DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Title Objection
2. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
3.1. The claim does not have any transitional phrases such as comprising, consisting of, etc., as required by the MPEP. Therefore, the claim needs to include one of those transitional in order to improve interpretation of the scope of the claim.
Furthermore, the Examiner interprets that as according to the transitional phrase “comprising”, which allows a broader interpretation, for the purpose of applying prior art to the rejection below.
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.
4. Claim 1-20 is 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.
5. Claim 1 is directed to “... determine error vectors based on the RF signal and based on the reference signal ... determine whether the reference signal is correct based on the determined error vectors”, which are mental-steps/mathematical-calculations that could also be performed by a general-purpose processor. The additional elements “A measurement instrument, wherein the measurement instrument comprises at least one input port and a measurement circuit, wherein the input port is configured to receive a radio frequency (RF) signal from a device under test, wherein the RF signal comprises a symbol sequence, wherein the measurement circuit is configured to receive the RF signal from the input port, wherein the measurement circuit comprises a reference signal circuit, wherein the reference signal circuit is configured to generate a reference signal based on the received RF signal, wherein the reference signal comprises an extracted symbol sequence corresponding to the symbol sequence of the RF signal, wherein the measurement circuit further comprises an error circuit, wherein the error circuit is configured to ... wherein the measurement circuit further comprises an analysis circuit, wherein the analysis circuit is configured to ...” are merely insignificant extra-solution activity that include but is not limited to data acquisition and/or that is simply the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry/measurement-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry/ measurement-context and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Independent claim 1 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
5.1. Step 1 (Statutory Category): claim 1 is directed to a measurement instrument, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a machine (Step 1: YES).
5.2.1. Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites: “... determine error vectors based on the RF signal and based on the reference signal ... determine whether the reference signal is correct based on the determined error vectors”, which are mental-steps/mathematical-calculations that could also be performed with the help of a pen and paper. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
5.2.2. Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): claim 1 does not claim a particular machine because the measurement instrument, measurement circuit, reference signal circuit, error circuit and analysis circuit are not claimed with sufficient specificity, which are part of a general purpose computer processor, and does not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state. Furthermore, the measurement-context, is simply linking the claim to a variety of technological environments, industries or fields of use but does not explain with sufficient details so one ordinary skilled in the art could determine an improvement in the measurement-context. Consequently, the claimed judicial-exception/abstract-idea above are/is not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations/mental-steps, thus, monopolizing the mental-steps/mathematical-calculations in a variety of technologies using measurement instruments, etc., and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO. There is no integration of said judicial-exception/abstract-idea into a practical application. The claim is just linking said judicial-exception/abstract-idea to a variety of technological environments, industries or fields).
5.3. Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): claim 1 recites the additional element(s) “A measurement instrument, wherein the measurement instrument comprises at least one input port and a measurement circuit, wherein the input port is configured to receive a radio frequency (RF) signal from a device under test, wherein the RF signal comprises a symbol sequence, wherein the measurement circuit is configured to receive the RF signal from the input port, wherein the measurement circuit comprises a reference signal circuit, wherein the reference signal circuit is configured to generate a reference signal based on the received RF signal, wherein the reference signal comprises an extracted symbol sequence corresponding to the symbol sequence of the RF signal, wherein the measurement circuit further comprises an error circuit, wherein the error circuit is configured to ... wherein the measurement circuit further comprises an analysis circuit, wherein the analysis circuit is configured to ...” of which when evaluated individually and as a whole, it is concluded that are/is simply mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea and/or routine and/or conventional activities that falls into a well-understood, routine, conventional activity and using well-understood, routine, conventional structure previously known, which includes but not limited to a microprocessor(s), sensors, and/or acquiring data that are insignificant extra solution activity (see the prior art references used in the rejections below, and prior art made of record below, and on the IDS). Therefore, the claim limitations individually and as whole do not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
6. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 2 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent measurement-context.
Furthermore, claim 2 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent measurement-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent measurement-context and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
7. Claim 3 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 3 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent measurement-context.
Furthermore, claim 3 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent measurement-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent measurement-context and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
8. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 4 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent measurement-context.
Furthermore, claim 4 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent measurement-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent measurement-context and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
9. Claim 5 depends on claim 4 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 5 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent measurement-context.
Furthermore, claim 5 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent measurement-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent measurement-context and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
10. Claim 6 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 6 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent measurement-context.
Furthermore, claim 6 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent measurement-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent measurement-context and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
11. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 7 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent measurement-context.
Furthermore, claim 7 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent measurement-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent measurement-context and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
12. Claim 8 depends on claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 8 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent measurement-context.
Furthermore, claim 8 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent measurement-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent measurement-context and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
13. Claim 9 depends on claim 8 depends on claim 7 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 9 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent measurement-context.
Furthermore, claim 9 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent measurement-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent measurement-context and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
14. Claim 10 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 10 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent measurement-context.
Furthermore, claim 10 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent measurement-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent measurement-context and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
15. Claim 11 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 11 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent measurement-context.
Furthermore, claim 11 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent measurement-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent measurement-context and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
16. Claim 12 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 12 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent measurement-context.
Furthermore, claim 12 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent measurement-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent measurement-context and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
17. Claim 13 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 13 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent measurement-context.
Furthermore, claim 13 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent measurement-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent measurement-context and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
18. Claim 14 depends on claim 13 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 14 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent measurement-context.
Furthermore, claim 14 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent measurement-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent measurement-context and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
19. Claim 15 depends on claim 13 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 15 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent measurement-context.
Furthermore, claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent measurement-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent measurement-context and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
20. Claim 16 depends on claim 13 that depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 16 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent measurement-context.
Furthermore, claim 16 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent measurement-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent measurement-context and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
21. Claim 17 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the same abstract idea with the same routine and conventional structure described above in said claim(s).
In addition, claim 17 further recites the element(s), which are/is simply more mental-steps/mathematical-calculations, value numbers, extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent measurement-context.
Furthermore, claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply involve routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent measurement-context that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent measurement-context and/or mere instructions to apply the judicial-exception/abstract-idea.
Examiner’s Note
22. All the words in the language of the claims of which the specifications do not provide a definition in the form stated in the MPEP, the examiner has interpreted them by their plain meanings, pursuant to the MPEP 2111.01 “Plain Meaning” and MPEP 2173.01.
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 of this title, 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.
23. Claim(s) 1, 3, 6 and 10-17 are/is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muto (Pub. No.: US 2005/0076072 hereinafter mentioned as “Muto”, which was submitted via IDS) in view of Ahmed et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0304075 hereinafter mentioned as “Ahmed”, which was submitted via IDS).
As per claim 1, Muto discloses:
A measurement instrument (Fig. 1, see the modulation analyzing apparatus 1. Also see [0035]),
wherein the measurement instrument comprises at least one input port (Fig. 1, the input to the data acquiring unit 12 of the modulation analyzing apparatus 1. Also see [0035]) and a measurement circuit (Fig. 1, see the circuits all together from data acquiring unit 12 to the modulation analyzing unit 34. Also see [0035]),
wherein the input port is configured to receive a radio frequency (RF) signal from a device under test (Fig. 1, the input to the data acquiring unit 12 receives RF signal from the QPSK of an implicit DUT. Also see [0036], [0062] and [0002]), wherein the RF signal comprises a symbol sequence (Fig. 5, see the sequency of the symbol point of the RF signal. Also see [0054]-[0055]),
wherein the measurement circuit (Fig. 1, see the circuits all together from data acquiring unit 12 to the modulation analyzing unit 34. Also see [0035]) is configured to receive the RF signal from the input port (Fig. 1, the input to the data acquiring unit 12 receives RF signal from the QPSK of an implicit DUT. Also see [0036], [0062] and [0002]),
wherein the measurement circuit (Fig. 1, see the circuits all together from data acquiring unit 12 to the modulation analyzing unit 34. Also see [0035]) comprises a reference signal circuit measurement circuit (Fig. 1, see the reference signal generating unit 18. Also see [0035]), wherein the reference signal circuit is configured to generate a reference signal (Also see [0041]) based on the received RF signal (Fig. 1, The input to the data acquiring unit 12 receives RF signal from the QPSK of an implicit DUT that demodulated and received by 18 to generate the reference signal. Also see [0036], [0062] and [0002]), wherein the reference signal comprises an extracted symbol sequence corresponding to the symbol sequence of the RF signal (see [0041]. The “extracted symbol sequence” is the sequence of points representation of the real-part and imaginary-part as reflected in Fig. 2),
wherein the measurement circuit (Fig. 1, see the circuits all together from data acquiring unit 12 to the modulation analyzing unit 34. Also see [0035]) further comprises an error circuit (Fig. 1, see the symbol point correcting unit 32. Also see [0059]), wherein the error circuit is configured to determine error based on the RF signal and based on the reference signal (see [0059] and/or [0106]), and
wherein the measurement circuit further comprises an analysis circuit, wherein the analysis circuit is configured to determine whether the reference signal is correct based on the determined error (Fig. 1, the part of circuit of the symbol point correcting unit 32 that implicitly determines to correct the reference signal. Also see [0088] and [0059]).
Muto discloses the error but does not explicitly disclose that said error is represented as a “vector”
However, Ahmed further discloses:
wherein the measurement circuit further comprises an error circuit (see [0035]), wherein the error circuit is configured to determine error vectors based on the RF signal and based on the reference signal (see [0038]-[0039]. The first error vector of Ahmed is determined based on the Rf signal of the DUT and reference signal OFDM), and
wherein the measurement circuit further comprises an analysis circuit, wherein the analysis circuit is configured to determine whether the reference signal is correct based on the determined error vectors (see [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the feature relative to error of Muto being a “vector”, as it is disclosed by Ahmed, with the motivation and expected benefit related to improving the system, method and measurements by providing an error vector magnitude (EVM) with computational efficiency that decrease testing time and increase the number of DUTs that can be evaluated (Ahmed, Paragraph [0005]-[0006]).
Furthermore, Ahmed states that “Although the embodiments above have been described in considerable detail, numerous variations and modifications will become apparent to those skilled in the art once the above disclosure is fully appreciated” (Ahmed, Paragraph [0153]).
As per claim 3, the combination of Muto and Ahmed discloses the measurement instrument according to claim 1.
Muto further discloses:
wherein the reference signal circuit is configured to demodulate the RF signal, thereby obtaining a demodulated RF signal (Fig. 1, see the demodulation unit 16. Also see [0041]), and
wherein the reference signal circuit (Fig. 1, see the reference signal generating unit 18. Also see [0035]) is configured to generate the reference signal based on the demodulated RF signal (see [0041]).
As per claim 6, the combination of Muto and Ahmed discloses the measurement instrument according to claim 1.
The combination of Muto and Ahmed, with the obvious motivation set forth above in claim-1, further discloses:
wherein the analysis circuit (Muto, Fig. 1, the part of circuit of the symbol point correcting unit 32 that implicitly determines to correct the reference signal. Also see [0088] and [0059]) is configured to estimate a symbol error rate of the RF signal (Muto, Figs. 5, the rate of change. Also see [0054]-[0055]) based on the determined error vectors (Ahmed, see [0038]-[0039]. The first error vector of Ahmed is determined based on the Rf signal of the DUT and reference signal OFDM).
As per claim 10, the combination of Muto and Ahmed discloses the measurement instrument according to claim 1.
The combination of Muto and Ahmed, with the obvious motivation set forth above in claim-1, further discloses:
wherein the analysis circuit (Fig. 1, the part of circuit of the symbol point correcting unit 32 that implicitly determines to correct the reference signal. Also see [0088] and [0059]) is configured to determine whether the reference signal is correct based on additional system information (see [0040]. The additional system information is the phase generated signal of Muto).
As per claim 11, the combination of Muto and Ahmed discloses the measurement instrument according to claim 1.
Muto further discloses:
wherein the symbol sequence comprised in the RF signal is unknown (Fig. 5, see the sequency of the symbol point of the RF signal. Furthermore, it is unknown until determined after being received. Also see [0054]-[0055]) to the measurement circuit (Fig. 1, see the circuits all together from data acquiring unit 12 to the modulation analyzing unit 34. Also see [0035]).
As per claim 12, the combination of Muto and Ahmed discloses the measurement instrument according to claim 1.
Muto further discloses:
wherein a modulation scheme of the RF signal is unknown (Fig. 1, the modulation scheme is unknown until the RF signal is received by the acquiring unit 12. Also see [0036], [0062] and [0002]) to the measurement circuit measurement circuit (Fig. 1, see the circuits all together from data acquiring unit 12 to the modulation analyzing unit 34. Also see [0035]).
As per claim 13, the combination of Muto and Ahmed discloses the measurement instrument according to claim 1.
The combination of Muto and Ahmed, with the obvious motivation set forth above in claim-1, further discloses:
wherein the analysis circuit (Muto, Fig. 1, the part of circuit of the symbol point correcting unit 32 that implicitly determines to correct the reference signal. Also see [0088] and [0059]) is configured to determine erroneous error vectors (Ahmed, see [0067] and [0090]. The signal of the RF component that does not pass verification and validation of the error vector magnitude EVM).
As per claim 14, the combination of Muto and Ahmed discloses the measurement instrument according to claim 13.
The combination of Muto and Ahmed, with the obvious motivation set forth above in claim-1, further discloses:
wherein the analysis circuit (Muto, Fig. 1, the part of circuit of the symbol point correcting unit 32 that implicitly determines to correct the reference signal. Also see [0088] and [0059]) is configured to determine erroneous components (Ahmed, see [0067] and [0090]. The RF verification and validation implicate determination of erroneous components) of the erroneous error vectors (Ahmed, see [0067] and [0090]. The signal of the RF component that does not pass verification and validation of the error vector magnitude EVM).
As per claim 15, the combination of Muto and Ahmed discloses the measurement instrument according to claim 13.
The combination of Muto and Ahmed, with the obvious motivation set forth above in claim-1, further discloses:
wherein the analysis circuit (Muto, Fig. 1, the part of circuit of the symbol point correcting unit 32 that implicitly determines to correct the reference signal. Also see [0088] and [0059]) is configured to correct (Ahmed, see [0082]-[0084]) the determined erroneous error vectors (Ahmed, see [0067] and [0090]. The signal of the RF component that does not pass verification and validation of the error vector magnitude EVM).
As per claim 16, the combination of Muto and Ahmed discloses the measurement instrument according to claim 13.
The combination of Muto and Ahmed, with the obvious motivation set forth above in claim-1, further discloses:
wherein the analysis circuit (Muto, Fig. 1, the part of circuit of the symbol point correcting unit 32 that implicitly determines to correct the reference signal. Also see [0088] and [0059]) is configured to discard the determined erroneous error vectors (Ahmed, see [0067] and [0090]. The signal of the RF component that does not pass verification and validation of the error vector magnitude EVM, therefore, it is implicit the claimed “discard”).
As per claim 17, the combination of Muto and Ahmed discloses the measurement instrument according to claim 1.
The combination of Muto and Ahmed, with the obvious motivation set forth above in claim-1, further discloses:
wherein the measurement instrument is a signal analyzer, a spectrum analyzer, or an oscilloscope (Ahmed, see [0090]).
24. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a) Petrovic (Pub. No.: US 2021/0266243, which was submitted via IDS) teaches that “the at least one device under test may be approved if the respective value of tall of he determined individual error quantities is below the threshold value, i.e. if the rate of erroneous symbols is within a range that is deemed to be acceptable in all of the frequency sub-bands” (Paragraph [0041]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVARO E. FORTICH whose telephone number is (571) 272-0944. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday from 8:30am to 5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Huy Phan, can be reached on (571)272-7924. 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.
/ALVARO E FORTICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights