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 17 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.
With regards to Claim 17, the limitation “determining whether the two or more static or dynamic preconditions are compatible and generating an alert when the two or more static or dynamic preconditions are not compatible” is indefinite because it is unclear what the meaning of “compatible” or “not compatible” is. While the Specification discloses more than one preconditions (i.e. “two or more”), the Specification is silent what are the “compatibly” criteria of the preconditions. Therefore, it is also unclear what triggers an alert.
For the purpose of a compact prosecution, the Examiner treated compatibility and alert features as satisfying/not satisfying measurement preconditions as discussed in [0024, 0027].
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 1-17 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 significantly more.
The representative Claim 1 (Claim 11 is subject to a similar eligibility analysis) recites:
“A reconfigurable, automatically self-adjusting test and measurement instrument, comprising: an interface configured to receive one or more static data preconditions for data received in an input signal and one or more dynamic data preconditions for data received in the input signal, 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; and one or more processors configured to: receive the one or more static and dynamic data preconditions, configure testing parameters of the test and measurement instrument to satisfy the one or more static preconditions for data received in the input signal, acquire the input signal, analyze data received in the input signal to determine whether the one or more dynamic data preconditions are met, and when at least one of the one or more dynamic data preconditions is not met, automatically reconfigure at least one testing parameter of the test and measurement instrument to a new configuration, and acquire the input signal using the new configuration”.
The above highlighted in bold limitations comprise a process (statutory subject matter category, Step 1, MPEP 2106.03) that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls into abstract idea exceptions as identified by the courts. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject matter Eligibility Guidance, under the Step 2A, Prong One, it falls into the grouping of subject matter when recited as such in a claim limitation that covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
The highlighted limitations recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors …”, nothing in the claim elements precludes the recited steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “one or more processors” language, making a determination of reconfiguring the instrument based on receiving “the one or more static and dynamic data preconditions” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually/mentally making the determination to reconfigure testing parameters based on the knowledge of static rules already defined (“satisfy the one or more static preconditions”) and analysis of dynamic data whether they meet the known preconditions.
The examiner concluded that this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A analysis under Prong Two) based on the following analysis.
A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
However, in the above claims, there is/are no additional element(s) to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or it/they does/do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
For example, additional elements/steps of “an interface configured to receive one or more static data preconditions for data received in an input signal and one or more dynamic data preconditions for data received in the input signal”, “configure testing parameters of the test and measurement instrument”, and “automatically reconfigure at least one testing parameter of the test and measurement instrument to a new configuration, and acquire the input signal using the new configuration” (Claim 1) as well as similar limitations in Claim 11 are generically recited and represent examples of extra-solution activity that does not meaningfully limits the exception.
Similarly, the steps of “receive one or more static data preconditions for data received in an input signal and one or more dynamic data preconditions for data received in the input signal”, “data received during an input signal acquisition period to conform”, and “receive the one or more static and dynamic data preconditions” represent insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Steps of “configure testing parameters of the test and measurement instrument” and “automatically reconfigure at least one testing parameter of the test and measurement instrument to a new configuration” are generically recited and not meaningful for a practical application.
Steps of “acquire the input signal” and “acquire the input signal using the new configuration” are generically recited mere data gathering steps are not meaningful to indicate a practical application.
The above steps amount to necessary data gathering and outputting (i.e., all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering or data output), MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The additional elements/steps of “one or more processors” are generic computer components that do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer and are not qualified for particular machine.
The additional elements in the preamble of “A reconfigurable, automatically self-adjusting test and measurement instrument” (Claim 1) and “A method for automatically reconfiguring a test and measurement instrument for data acquisition” (Claim 11) are not qualified for meaningful limitations because they only generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by imposing any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Therefore, the above claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Further, under the Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
According to MPEP 2106.05 (d): “If, however, the additional element (or combination of elements) is no more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, which is recited at a high level of generality, then this consideration does not favor eligibility”.
For example, one or more processors are features that well-understood and purely conventional or routine in the relevant art, and they are recited at a high level of generality without adding “significantly more” to the application of the abstract idea. As indicated in the Electric Power Group, “the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools”.
“An interface configured to receive one or more static data preconditions for data received in an input signal and one or more dynamic data preconditions for data received in the input signal … received during an input signal acquisition period to conform” is an examples of well-understood/conventional technology as evidenced from a prior art of record and therefore amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not meaningfully limits the exception and does not represent a technological improvement (Please see, for example, Kelly, and references from IDS filed 5/10/2024: Kohls, Bhame, Kadamus; Gilbert, Underdal, Stadler, Heller, Optimus). Also, according to MPEP 2106.05(d).II: “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information)”.
Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, the claims are not patent eligible because they do not transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. These dependent claims either just extend the abstract idea of the independent claim(s) (Claims 2-4, 7, 12-17), generically recite further additional elements such as a memory (Claims 8, 9, 10, 15), generating an alert (Claim 17) or generically reciting an interface (5, 6, and 8). They are not meaningfully limit the abstract idea, as explained above, and, therefore, comprise no additional elements that incorporate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A) and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
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, 4-11, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David L. Kelly (US 2011/0166813), hereinafter ‘Kelly’.
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]),
analyze data received in the input signal to determine whether the one or more dynamic data preconditions are met (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 using the new configuration (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]).
With regards to Claim 11, Kelly as modified discloses the claimed limitations as discussed in Claim 1.
With regards to Claim 4, Kelly as modified discloses the invention as discussed above.
Kelly further discloses 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.
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, 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 as modified 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]).
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.
With regards to Claim 9, Kelly as modified discloses the invention as discussed above in Claim 8.
Kelly also disclose determining whether to reconfigure the trigger criteria based on the examination of the acquired data ([0040, 0041, 0052, 0055]) that implies “determining a current configuration of the test and measurement instrument”.
Kelly also discloses a user-controlled selection of trigger criteria and/or other guidelines specifically designed for DDR3 memory [0059].
Kelly does not specifically disclose based on the current configuration, determine the one or more preconditions to store 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 based on the current configuration, determine the one or more preconditions to store in the memory to be able to use it in analyzing data acquisition based on the determined current configuration.
With regards to Claim 10, Kelly as modified 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.
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 preliminarily store a plurality of the identifiers in order to select them for a particular configuration.
With regards to Claim 14, Kelly as modified discloses the claimed limitations as discussed in Claim 4.
With regards to Claim 15, Kelly as modified discloses the claimed limitations as discussed in Claims 11, 8, and 9.
With regards to Claim 17, Kelly 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 compatible”.
However, Kelly is silent with regards to generating an alert when the two or more static or dynamic preconditions are not compatible.
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 generate an alert when the two or more static or dynamic preconditions are not compatible to inform a user of a need for/trigger a new reconfiguration and/or repeating data acquisition under the same scenario (Kelly [0031]).
With regards to Claim 16, Kelly as modified discloses the claimed limitations as discussed in Claims 11 and 10.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of Andrew Robert Lehane et al. (US 2014/0236539), hereinafter ‘Lehane’.
With regards to Claim 2, Kelly as modified discloses the claimed invention as discussed in Claim 1.
However, Kelly is silent with regards to wherein the one or more static preconditions comprise a horizontal or vertical scale.
Lehane discloses that one or more static preconditions comprise a horizontal or vertical scale (Signal conditioner 105 receives an analog input signal, typically through an oscilloscope probe, and performs signal conditioning operations such as vertical scaling [0003]).
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 perform a horizontal or vertical scaling as a part of static preconditions to fit acquired/scanned data as known in the art (Display 125 then presents a portion of the digital input signal in response to the detected trigger event, Lehane [0002]).
With regards to Claim 12, Kelly in view of Lehane discloses the claimed limitations as discussed in Claims 11 and 2.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of SATO TAKESHI et al. (JP H0765106), hereinafter ‘Takeshi’.
With regards to Claim 3, Kelly as modified 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 the one or more dynamic preconditions comprise a minimum number of data edges.
Takeshi discloses (static, added by examiner) condition of calculating a minimum number of edges while suggesting that if the number of edges is less than the minimum amount, the current data is not scanned accurately (p.5).
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 Takeshi to include in one or more dynamic preconditions comprise a minimum number of data edges as number of data edges per static preconditions may not be enough to ensure accuracy.
With regards to Claim 13, Kelly in view of Takeshi discloses the claimed limitations as discussed in Claims 11 and 3.
Conclusion
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 2863