a user workspace (10) on the test and measurement device (sending the performance from LTE measurement instrument 25 to control unit 11 of user workspace 10; paras. [0052]-[0056]; Figs. 2-3, 4B). Endo do not explicitly disclose the test and measurement device comprises a signal analyzer. In the same field of endeavor, Pickerd disclose a test and measurement device comprising a signal analyzer (200) for analyzing the signal from the device under test (Fig. 1; ¶ [0021]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to initially evaluate or assess the signal received from the system under test.
Regarding claim 8, Endo and Pickerd disclose the test and measurement device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more communication ports include a control interface (16, 19) to the SUT (Endo; Figs. 2, 3; ¶ [0049], [0052]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 9, Endo disclose the test and measurement device as claimed in claim 8, wherein the user workspace (10) is accessible from the control interface (16, 19) (Figs. 2, 3; ¶ [0049], [0052]- [0053]).
Regarding claim 10, Endo disclose test and measurement device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising one or more antennas (6a, 6b) connected to the one or more communications ports (¶ [0049]).
Regarding claim 18, Endo disclose method as claimed in claim 11, wherein receiving the response signal comprises receiving an over-the-air signal or receiving a connected signal (Figs. 2, 3; ¶ [0049], [0052]- [0053]).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo et al (US 2021/0,399,811) in view of Pickerd et al (US 2008/0,052,028) further in view of Watanabe et al (JP 2009,293,990; hereinafter Watanabe).
Regarding claim 2 and 12, Endo and Pickerd disclose the test and measurement device and method as claimed in claim 1 and 11 respectively, wherein they do not disclose the code that causes the one or more processors to send a signal to the signal generator causes the one or more processors to send settings for the first test signal to the signal generator. In the same field of endeavor, disclose the code that causes the one or more processors to send a signal to the signal generator causes the one or more processors to send settings for the first test signal to the signal generator (pg. 4, lines 4-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to allow the processor to configure the settings for the test signal based on the stored control data (Watanabe; pg. 4, lines 4-6).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo et al (US 2021/0,399,811) in view of Pickerd et al (US 2008/0,052,028) in view of Watanabe et al (JP 2009,293,990) further in view of Miyazakii (US 2006/0,018,399).
Regarding claim 3 and 13, Endo, Pickerd and Watanabe disclose the test and measurement device as claimed in claim 2 and 12 respectively, wherein they do not disclose the settings comprise one or more of power level, pulse width, pulse rate, frequency response, and coding. In the same field of endeavor, Miyazakii disclose the settings comprise one or more of power level, pulse width, pulse rate, frequency response, and coding (paras. [0047]-[0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the processor to set a parameter, e.g. setting a power level of the transmission signal, generated by the signal generator in order to allow the processor to configure a setting of a characteristic value indicative of a physical characteristic of the transmission signal (Miyazakii, ¶ [0118]).
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo et al (US 2021/0,399,811) in view of Pickerd et al (US 2008/0,052,028) further in view of Hechtfischer et al (US 2017/0,222,736; hereinafter Hechtfischer).
Regarding claim 4 and 14, Endo and Pickerd disclose the test and measure device and method as claimed in claim 1 and 11 respectively, wherein they do not disclose the code that causes the one or more processors to measure the performance comprises code that causes the one or more processors to measure one or more of power, bandwidth, frequency, and pulse shape. In the same field of endeavor, Hechtfischer disclose measure the performance comprises code that causes the one or more processors to measure one or more of power, bandwidth, frequency, and pulse shape (paras. [0013], [0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to provide a flexible and accurate measurement method to measure, e.g. the frequency of the received signal (Hechtfischer; ¶ [0021]).
Claim 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo et al (US 2021/0,399,811) in view of Pickerd et al (US 2008/0,052,028) further in view of Nakamura et al (US 2022/0,236,316; hereinafter Nakamura).
Regarding claim 7, Endo and Pickerd disclose the test and measurement device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to execute code to cause the one or more processors to analyze the response signal (Endo, ¶ [0090]). Endo and Pickerd do not disclose determine settings for a second test signal. In the same field of endeavor, Nakamura disclose determine settings for a second test signal (¶ 0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to configure settings, e.g. output level, based on the analysis or measurement process indicating whether or not a measurement result of the throughput exceeds a predetermined threshold value (Nakamura; paras. [0032], [0109]).
Regarding claim 17, Endo and Pickerd disclose the method as claimed in claim 11, further comprising analyzing the response signal (Endo, ¶ [0090]). Endo and Pickerd do not disclose determine settings for a second test signal within the user workspace on the test and measurement device. In the same field of endeavor, Nakamura disclose determine settings for a second test signal within the user workspace on the test and measurement device (¶ 0032]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to configure settings, e.g. output level, based on the analysis or measurement process indicating whether or not a measurement result of the throughput exceeds a predetermined threshold value (Nakamura; paras. [0032], [0109]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo et al (US 2021/0,399,811) in view of Pickerd et al (US 2008/0,052,028) further in view of Yoon et al (KR 2012/0,031,615).
Regarding claim 15, Endo and Pickerd disclose the method as claimed in claim 11, wherein they do not disclose the method further comprising receiving a message from the SUT requesting a second test signal. In the same field of endeavor, Yoon disclose receiving a message from the device under test requesting a second test signal (pg. 3, lines 13-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order for the device to request for another test signal in case there’s an issue with the first test signal or the response signal.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo et al (US 2021/0,399,811) in view of Pickerd et al (US 2008/0,052,028) further in view of Huynh (WO 2014,197,186).
Regarding claim 16, Endo, Pikerd, and Yoon disclose the method as claimed in claim 15, wherein they do not disclose the message includes new settings for the second test signal. In the same field of endeavor, Huynh disclose determine settings for a second test signal (paras. [0026], [0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do so in order to repeat the configuring of the settings of the test signals phases to maximize the direct couple signaling to the SUT (Huynh;
¶ [0037], abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5, Endo and Pickerd disclose the test and measurement device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cited prior art fails to further disclose or fairly suggest the one or more processors are further configured to execute code to cause the one or more processors to receive a message from the SUT requesting a second test signal and signaling readiness of the SUT for receipt of the second test signal.
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art fails to further disclose or fairly suggest the test and measurement device as claimed in claim 5, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to adjust settings of the signal generator prior to sending the second test signal.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LANA N LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Wesley Kim, can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/LANA N LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights