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 § 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 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, 4-8, 10, 11, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David L. Kelly (US 2011/0166813), hereinafter ‘Kelly’ in view of Andrew Robert Lehane et al. (US 2014/0236539), hereinafter ‘Lehane’.
With regards to Claim 1, Kelly discloses
A reconfigurable, automatically self-adjusting test and measurement instrument (Embodiments of the present invention include a method for dynamically triggering a test and measurement instrument [0006]; automatically adjusting the subsequent sets of trigger criteria. For instance, the B-Event trigger type or placement can be adjusted based on the examination of the acquired data [0007]), comprising:
an interface (it should be understood that the oscilloscope 105 can include … interfaces [0202]; Figs. 7 and 8; [0057-0059]) configured to receive one or more static data preconditions for data received in an input signal (the display unit 150 having display 825. Inputs 805, 810, and/or 820 can be used to configure initial trigger criteria [0058]) and one or more dynamic data preconditions for data received in the input signal (allows a user of the oscilloscope 105 to configure the A- and B-Event components of the trigger criteria, and to specify how the trigger criteria will dynamically change between triggered acquisitions [0057]), the one or more static data preconditions and dynamic data preconditions defining one or more rules for data received during an input signal acquisition period to conform (after having established an initial set of trigger criteria 142 including, for example, definitions for the A- and B-Events, and the sequence relationship between the A- and B-Events, the dynamic trigger criteria module 140 can scan the initial triggered acquisition 130 for waveform data before or after the triggered event, and depending on the nature or content of the scanned data or portions of the scanned data, the dynamic trigger criteria module 140 can then be programmatically changed. For example, the B-Event definition can be changed by virtue of trigger placement or type. For instance, the location of the trigger placement of the B-Event definition component of the trigger criteria 142 can be programmatically changed based on the scanned data. As another example, the B-Event definition component of the trigger criteria 142 can be programmatically changed from window trigger definition to a slope edge trigger based on the scanned data [0027]); and
one or more processors (The external device 145 can include, for example, a computer separate from the oscilloscope 105, or an external memory device, among other possibilities [0037]) configured to:
receive the one or more static and dynamic data preconditions, as discussed above,
configure testing parameters of the test and measurement instrument (implied a step of configuring testing parameters based on Step 240, Trigger the oscilloscope, emphasis added) to satisfy the one or more static preconditions for data received in the input signal, acquire the input signal (Fig. 2B, Steps 235-250; [0040]) during a first acquisition period (providing the ability to simultaneously display and analyze the captured waveforms associated with one or more electrical signals under test. It is contemplated that the test and measurement instrument is an RT (Real Time) digital oscilloscope or other suitable test and measurement instrument [0020]; The first triggered acquisition 130 is associated with the first set of trigger criteria 142 and the remaining triggered acquisitions 130 are associated with one of the subsequent sets of trigger criteria 142. Between any two of the triggered acquisitions 130, the data can be scanned and the next or any subsequent trigger criteria adjusted based on the scanned data [028]), transform the input signal acquired during the first acquisition period into a first waveform (The controller 135 processes the signals under test, and produces corresponding waveforms, traces [0024]), store the first waveform (The digitized signals are stored in memory 125 in the form of triggered acquisitions 130 [0023]; a triggered acquisition is captured using the trigger circuitry and the memory of the oscilloscope [0039]); retrieve data from the stored first waveform; analyze the retrieved data to determine whether the one or more dynamic data preconditions are met (At 245, a triggered acquisition is captured using the trigger circuitry and the memory of the oscilloscope. The data associated with the triggered acquisition, which can include data before or after the trigger event, is scanned or otherwise examined at 250. Based on the scanned data, the trigger criteria can be dynamically reconfigured at 255. In some embodiments, the acquired data can be examined and a determination made whether to keep or abandon the triggered acquisition, and/or whether and how to reconfigure the trigger criteria [0030];Fig. 2C, Steps 260-265; It should be understood that any entry in the "analyze" menu option can have predefined settings for a particular application [0059]), and
automatically reconfigure at least one testing parameter of the test and measurement instrument to a new configuration and acquire the input signal during a second acquisition period using the new configuration (The number of single waveforms captured can be determined using repetition factor 144, which can be dynamically or manually configured. The repetition factor 144 is operatively associated with the dynamic trigger criteria module 140. By increasing the repetition factor 144, the number of individual single waveforms making up the general waveform is increased, which better defines and more clearly shows the character of the general waveform [0031]; the additional gathering of individual single waveforms causes an increase in the amount of time to acquire all of the data associated with a particular set of trigger criteria; as a result, a user of the oscilloscope 105 can perceive an incremental progression of additional waveforms being displayed by the display unit 150 according to evolving sets of trigger criteria [0032]; The dynamic trigger criteria module 140 can automatically and dynamically reconfigure the trigger criteria 142 between at least two of the triggered acquisitions [0026]; FIG. 2A, the flow begins at 205 where a signal under test is received at an input terminal of the oscilloscope. At 210, the oscilloscope is triggered responsive to trigger criteria, which can include any definition or relationship discussed above. At 215, a triggered acquisition is captured using the trigger circuitry and the memory of the oscilloscope. The flow then proceeds to 220 where the trigger criteria is dynamically reconfigured, as also discussed above. Then, at 230, one or more additional triggered acquisitions occur [0039]; Fig. 2C, Steps 270-290).
Kelly also discloses considering when at least one of the one or more dynamic data preconditions is not met (In the example shown in FIG. 6, the transition time is determined to be invalid for this reason. With such information, the scope trigger logic can decide whether to keep or abandon this particular acquisition, and/or whether to decline to advance the sequence event number component of the dynamic trigger criteria 142. The scope trigger circuitry then re-arms to look for the next region where the signal set does contain valid DQ data at the 9th and subsequent DQS clock edges. In this way, the overlapping DQ data eyes about all DQS clock edges in the range containing only valid DQ data can be obtained [0056]) in order to evaluate whether to set new trigger criteria for the next triggered acquisition [0055].
Kelly further discloses that hundreds of A-to-B sequence trigger combinations (not shown) can be implemented (i.e. reconfigured, added by examiner) using the dynamic triggering techniques disclosed herein, for example, based on combinations of the various A- and/or B-Event definitions, the A-to-B sequence relationships, the reset event definition, the programmatic trigger placement, and so forth [0057]).
However, Kelly is silent with regards to automatically reconfiguring at least one testing parameter of the test and measurement instrument to a new configuration when at least one of the one or more dynamic data preconditions is not met.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kelly to automatically reconfigure at least one testing parameter of the test and measurement instrument to a new configuration when at least one of the one or more dynamic data preconditions is not met to capture valid data of interest (The scope trigger circuitry then re-arms to look for the next region where the signal set does contain valid DQ data at the 9th and subsequent DQS clock edges. In this way, the overlapping DQ data eyes about all DQS clock edges in the range containing only valid DQ data can be obtained, Kelly [0056]) based on reconfigured data acquisition criteria (the dynamic trigger criteria module will programmatically change from one set of trigger criteria to the next based on the scanned data, Kelly [0058]).
However, Kelly does not explicitly disclose that a new configuration is accomplished by changing at least one of a horizontal scale, a vertical scale, a sample rate, or a record length based on the retrieved data.
Lehane also discloses transform the input signal acquired during the first acquisition period into a first waveform, store the first waveform; retrieve data from the stored first waveform (ADC 110 receives the analog input signal from signal conditioner 105 and samples and digitizes the signal to produce a digital input signal. ADC 110 then stores the digital input signal in memory 115 for subsequent presentation on display 125. Trigger 130 analyzes the analog input signal to detect a trigger event, and timebase 135 adjusts the timing of display 125 according to the detected event. Processor 120 performs any required post-processing on the stored digital input signal [0003]) and discloses a new configuration that includes changing at least one of a horizontal scale, a vertical scale, a sample rate, or a record length based on the retrieved data, and applying the new configuration to the test and measurement instrument (Signal conditioner 105 receives an analog input signal, typically through an oscilloscope probe, and performs signal conditioning operations such as vertical scaling [0003]; oscilloscope data is captured, stored, analyzed, and processed for display. These operations take time, and they vary as a function of various factors, such as … sampling rate [0008]; the timing of the sampling can be determined using some form of clock data recovery (CDR) [0037]; using the described approach, the length of a signature, rule, or pattern to be matched against the binary data sequence may be proportional to the sample size or period length. For instance, suppose the period length is 100 samples, and the pattern to be recognized is a sine wave. The sine wave pattern can be recognized by a regular expression that matches 100 samples in a sine wave configuration, plus or minus some unknown values to account for certain types of anomalies such as noise [0040]; If the measurement instrument's sample rate happens to be much higher, then the sequence modifier can be adjusted for the appropriate number of samples [0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kelly in view of Lehane to apply a new configuration that includes changing at least one of a horizontal scale, a vertical scale, a sample rate, or a record length based on the retrieved data to acquire data in the second acquisition period to, for example, fit the data into display or detect noise (Display 125 then presents a portion of the digital input signal in response to the detected trigger event, Lehane [0002]; The sine wave pattern can be recognized by a regular expression that matches 100 samples in a sine wave configuration, plus or minus some unknown values to account for certain types of anomalies such as noise, Lehane [0040]).
With regards to Claim 11, Kelly in view of Lehane discloses the claimed limitations as discussed in Claim 1.
With regards to Claim 4, Kelly in view of Lehane discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kelly further disclose analyzing the input signal received using the new configuration, automatically reconfigure at least one testing parameter of the test and measurement instrument to a second new configuration, and acquire the input signal using the second new configuration (The first triggered acquisition 130 is associated with the first set of trigger criteria 142 and the remaining triggered acquisitions 130 are associated with one of the subsequent sets of trigger criteria 142. Between any two of the triggered acquisitions 130, the data can be scanned and the next or any subsequent trigger criteria adjusted based on the scanned data [0028]).
However, Kelly is silent on not meeting a dynamic condition as a trigger to a new reconfiguration.
Lehane discloses reconfiguring at least one testing parameter of the test and measurement instrument to a second new configuration by changing at least one of a horizontal scale, a vertical scale, a sample rate, or a record length based on the second retrieved data, applying the second new configuration to the test and measurement instrument, and acquiring the input signal using the second new configuration as discussed above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kelly in view of Lehane to automatically reconfigure at least one testing parameter of the test and measurement instrument to a new, second configuration when at least one of the one or more dynamic data preconditions of the first reconfiguration is not met in order to improve accuracy of capturing valid data of interest.
With regards to Claim 5, 6, and 7, Kelly in view of Lehane discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kelly further discloses that the interface is a programmatic interface (The oscilloscope 800 includes the display unit 150 having display 825. Inputs 805, 810, and/or 820 can be used to configure initial trigger criteria. For example, input 805 can be used to configure A-Event and/or B-Event definitions, input 810 can be used to configure A-to-B Event sequence relationships, and input 820 can be used to configure reset event definitions, or any other trigger criteria. In addition, the inputs can be used to set guidelines for how the dynamic trigger criteria module will programmatically change from one set of trigger criteria to the next based on the scanned data [0058]), the interface is a user interface (Moreover, menu and/or control 815 can be used to receive input from the user through the display 825 [0059]), and the one or more dynamic preconditions are conditional (the trigger criteria 142 can be programmatically changed based on the scanned [0027]).
Additionally, with regards to Claim 7, Kelly is silent on conditional expressions including and, not, equal to, and greater than applied to the retrieved data from the stored waveform.
Lehane discloses conditional expressions including and, not, equal to, and greater than applied to the retrieved data from the stored waveform (The sine wave pattern can be recognized by a regular expression that matches 100 samples in a sine wave configuration, plus or minus some unknown values to account for certain types of anomalies such as noise [0040]).
With regards to Claim 8, Kelly as modified discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 1.
Kelly further discloses a trigger criteria unit that implies storing criteria used to evaluate triggered acquisitions ([0023-0024, 0037], Fig.1), i.e. “memory configured to store the one or more static preconditions and the one or more dynamic preconditions, wherein the interface is further configured to receive the one or more static and dynamic preconditions from the memory”. Additionally, a control unit 815 ([0059], Fig.8) that uses predefined trigger criteria also implies storing preconditions.
Lehane also discloses these limitations as discussed above.
With regards to Claim 10, Kelly in view of Lehane discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 8.
Kelly also discloses selecting a plurality of identifiers, each identifier indicating one or more preconditions for a particular test and measurement instrument configuration (a user would need only select the DDR3 dynamic trigger menu option or a "run" button and an application would select an ideal set of trigger criteria and/or other guidelines specifically designed for DDR3 memory [0059]).
However, Kelly is silent on storing a plurality of the identifiers and being usable to access the one or more preconditions stored in the memory.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kelly in view of Lehane to preliminarily store a plurality of the identifiers being usable to access the one or more preconditions stored in the memory in order to select them for a particular configuration.
With regards to Claim 14, Kelly in view of Lehane discloses the claimed limitations as discussed in Claim 4.
With regards to Claim 16, Kelly in view of Lehane discloses the claimed limitations as discussed in Claims 11 and 10.
With regards to Claim 17, Kelly in view of Lehane discloses the invention as discussed in Claim 11.
Kelly further discloses analyzing whether dynamic configuration criteria are met (Fig. 2C, Step 265), i.e. “determining whether the two or more static or dynamic preconditions are self-conflicting”.
However, Kelly is silent with regards to generating an alert when the two or more static or dynamic preconditions are self-conflicting and generate a corresponding alert.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kelly in view of Lehane to generate an alert when the two or more static or dynamic preconditions are self-conflicting to inform a user of a need for/trigger a new reconfiguration and/or repeating data acquisition under the same scenario (Kelly [0031]).
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Lehane, and further in view of Thomas Hughes et al. (US 20120128097), hereinafter ‘Hughes’.
With regards to Claim 3, Kelly in view of Lehane discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 1.
Kelly further discloses scanning multiple edges [0057] and including edges in dynamic preconditions [0051].
However, Kelly is silent with regards to wherein the one or more dynamic preconditions comprise a minimum number of data edges in the retrieved data from the stored waveform, and wherein the minimum number of data edges is a further basis for determining whether the one or more dynamic data preconditions are met.
Hughes discloses determining whether one or more signals satisfy one or more predefined signal corruption conditions including a predefined minimum number of aggressor data edges in digital data encoded in the one or more signals, and a corresponding predefined number of victim data edges in the digital data encoded in the one or more signals (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kelly in view of Lehane, in view of Hughes to include in one or more dynamic preconditions a minimum number of data edges in the retrieved data from the stored waveform, and wherein the minimum number of data edges is a further basis for determining whether the one or more dynamic data preconditions are met in order to determine whether the preconditions are satisfied (Highes, Abstract)
With regards to Claim 13, Kelly in view of Lehane, in view of Hughes discloses the claimed limitations as discussed in Claims 11 and 3.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112, 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed 8/13/2026, with respect to Claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection of Claim 17 and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claim 1 (11) has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues, with regards to Kelly, (p. 11): It does not teach changing the claimed acquisition/display parameters-horizontal scale, vertical scale, sample rate, or record length-based on retrieved data from a stored first waveform or an accessed portion of a stored first waveform. Nor does it teach applying such a changed configuration to the test and measurement instrument and acquiring the input signal during a second acquisition period using that configuration.
The Examiner respectfully submits that these amended limitations are taught by Lehane as discussed above.
In addition, Kelly also discloses “acquiring input signal during a second acquisition period using that configuration” (By increasing the repetition factor 144, the number of individual single waveforms making up the general waveform is increased, which better defines and more clearly shows the character of the general waveform [0031]).
The Applicant argues (p. 11): … disclosure of Kelly still concerns control of trigger criteria and trigger sequencing.
The Examiner submits that it is not necessary for the prior art to have the same or similar utility as in the claimed invention per MPEP 2144 IV (The court held “it is not necessary in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness . . . that there be a suggestion or expectation from the prior art that the claimed [invention] will have the same or a similar utility as one newly discovered by applicant,” and concluded that here a prima facie case was established because “[t]he art provided the motivation to make the claimed compositions in the expectation that they would have similar properties.” 919 F.2d at 693, 16 USPQ2d at 1901 (emphasis in original)).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 3 and 13 (p.12) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 15 are 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.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With regards to Claim 9, the claim is allowed because the closest prior art of record fail to anticipate or render obvious determine a current configuration of the test and measurement instrument by measuring parameters of the current settings including edge density, height, location of a center of the waveform, and trigger offset from a center of the waveform, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
With regards to Claim 15, the claim is allowed because the closest prior art of record fail to anticipate or render obvious determining the one or more static or dynamic preconditions based on the current configuration of the test and measurement instrument by measuring parameters of the current settings including edge density, height, location of a center of the waveform, and trigger offset from a center of the waveform, in combination with all other limitations in the claim as claimed and defined by applicant.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Amy Jean Brisben et al. (US 10321834) discloses an external device for … monitoring that may integrate the various improvements including a sensing reconfiguration may instead call for changing one or more of sensing gain, sensing filtering, data rate, sampling rate, or other sensing features, in addition to or instead of simply considering a different sensing vector.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)270-5819. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9 am-5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Catherine Rastovski can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER SATANOVSKY/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
