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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding independent claims 10 and 15 are unpersuasive. They were not amended to include all the elements of the dependent claims indicated as allowable. The references teach the amended claims as detailed in the rejections below. The amended portions of the claims are written broadly enough to be taught by the cited references.
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.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba (US 20050240852 A1) in view of Huang (US 9031808 B2) .
As to claim 10, Inaba teaches a test system for device testing, the system comprising:
an automatic test equipment (ATE) (See fig. 1);
a load board comprising a plurality of sockets (see fig. 1 and fig. 4.1, disclosing a load board and connection to multiple DUTs); and
a radio frequency (RF) extension module comprising a plurality of switches (see fig. 1 and fig. 5.7 and paragraph 0043and associated text disclosing generating RG signals and switches), wherein the RF extension module is operable to selectively couple the ATE to DUTs operable to be disposed in the plurality of sockets for device testing thereof . . . according to a test program (see Fig. 1 and associated text, paragraph 0043, and Fig. 5.7 and associated text, disclosing using switches to distribute RF signal to DUTs for testing; see paragraphs 0004 and 0005 and 0151 for test program).
Inaba does not explicitly teach the RF extension module is operable to receive commands sent by the ATE to control operation of the plurality of switches wherein the RF extension module further comprises a network interface, wherein the RF extension module is operable to receive commands over the network interface to control operations of the plurality of switches.
However, Huang teaches controlling an RF switch with a control module over a bus (see col. 2 lines, 50-55; the examiner interpets some kind of signal is used to control the swtich, and that a bus may correspond to the network).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Inaba with the methods of Huang because it enables testing of multiple RF modules (See Summary).
As to claim 11, the references teach claim 10 as referenced above. They further teach a bench instrument, wherein the RF extension module is further operable to control operation of the plurality of switches to selectively couple the DUTs to the bench instrument for testing the DUTs (see any of the modules of fig.1 of Inaba).
As to claim 12, the the references teach claim 10 as referenced above. They further teach RF extension module is further operable to control operation of the plurality of switches to couple the ATE to the bench instrument for performing path loss calibration and verification operations (See at least Inaba fig.1, paragraphs 0063 and 0112, and throughout, disclosing calibrating and testing RF modules).
As to claim 13, the the references teach claim 10 as referenced above. They further teach the RF extension module is further operable to control the plurality of switches to provide a loop-back communication path for performing path loss calibration and verification operations of the RF extension module (see at least fig. 1, and 5.7 and throughout Inaba, disclosing testing modules that transmit and receive signals and testing the modules, also see paragraphs 0063, 0112, and 0101 of Inaba, disclosing calibration and a loop back.
Claim(s) 15-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba (US 20050240852 A1) in view of Huang (US 9031808 B2) and Olgaard (US 20200228434 A1).
As to claim 15, Inaba method of automatic hardware interface switching for device testing using a radio frequency (RF) extension module, the method comprising:
generating an RF signal using the first test system component (see paragraph 0043, disclosing distributing and RF signal to DUTs);
automatically routing the RF signal to the second test system component via the plurality of switches (see Fig. 1 and associated text, paragraph 0043, and Fig. 5.7 and associated text, disclosing using switches to distribute RF signal to DUTs for testing); and
measuring the RF signal at the second test system component (see paragraph 0150).
Inaba does not explicitly teach receiving a command from an automated test equipment (ATE) to couple a first test system component with a second test system component
However, Huang teaches controlling an RF switch with a control module over a bus (see col. 2 lines, 50-55; the examiner interpets some kind of signal is used to control the swtich).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Inaba with the methods of Huang because it enables testing of multiple RF modules (See Summary).
Inaba does not explicitly teach wherein the first test system component is operable to verify path loss calibration between the first test system component and the second test system component according to the measuring.
However, Olgaard teaches determining a path loss and a compensation for path loss (see paragraphs 0032-048).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the references with the methods of Olgaard because it enables sending of commands for testing transceiver DUTs (see Summary and Paragraph 0029).
As to claim 16, the references teach claim 15 as detailed above. They further teach the first test system component comprises the ATE, and wherein the second test system component comprises a load board comprising a plurality of sockets operable to receive devices under test (DUTs) for device testing thereof by the ATE (see Inaba fig. 1 and fig. 4.1, disclosing a testing circuitry and a load board and connection to multiple DUTs).
As to claim 17, the references teach claim 15 as detailed above. They further teach the first test system component comprises the ATE and wherein the second test system component comprises a bench instrument (see Inaba fig. 1 and fig. 4.1, disclosing a testing circuitry and a load board and connection to multiple DUTs).
As to claim 19, the references teach claim 15 as referenced above. They further teach the command from the ATE is received by a microcontroller of the RF extension module (see fig. 1 or Inaba). They do not explicitly teach the commands are received over Ethernet.
However, Olgaard teaches a controller can communicate with a tester over ethernet (see paragraph 0029).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date, to a person of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine the references with the methods of Olgaard because it enables sending of commands for testing transceiver DUTs (see Summary and Paragraph 0029).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 3-9 are allowable
Claims 14, and 20 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON B BRYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7091. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8-5 First Friday off.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 5712720631. 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.
/JASON B BRYAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114