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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In FIGs 1 and 8, boxes or simple shapes are labeled only with reference numbers, without descriptive legends. The Examiner directs the applicant to 37 C.F.R. 1.84(n) and 1.84(o) which state, “Graphical drawing symbols may be used for conventional elements when appropriate” while “[o]ther symbols which are not universally recognized may be used, subject to approval by the Office” and that “[s]uitable descriptive legends may be used subject to approval by the Office, or may be required by the examiner where necessary for understanding of the drawing”. Since the boxes or simple shapes in FIGs 1 and 8 are not universally recognized for the elements they represent, the Examiner may require descriptive legends for better understanding of the drawings. See MPEP 608.02.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 6, “each block” should be --each of the blocks-- to avoid being too broad without clear boundaries.
In claim 1, line 8, “which, in contrast to the first layer” should be --the further layers, in contrast to the first layer-- for better clarity.
In claim 1, line 9, “each min-max pair” should be --each of the min-max pairs-- to avoid being too broad without clear boundaries.
In claim 1, line 12, “a part of the layers, which includes the first layer” should be --a part of the first layer and the further layers--to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 1, line 13, “each sampling time” should be --each of a plurality of sampling times-- to avoid being too broad without clear boundaries.
In claim 1, lines 14-15, “the entire corridor length” should be --the corridor length-- to be consistent with its antecedent basis.
In claim 1, line 15, “each individual sampling value” should be --each of a plurality of sampling values-- to avoid being too broad without clear boundaries.
In claim 1, line 17, “the associated node” should be --an associated node-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 1, lines 20-21, “the minimum value and maximum value assigned to the respective sampling time and the corridor length” should be --a minimum value and a maximum value assigned to the respective sampling time and the corridor length-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 1, line 26, there should be a conjunction “and” in the end of the line to correct a grammatical error.
In claim 1, line 27, “each sampling time” should be --each of the plurality of sampling times-- to avoid being too broad without clear boundaries.
In claim 2, lines 2-3, “the block length of each data block” should be --a block length of each of the blocks-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 3, line 3, “the entire corridor length” should be --the corridor length-- to be consistent with its antecedent basis.
In claim 4, lines 3-4, “the envelope curve” should be --the at least one envelope curve-- to be consistent with its antecedent basis, and to distinguish with the envelope curve for a corridor with constant upper and lower limits.
In claim 7, line 2, “the min-max tree to be constructed” should be --the min-max tree to be built-- to be consistent in terminology.
In claim 8, line 2, “the construction of the min-max tree” should be --the building of the min-max tree-- to be consistent in terminology.
In claim 8, line 3, “the layers” should be --the first layer and the further layers-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 9, line 2, “the number of tree runs-- should be --a number of tree runs-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 11, line 2, “construction of the min-max trees” should be -- building of the min-max trees-- to be consistent in terminology.
In claim 11, line 3, “the time interval” should be --a time interval-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 12, line 2, “comprising” should be --further comprising-- for better clarity.
In claim 12, line 2, “the Boolean trigger value signal” should be --a Boolean trigger value signal-- to avoid the issue of lack of antecedent basis.
In claim 16, line 1, “The device” should be --The device for signal pattern recognition-- for better clarity.
In claim 17, line 1, “The device” should be --The device for signal pattern recognition-- for better clarity.
In claim 18, line 1, “The device” should be --The device for signal pattern recognition-- for better clarity.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are objected to for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-18 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, it recites “the two pairs or sampling values” in lines 9-10. There is no antecedent basis for the limitation. For examination purpose, --two consecutive pairs or sampling values-- is assumed.
Further regarding claim 1, it recites “each assigned to a sampling time” in lines 25-26. It is unclear what the term “each” represents. For examination purpose, “each assigned to a sampling time” is assumed to be --assigned to the plurality of sampling times--.
The other claim(s) not discussed above, or depending on the above claim(s), are rejected for inheriting the issue(s) from their linking claim(s).
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.
MPEP 2106 outlines a two-part analysis for Subject Matter Eligibility as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter.
Step 2, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, as shown in the chart below.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two. If the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea), then the claim cannot be directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO), and thus the claim is eligible at Pathway B without further analysis. Abstract ideas can be grouped as, e.g., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes.
Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? If the additional elements in the claim integrate the recited exception into a practical application of the exception, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and thus is eligible at Pathway B. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If, however, the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B.
Claims 1-18 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.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicially recognized exceptions)? Yes (see analysis below).
Prong one: Whether the claim recites a judicial exception? (Yes). The claim is directed to an abstract idea because it recites the limitations beginning from “discrete-time sampling of a continuous data stream for capturing sampling values that form a signal curve,” to the end of the claim. These limitations are directed to mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (or with a pen and paper).
Prong two: Whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception? (No). The claim recites no additional elements. Accordingly, no additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements (other than the judicial exception) that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No (see analysis below).
The claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two above, no additional element(s) in the claim are recited. Considered as a whole, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-18 when analyzed as a whole respectively are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they either extend (or add more details to) the abstract idea or the additional recited limitation(s) (if any) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as discussed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that sufficiently integrates the abstract idea into a practical application of, or makes the claims significantly more than, the judicial exception (abstract idea). The additional element(s) (if any) are mere instructions to apply an except, field of use, and/or insignificant extra-solution activities (applied to Step 2A_Prong Two and Step 2B; see MPEP 2016.05(f)-(h)) and/or well-understood, routine, or conventional (applied to Step 2B; see MPEP 2106.05(d)) to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. Note that claim 15 recites a device comprising a data acquisition device coupled with a trigger device. However, no physical structures are recited for the data acquisition device and the trigger device. They can be logical models or generic computer components for performing the respective data processing and are not sufficient to make the claim eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 05(d). Claim 16 recites at least 128 arithmetic units. They are recited in terms of functional units for data processing and can be implemented by one or more computer(s)/processor(s). They are not sufficient to make the claim eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 05(d). Claim 17 recites “for graphic display.” However, it is an insignificant extra-solution activity to provide a result of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Claim 18 recites “a ring memory” to store data necessary for the abstract idea. It is an invocation of conventional computer components or functionalities to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 05(d).
Notes
Claim 1 distinguishes over the closest prior art of record as discussed below.
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art of record fails to teach the feature: “performing tree runs that partially cross block limits for each sampling time, for at least one corridor length specified by a signal mask, wherein within the entire corridor length each individual sampling value is initially defined as a min- max candidate and two consecutive min-max candidates re replaced by a min-max pair lying as the associated node in the layer above, provided that all sampling values assigned to the min-max pair lying as the associated node in the layer above also lie within a corridor having said corridor length, and identifying the minimum value and maximum value assigned to the respective sampling time and the corridor length on the basis of the min-max candidates found by the tree run, wherein one and a same min-max tree is used for a plurality of tree runs, to be performed in parallel, generating an envelope curve belonging to the signal curve from the minimum and maximum values specific to the corridor length and each assigned to a sampling time,” in combination with the rest of the claim limitations as claimed and defined by the Applicant. The indicated feature is to perform a specific algorithm of tree runs partially across blocks based on a signal mask to generate an envelope curve from min-max values for each sampling time, to be used for testing a trigger condition.
Sullivan et al. (US 20070217694 A1; cited in IDS) teaches a method of waveform compression, involving detecting a peak from 8-bit values from ADC using a min-max tree aggregation method. Neither Sullivan nor the rest of the closest prior art of record teaches or suggests the feature at issue.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Crop (US 4713771 A) teaches a system for generating a vector representation of a waveform on a cathode ray tube screen, involving storing minimum and maximum of analog waveform during each of successive measurement periods.
Timm et al. (US 6344844 B1) teaches a digital oscilloscope that provides a peak detection mode involving detecting a minimum value and a maximum value during a first period of time and determining a significance measure of the minimum value and the maximum values, so as to display a signal in response to the significance measure.
Lecklider ("So Many Samples, So Little Time" 8 EE February 2013) discusses techniques used in oscilloscopes for handling very fast sampling rates, including min/max peaks detection and min/max aggregation that allows zooming a section of acquired data by various amounts.
Holcomb et al. ("Design of a Mixed-Signal Oscilloscope" Hewlett-Packard Journal, April 1997) teaches an oscilloscope with features of min-max peak detection, smoothing, glitch detection, and a trigger system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN C KUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7066. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
/JOHN C KUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights