DETAILED ACTION
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 Figs. 3-5 and 11-17 appear to be screenshots and have blurred sections that are hard to read and/or understand.
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 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Change the aforementioned claims as follows:
1. A signal pairing analysis method for analyzing a device under test that receives an input signal and generates a corresponding output signal, comprising
loading, by an electronic device, a signal file to be analyzed, in which a plurality of input signals and a plurality of output signals captured from the device under test are recorded;
performing, by the electronic device, a setting step, including setting a search condition for the input signals to be searched and a search condition for the output signals to be searched, and respectively generating an input signal search condition and an output signal search condition accordingly;
performing, by the electronic device, a search step, including: searching among the plurality of output signals in the signal file to find a plurality of first signals that match the output signal search condition and
performing, by the electronic device, a pairing analysis step, including:
A1. when any of the plurality of first signals is found to be preceded by one corresponding second signal, recording a first time parameter between the first signal and the corresponding second signal thereof; and
A2. at least analyzing the plurality of first signals, the plurality of second signals and the plurality of first time parameters to generate a statistical result.
2. The signal pairing analysis method as claimed in claim 1, wherein step A1 of the pairing analysis step includes: when any of the plurality of first signals is not found to be preceded by one corresponding second signal, recording it as a packet loss and recording a second time parameter corresponding to the packet loss; and
wherein, in step A2, the plurality of first signals, the plurality of second signals, the plurality of first time parameters and the plurality of second time parameters are analyzed to generate the statistical result.
3. The signal pairing analysis method as claimed in claim 2, further comprising, in step A1 of the pairing analysis step, searching to determine whether one second signal is present in a time period between two adjacent first signals when the one second signal is present in the time period, each of the first time parameters recorded is a time interval between the second signal and the first signal, which is present after the second signal in a time sequence; and when the one second signal is not present in the time period, each of the second time parameters recorded is a position of the first signal corresponding to the packet loss in the time sequence.
4. The signal pairing analysis method as claimed in claim 3, wherein, in step A1 of the pairing analysis step, an output packet loss is recorded and a third time parameter corresponding to the output packet loss is recorded when two or more second signals are found in the time period
5. The signal pairing analysis method as claimed in claim 3, wherein step A1 of the pairing analysis step further includes searching whether one second signal is present in a predetermined time period before the first signal, which is [[the]] first among the first signals in the time sequence; and when the one second signal is present in [[a]] the predetermined time period before the first signal, one second signal is recorded to form another first time parameter.
6. The signal pairing analysis method as claimed in claim 2, further comprising, in step A1 of the pairing analysis step, searching to determine whether one second signal is present in a predetermined time period before each of the first signals when the one second signal is present in the predetermined time period, each of the first time parameters recorded is a time interval between the second signal and the corresponding first signal; and when the one second signal is not present in the predetermined time period, each of the second time parameters recorded is a position of the first signal corresponding to the packet loss in the time sequence.
7. The signal pairing analysis method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the time interval is a time difference between a time point[[,]] at which the first signal is present and another time point[[,]] at which the second signal is present.
8. The signal pairing analysis method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the time interval is a time difference between a time point[[,]] at which the first signal is present[[,]] and another time point[[,]] at which the second signal is present.
9. The signal pairing analysis method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the setting step includes setting a start reference time point of the input signal to be searched and an end reference time point of the output signal to be searched; and in step A1, the time interval is a time difference between the start reference time point and the end reference time point.
10. The signal pairing analysis method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the setting step includes setting a start reference time point of the input signal to be searched and an end reference time point of the output signal to be searched; and in step A1, the time interval is a time difference between the start reference time point and the end reference time point.
11. The signal pairing analysis method as claimed in claim 6, wherein the setting step includes setting a plurality of pairing groups; wherein, in the setting step, the search condition for the input signals to be searched and the search condition for the output signals to be searched for each pairing group are set to respectively generate the input signal search condition and the output signal search condition for each pairing group;
wherein, in the search step, based on the output signal search condition for each pairing group, the plurality of output signals in the signal file are searched to find the plurality of first signals that match the output signal search condition for each pairing group, and based on the input signal search condition for each pairing group, the plurality of input signals in the signal file are searched to find the plurality of second signals that match the input signal search condition for each pairing group; and
wherein, in the pairing analysis step, step A1 and step A2 are performed for each pairing group to generate the statistical result for each pairing group.
12. The signal pairing analysis method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the setting step includes setting a tolerance time for the input signals to be searched; and the search step includes ignoring any
13. The signal pairing analysis method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the setting step includes setting a bouncing time for the input signals to be searched; and wherein, in the search step, each of the second signals is one input signal whose duration is greater than the bouncing time and matches the input signal search condition.
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 1-13 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the first signal" in page 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the plurality of first time parameters" in page 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Because Claims 2-13 depend upon Claim 1, Claims 2-13 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 2 recites the word “it” in page 1. The word “it” is ambiguous, and it is unclear as to what ‘it’ refers to.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the plurality of second time parameters" in page 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3 and 6 recite the limitation "the second signal" in page 2. It is unclear as to which second signal of the claimed plurality of second signals (per Claim 1) is being referred to.
Claims 3 and 5 recite the limitation "the first signal" in page 2. It is unclear as to which first signal of the claimed plurality of first signals (per Claim 1) is being referred to.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the first signals in the time sequence" in page 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the corresponding first signal" in page 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7 and 8 recite the limitation "the first signal" in page 3. It is unclear as to which first signal of the claimed plurality of first signals (per Claim 1) is being referred to.
Claims 7 and 8 recite the limitation "the second signal" in page 3. It is unclear as to which second signal of the claimed plurality of second signals (per Claim 1) is being referred to.
Claims 9 and 10 recite the limitation "the input signal to be searched" in page 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9 and 10 recite the limitation "the output signal to be searched" in page 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
…a device under test that receives an input signal and
generates a corresponding output signal, comprising steps of:
loading, by an electronic device, a signal file to be analyzed,
in which a plurality of input signals and a plurality of output signals captured from the device under test are recorded;
performing, by the electronic device, a setting step, including setting a search condition for the input signals to be searched and a search condition for the output signals to be searched, and
respectively generating an input signal search condition and an output signal search condition accordingly;
performing, by the electronic device, a search step, including: searching among the plurality of output signals in the signal file to find a plurality of first signals that match the output signal search condition based on the output signal search condition, and
searching among the plurality of input signals in the signal file to find a plurality of second signals that match the input signal search condition based on the input signal search condition;
performing, by the electronic device, a pairing analysis step, including: A1. when any of the plurality of first signals is found to be preceded by one corresponding second signal, recording a first time parameter between the first signal and the corresponding second signal thereof;
A2. at least analyzing the plurality of first signals, the plurality of second signals and the plurality of first time parameters to
generate a statistical result.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘performing’ limitation in # 5 above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “performing” in the context of this claim limitation encompasses a person thinking about conditions for gathering data.
The ‘searching’ limitations in # 7 and 8 above, as claimed and under BRI, are mental processes that cover performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, “searching” in the context of this claim encompasses the person monitoring, observing, and/or evaluating data.
The ‘analyzing’ limitation in # 10 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “analyzing” in the context of this claim limitation encompasses the person evaluating data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘receives’ limitation in # 1 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “receiving” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘generates’ limitation in # 2 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data outputting / manipulation. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘loading’ limitation in # 3 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, “loading” in the context of this claim encompasses generically loading instructions to apply the abstract idea of analyzing. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘…are recorded’ limitation in # 4 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “recording” in the context of this claim encompasses mere storage of data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘generating’ limitation in # 6 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data outputting / manipulation (per, e.g., Fig. 5 of the instant drawings). See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘recording’ limitation in # 9 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “recording” in the context of this claim encompasses mere storage of data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘generate’ limitation in # 11 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data outputting / manipulation. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, one or more of the claims recite the following additional elements:
a device under test, and
an electronic device.
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply an exception. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than components comprising mere instructions to apply an exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Additionally, with regards to # 1-4, 6, 9, and 11 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), 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); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claim 2 recites:
wherein step A1 of the pairing analysis step includes: when any of the plurality of first signals is not found to be preceded by one corresponding second signal, recording it as a packet loss and recording a second time parameter corresponding to the packet loss;
wherein, in step A2, the plurality of first signals, the plurality of second signals, the plurality of first time parameters and the plurality of second time parameters are analyzed to
generate the statistical result.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘…are analyzed’ limitation in # 13 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “analyzing” in the context of this claim limitation encompasses the person evaluating data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘recording’ limitation in # 12 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “recording” in the context of this claim encompasses mere storage of data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The ‘generate’ limitation in # 14 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data outputting / manipulation. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to # 12 and 14 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), 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:
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; and
iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claim 3 recites:
in step A1 of the pairing analysis step, whether one second signal is present in a time period between two adjacent first signals is searched;
if so, each of the first time parameters recorded is a time interval between the second signal and the first signal, which is present after the second signal in a time sequence;
if not, each of the second time parameters recorded is a position of the first signal corresponding to the packet loss in the time sequence.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘…is searched’ limitation in # 15 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, “searching” in the context of this claim encompasses the person monitoring, observing, and/or evaluating data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
In # 16 above, the claimed first time parameters (per Claim 2) are merely further described as a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
In # 17 above, the claimed second time parameters (per Claim 2) are merely further described as a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 4 recites:
in step A1 of the pairing analysis step, an output packet loss is recorded and
a third time parameter corresponding to the output packet loss is recorded when two or more second signals are found in the time period between two adjacent first signals.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s). The abstract idea(s) of Claim 4 are the same as the abstract idea(s) of Claim 3.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘…is recorded’ limitations in # 18 and 19 above, as claimed and under BRI, are additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “recording” in the context of this claim encompasses mere storage of data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to # 18 and 19 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), 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:
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claim 5 recites:
step A1 of the pairing analysis step further includes searching whether one second signal is present in a predetermined time period before the first signal, which is the first among the first signals in the time sequence;
when one second signal is present in a predetermined time period before the first signal, which is the first among the first signals in the time sequence, a time interval between the first signal, which is the first among the first signals in the time sequence, and the corresponding second signal is recorded to form another first time parameters.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘searching’ limitation in # 20 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, “searching” in the context of this claim encompasses the person monitoring, observing, and/or evaluating data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘…is recorded’ limitation in # 21 above, as claimed and under BRI, is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “recording” in the context of this claim encompasses mere storage of data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to # 21 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), 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:
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claim 6 recites:
in step A1 of the pairing analysis step, whether one second signal is present in a predetermined time period before each of the first signals is searched;
if so, each of the first time parameters recorded is a time interval between the second signal and the corresponding first signal;
if not, each of the second time parameters recorded is a position of the first signal corresponding to the packet loss in the time sequence.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘…is searched’ limitation in # 22 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, “searching” in the context of this claim encompasses the person monitoring, observing, and/or evaluating data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
In # 23 above, the claimed first time parameters (per Claim 2) are merely further described as a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
In # 24 above, the claimed second time parameters (per Claim 2) are merely further described as a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claims 7 and 8 merely further describe the claimed time interval of Claims 3 and 6, respectively, as a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 9 recites:
the setting step includes setting a start reference time point of the input signal to be searched and an end reference time point of the output signal to be searched;
in step A1, the time interval is a time difference between the start reference time point and the end reference time point.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘setting’ limitation in # 25 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “setting” in the context of this claim limitation encompasses the person thinking about conditions for gathering data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
In # 26 above, the claimed time interval (per Claim 3) is merely further described as a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 10 recites:
the setting step includes setting a start reference time point of the input signal to be searched and an end reference time point of the output signal to be searched;
in step A1, the time interval is a time difference between the start reference time point and the end reference time point.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘setting’ limitation in # 27 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “setting” in the context of this claim limitation encompasses the person thinking about conditions for gathering data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
In # 28 above, the claimed time interval (per Claim 6) is merely further described as a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Claim 11 recites:
the setting step includes setting a plurality of pairing groups; wherein, in the setting step, the search condition for the input signals to be searched and the search condition for the output signals to be searched for each pairing group are set
to respectively generate the input signal search condition and the output signal search condition for each pairing group;
wherein, in the search step, based on the output signal search condition for each pairing group, the plurality of output signals in the signal file are searched to find the plurality of first signals that match the output signal search condition for each pairing group, and
based on the input signal search condition for each pairing group, the plurality of input signals in the signal file are searched to find the plurality of second signals that match the input signal search condition for each pairing group;
wherein, in the pairing analysis step, step A1 and step A2 are performed for each pairing group to generate the statistical result for each pairing group.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘setting’ limitation in # 29 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “setting” in the context of this claim limitation encompasses the person thinking about conditions for gathering data.
The ‘…are searched’ limitations in # 31 and 32 above, as claimed and under BRI, are mental processes that cover performance of the limitations in the mind. For example, “searching” in the context of this claim encompasses the person monitoring, observing, and/or evaluating data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The ‘…to…generate’ limitations in # 30 and 33 above, as claimed and under BRI, are additional elements that are insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “generating” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data outputting / manipulation. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regards to # 30 and 33 above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(Il), 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:
iv. Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Claim 12 recites:
the setting step includes setting a tolerance time for the input signals to be searched;
the search step includes ignoring any of the input signals whose duration is less than the tolerance time.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘setting’ limitation in # 34 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “setting” in the context of this claim limitation encompasses the person thinking about conditions for gathering data.
The ‘ignoring’ limitation in # 35 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “ignoring” in the context of this claim limitation encompasses the person not thinking about conditions associated with data.
Claim 13 recites:
the setting step includes setting a bouncing time for the input signals to be searched;
wherein, in the search step, each of the second signals is one input signal whose duration is greater than the bouncing time and matches the input signal search condition.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes: a process.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes: (an) abstract idea(s).
The ‘setting’ limitation in # 36 above, as claimed and under BRI, is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “setting” in the context of this claim limitation encompasses the person thinking about conditions for gathering data.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
In # 37 above, the claimed second signals (per Claim 1) are merely further described as a field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
For at least the reasoning provided above, Claims 1-13 are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neuder et al. (U.S. Patent No. 4,641,348), hereinafter “Neuder.”
With regards to Claim 1, Neuder teaches:
a signal pairing analysis method for analyzing a device under test (Fig. 1A and col. 4, lines 5-7; regarding, e.g., a target system under test.) that receives an input signal (Fig. 1A and col. 4, lines 7-11; regarding, e.g., one or more signals received from, e.g., probe 3a and fed into the target system under test.) and generates a corresponding output signal (Fig. 1A and col. 4, lines 15-35; regarding, e.g., any one or more of data signals 6a-h, 6i-p, 8a-p, and/or 13a-p.), comprising steps of:
loading, by an electronic device (Figs. 1A-1C and col. 7, lines 51-60; regarding, e.g., a timing analyzer including microprocessor 24 and memory 25.), a signal file to be analyzed (Figs. 1B-1C & 2; col. 7, lines 51-68; and col. 8, lines 1-6; regarding, e.g., a trace file loaded from RAM 20.), in which a plurality of input signals and a plurality of output signals captured from the device under test are recorded (Figs. 1B-1C & 2; col. 7, lines 51-68; and col. 8, lines 1-6; regarding, e.g., displayed rising and falling edges of waveform signals from the trace file.);
performing, by the electronic device, a setting step, including setting a search condition for the input signals to be searched (col. 11, lines 1-17; Fig. 4; and col. 14, lines 20-38; regarding, e.g., a user requesting, per a trace specification, inferential marking via a search through trace data.) and a search condition for the output signals to be searched (col. 11, lines 1-17; Fig. 4; and col. 14, lines 20-38.), and respectively generating an input signal search condition (col. 11, lines 1-17; col. 11, lines 60-68; col. 12, lines 1-10; Fig. 4; and col. 14, lines 20-38.) and an output signal search condition accordingly (col. 11, lines 1-17; col. 11, lines 60-68; col. 12, lines 1-10; Fig. 4; and col. 14, lines 20-38.);
performing, by the electronic device, a search step, including: searching among the plurality of output signals in the signal file to find a plurality of first signals that match the output signal search condition based on the output signal search condition (Fig. 5; col. 15, lines 15-37; regarding, e.g., implementing a FIND_MARKS routine; col. 15, lines 66-68; col. 16, lines 1-33; col. 11, lines 60-68; and col. 12, lines 1-10.), and searching among the plurality of input signals in the signal file to find a plurality of second signals that match the input signal search condition based on the input signal search condition (Fig. 5; col. 15, lines 15-37; col. 15, lines 66-68; col. 16, lines 1-33; col. 11, lines 60-68; and col. 12, lines 1-10.);
performing, by the electronic device, a pairing analysis step, including:
A1. when any of the plurality of first signals is found to be preceded by one corresponding second signal, recording a first time parameter between the first signal and the corresponding second signal thereof (Fig. 2; col. 8, lines 28-54; regarding, e.g., entering U56_Pin_1 = 1 after mark ‘x’ [{a} first signal{s}] and, e.g., entering U56_Pin_1 = 1 after a trigger condition [a second signal]; Fig. 5; and col. 15, lines 27-37.);
A2. at least analyzing the plurality of first signals, the plurality of second signals and the plurality of first time parameters to generate a statistical result (Fig. 2 and col. 8, lines 28-54.).
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 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neuder, and further in view of Chheda et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 7,596,792 B2), hereinafter “Chheda.”
With regards to Claim 12, Neuder teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Neuder does not explicitly teach:
wherein the setting step includes setting a tolerance time for the input signals to be searched; the search step includes ignoring any of the input signals whose duration is less than the tolerance time in accordance with the method of Claim 1.
However, Chheda teaches:
wherein the setting step includes setting a tolerance time for the input signals to be searched; the search step includes ignoring any of the input signals whose duration is less than the tolerance time (Fig. 4 and col. 5, lines 29-49; regarding, e.g., a minimum pulse width / duration [a tolerance time].).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Neuder with ignoring pulses that are not greater than a minimum width as taught by Chheda because adding conditions such as corresponding a signal with a minimum width can distinguish an actual event over an inconsequential momentary switch (Chheda: col. 5, lines 34-37) and eliminate recording unnecessary data.
With regards to Claim 13, Neuder teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Neuder further teaches:
and matches the input signal search condition (Fig. 5; col. 15, lines 15-37; col. 15, lines 66-68; col. 16, lines 1-33; col. 11, lines 60-68; and col. 12, lines 1-10.).
Neuder does not explicitly teach:
wherein the setting step includes setting a bouncing time for the input signals to be searched; wherein, in the search step, each of the second signals is one input signal whose duration is greater than the bouncing time in accordance with the method of Claim 1.
However, Chheda teaches:
wherein the setting step includes setting a bouncing time for the input signals to be searched; wherein, in the search step, each of the second signals is one input signal whose duration is greater than the bouncing time (Fig. 4 and col. 5, lines 29-49.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to combine Neuder with ignoring pulses that cause signal bounce as taught by Chheda because adding conditions such as corresponding a signal with a minimum width can distinguish an actual event over an inconsequential momentary switch (Chheda: col. 5, lines 34-37) and eliminate recording unnecessary data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 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, and 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Beck et al. (U.S. Patent No. US 6,615,369 B1); teaching that waveform segment(s) of interest in the displayed logic analyzer trace can create the desire in an operator to re-define the trigger specification to be those segments. Those waveform segments are identified to the logic analyzer by drawing a "rubber band" box around them even as they are displayed as part of the trace. The analyzer is instructed to automatically create therefrom, by itself, the desired new trigger specification. It does this by inspecting the captured data corresponding to the contents of the box and creating a description of the associated signal(s) in terms of transitions and steady state conditions. These individual descriptions of activity are then assembled into a trigger specification according to certain rules. More than one box may be drawn. Multiple-boxes may be "stacked" to include waveform segments separated vertically by intervening waveforms for other signals that are to be excluded. Boxed transitions that appear to line up vertically are treated as though they happened at the same time, even if they in actual fact, did not. Multiple boxes may be displaced horizontally, in which case a sequential ordering of separate events is generally implied. Screens having auxiliary menus needed to complete the trigger specification are automatically produced.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH KUDIRKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 5pm ET.
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 (571) 272-0631. 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.
/JOSEPH R KUDIRKA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2114