prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What types of data did the authors use in their experiments?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 1: \section{Introduction}
\label{sec:introduction}

Probabilistic models have proven to be very useful in a lot of applications in signal processing where signal estimation is needed \cite{rabiner1989tutorial,arulampalam2002tutorial,ji2008bayesian}  Some of their advantages are that 1) they force the designer to specify all the assumptions of the model, 2) they provide a clear separation between the model and the algorithm used to solve it, and 3) they usually provide some measure of uncertainty about the estimation 

On the other hand, adaptive filtering is a standard approach in estimation problems when the input is received as a stream of data that is potentially non-stationary  This approach is widely understood and applied to several problems such as echo cancellation \cite{gilloire1992adaptive}, noise cancellation \cite{nelson1991active}, and channel equalization \cite{falconer2002frequency} 

Although these two approaches share some underlying relations, there are very few connections in the literature  The first important attempt in the signal processing community to relate these two fields was the connection between a linear Gaussian state-space model (i e  Kalman filter) and the RLS filter, by Sayed and Kailath \cite{sayed1994state} and then by Haykin \emph{et al } \cite{haykin1997adaptive}  The RLS adaptive filtering algorithm emerges naturally when one defines a particular state-space model (SSM) and then performs exact inference in that model  This approach was later exploited in \cite{van2012kernel} to design a kernel RLS algorithm based on Gaussian processes 

A first attempt to approximate the LMS filter from a probabilistic perspective was presented in \cite{park2014probabilistic}, focusing on a kernel-based implementation  The algorithm of \cite{park2014probabilistic} makes use of a Maximum a Posteriori (MAP) estimate as an approximation for the predictive step  However, this approximation does not preserve the estimate of the uncertainty in each step, therefore degrading the performance of the algorithm 

In this work, we provide a similar connection between state-space models and least-mean-squares (LMS)  Our approach is based on approximating the posterior distribution with an isotropic Gaussian distribution  We show how the computation of this approximated posterior leads to a linear-complexity algorithm, comparable to the standard LMS  Similar approaches have already been developed for a variety of problems such as channel equalization using recurrent RBF neural networks \cite{cid1994recurrent}, or Bayesian forecasting \cite{harrison1999bayesian}  Here, we show the usefulness of this probabilistic approach for adaptive filtering 

The probabilistic perspective we adopt throughout this work presents two main advantages  Firstly, a novel LMS algorithm with adaptable step size emerges naturally with this approach, making it suitable for both stationary and non-stationary environments  The proposed algorithm has less free parameters than previous LMS algorithms with variable step size \cite{kwong1992variable,aboulnasr1997robust,shin2004variable}, and its parameters are easier to be tuned w r t  these algorithms and standard LMS  Secondly, the use of a probabilistic model provides us with an estimate of the error variance, which is useful in many applications 

Experiments with simulated and real data show the advantages of the presented approach with respect to previous works  However, we remark that the main contribution of this paper is that it opens the door to introduce more Bayesian machine learning techniques, such as variational inference and Monte Carlo sampling methods \cite{barber2012bayesian}, to adaptive filtering \\


\section{Probabilistic Model}

Throughout this work, we assume the observation model to be linear-Gaussian with the following distribution,

\begin{equation}
p(y_k|{\bf w}_k) = \mathcal{N}(y_k;{\bf x}_k^T {\bf w}_k , \sigma_n^2),
\label{eq:mess_eq}
\end{equation}
where  $\sigma_n^2$ is the variance of the observation noise, ${\bf x}_k$ is the regression vector and ${\bf w}_k$ is the parameter vector to be sequentially estimated, both $M$-dimensional column vectors 


In a non-stationary scenario, ${\bf w}_k$ follows a dynamic process  In particular, we consider a diffusion process (random-walk model) with variance $\sigma_d^2$ for this parameter vector:


\begin{equation}
p({\bf w}_k|{\bf w}_{k-1})= \mathcal{N}({\bf w}_k;{\bf w}_{k-1}, \sigma_d^2 {\bf I}),
\label{eq:trans_eq}
\end{equation}
where $\bf I$ denotes the identity matrix  In order to initiate the recursion, we assume the following prior distribution on ${\bf w}_k$

\begin{equation}
p({\bf w}_0)= \mathcal{N}({\bf w}_0;0, \sigma_d^2{\bf I}) \nonumber
\end{equation}

\section{Exact inference in this model: Revisiting the RLS filter}

Given the described probabilistic SSM, we would like to infer the posterior probability distribution $p({\bf w}_k|y_{1:k})$ 
Since all involved distributions are Gaussian, one can perform exact inference, leveraging the probability rules in a straightforward manner  The resulting probability distribution is
\begin{equation}
p({\bf w}_k|y_{1:k}) =  \mathcal{N}({\bf w}_k;{\bf\boldsymbol\mu}_{k}, \boldsymbol\Sigma_{k}), \nonumber
\end{equation}
in which the mean vector ${\bf\boldsymbol\mu}_{k}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
{\bf\boldsymbol\mu}_k = {\bf\boldsymbol\mu}_{k-1} + {\bf K}_k (y_k - {\bf x}_k^T {\bf\boldsymbol\mu}_{k-1}){\bf x}_k, \nonumber
\end{equation}
where we have introduced the auxiliary variable
\begin{equation}
{\bf K}_k = \frac{ \left(\boldsymbol\Sigma_{k-1} + \sigma_d^2 {\bf I}\right)}{{\bf x}_k^T  \left(\boldsymbol\Sigma_{k-1} + \sigma_d^2 {\bf I}\right)  {\bf x}_k + \sigma_n^2}, \nonumber
\end{equation}
and the covariance matrix $\boldsymbol\Sigma_k$ is obtained as
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol\Sigma_k = \left( {\bf I} -  {\bf K}_k{\bf x}_k {\bf x}_k^T \right) ( \boldsymbol\Sigma_{k-1} +\sigma_d^2), \nonumber
\end{equation}
Note that the mode of $p({\bf w}_k|y_{1:k})$, i e  the maximum-a-posteriori estimate (MAP), coincides with the RLS adaptive rule
\begin{equation}
{{\bf w}}_k^{(RLS)} = {{\bf w}}_{k-1}^{(RLS)} + {\bf K}_k (y_k - {\bf x}_k^T {{\bf w}}_{k-1}^{(RLS)}){\bf x}_k  
\label{eq:prob_rls}
\end{equation}
This rule is similar to the one introduced in \cite{haykin1997adaptive} 

Finally, note that the covariance matrix $\boldsymbol\Sigma_k$ is a measure of the uncertainty of the estimate ${\bf w}_k$ conditioned on the observed data $y_{1:k}$  Nevertheless, for many applications a single scalar summarizing the variance of the estimate could prove to be sufficiently useful  In the next section, we show how such a scalar is obtained naturally when $p({\bf w}_k|y_{1:k})$ is approximated with an isotropic Gaussian distribution  We also show that this approximation leads to an LMS-like estimation 
 


\section{Approximating the posterior distribution: LMS filter }

The proposed approach consists in approximating the posterior distribution $p({\bf w}_k|y_{1:k})$, in general a multivariate Gaussian distribution with a full covariance matrix, by an isotropic spherical Gaussian distribution 

\begin{equation}
\label{eq:aprox_post}
\hat{p}({\bf w}_{k}|y_{1:k})=\mathcal{N}({\bf w}_{k};{\bf \hat{\boldsymbol\mu}}_{k}, \hat{\sigma}_{k}^2 {\bf I} ) 
\end{equation}

In order to estimate the mean and covariance of the approximate distribution $\hat{p}({\bf w}_{k}|y_{1:k})$, we propose to select those that minimize the Kullback-Leibler divergence with respect to the original distribution, i e , 

\begin{equation}
\{\hat{\boldsymbol\mu}_k,\hat{\sigma}_k\}=\arg \displaystyle{  \min_{\hat{\boldsymbol\mu}_k,\hat{\sigma}_k}} \{ D_{KL}\left(p({\bf w}_{k}|y_{1:k}))\| \hat{p}({\bf w}_{k}|y_{1:k})\right) \}  \nonumber
\end{equation}

The derivation of the corresponding minimization problem can be found in Appendix A  In particular, the optimal mean and the covariance are found as
\begin{equation}
{\hat{\boldsymbol\mu}}_{k} = {\boldsymbol\mu}_{k};~~~~~~ \hat{\sigma}_{k}^2 = \frac{{\sf Tr}\{ \boldsymbol\Sigma_k\} }{M} 
\label{eq:sigma_hat}
\end{equation}


We now show that by using \eqref{eq:aprox_post} in the recursive predictive and filtering expressions we obtain an LMS-like adaptive rule  First, let us assume that we have an approximate posterior distribution at $k-1$, $\hat{p}({\bf w}_{k-1}|y_{1:k-1}) =  \mathcal{N}({\bf w}_{k-1};\hat{\bf\boldsymbol\mu}_{k-1}, \hat{\sigma}_{k-1}^2 {\bf I} )$  Since all involved distributions are Gaussian, the predictive distribution
is obtained as %
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{p}({\bf w}_k|y_{1:k-1}) &=& \int p({\bf w}_k|{\bf w}_{k-1}) \hat{p}({\bf w}_{k-1}|y_{1:k-1}) d{\bf w}_{k-1} \nonumber\\
&=& \mathcal{N}({\bf w}_k;{\bf\boldsymbol\mu}_{k|k-1}, \boldsymbol\Sigma_{k|k-1}), 
\label{eq:approx_pred}
\end{eqnarray}
where the mean vector and covariance matrix are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{\bf\boldsymbol\mu}_{k|k-1} &=& \hat{\bf\boldsymbol\mu}_{k-1} \nonumber \\
\hat{\boldsymbol\Sigma}_{k|k-1} &=& (\hat{\sigma}_{k-1}^2 + \sigma_d^2 ){\bf I}\nonumber 
\end{eqnarray}

From \eqref{eq:approx_pred}, the posterior distribution at time $k$ can be computed using Bayes' Theorem and standard Gaussian manipulations (see for instance \cite[Ch  4]{murphy2012machine})  Then, we approximate the posterior $p({\bf w}_k|y_{1:k})$ with an isotropic Gaussian,
\begin{equation}
\hat{p}({\bf w}_k|y_{1:k}) =  \mathcal{N}({\bf w}_k ; {\hat{\boldsymbol\mu}}_{k}, \hat{\sigma}_k^2 {\bf I} ),\nonumber
\end{equation}
where 
\begin{eqnarray}
{\hat{\boldsymbol\mu}}_{k} &= & {\hat{\boldsymbol\mu}}_{k-1}+ \frac{ (\hat{\sigma}_{k-1}^2+ \sigma_d^2)  }{(\hat{\sigma}_{k-1}^2+ \sigma_d^2)  \|{\bf x}_k\|^2 + \sigma_n^2} (y_k - {\bf x}_k^T {\hat{\boldsymbol\mu}}_{k-1}){\bf x}_k  \nonumber  \\
&=& {\hat{\boldsymbol\mu}}_{k-1}+ \eta_k (y_k - {\bf x}_k^T {\hat{\boldsymbol\mu}}_{k-1}){\bf x}_k   
\label{eq:prob_lms}
\end{eqnarray}
Note that, instead of a gain matrix ${\bf K}_k$ as in Eq ~\eqref{eq:prob_rls}, we now have a scalar gain $\eta_k$ that operates as a variable step size 


Finally, to obtain the posterior variance, which is our measure of uncertainty, we apply \eqref{eq:sigma_hat} and the trick ${\sf Tr}\{{\bf x}_k{\bf x}_k^T\}= {\bf x}_k^T{\bf x}_k= \|{\bf x}_k \|^2$,

\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{\sigma}_k^2 &=& \frac{{\sf Tr}(\boldsymbol\Sigma_k)}{M} \\
&=& \frac{1}{M}{\sf Tr}\left\{ \left( {\bf I} -  \eta_k {\bf x}_k {\bf x}_k^T \right) (\hat{\sigma}_{k-1}^2 +\sigma_d^2)\right\} \\
&=& \left(1 - \frac{\eta_k \|{\bf x}_k\|^2}{M}\right)(\hat{\sigma}_{k-1}^2 +\sigma_d^2) 
\label{eq:sig_k}
\end{eqnarray}
If MAP estimation is performed, we obtain  an adaptable step-size LMS estimation

\begin{equation}
{\bf w}_{k}^{(LMS)} = {\bf w}_{k-1}^{(LMS)} + \eta_k (y_k - {\bf x}_k^T {\bf w}_{k-1}^{(LMS)}){\bf x}_k, 	
\label{eq:lms}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\eta_k = \frac{ (\hat{\sigma}_{k-1}^2+ \sigma_d^2)  }{(\hat{\sigma}_{k-1}^2+ \sigma_d^2)  \|{\bf x}_k\|^2 + \sigma_n^2} \nonumber
\end{equation}
At this point, several interesting remarks can be made:

\begin{itemize}

\item The adaptive rule \eqref{eq:lms} has linear complexity since it does not require us to compute the full matrix $\boldsymbol\Sigma_k$ 

\item For a stationary model, we have $\sigma_d^2=0$ in \eqref{eq:prob_lms} and \eqref{eq:sig_k}  In this case, the algorithm remains valid and both the step size and the error variance, $\hat{\sigma}_{k}$, vanish over time $k$  

\item Finally, the proposed adaptable step-size LMS has only two parameters, $\sigma_d^2$ and $\sigma_n^2$, (and only one, $\sigma_n^2$, in stationary scenarios) in contrast to other variable step-size algorithms \cite{kwong1992variable,aboulnasr1997robust,shin2004variable}  More interestingly, both $\sigma_d^2$ and $\sigma_n^2$ have a clear underlying physical meaning, and they can be estimated in many cases  We will comment more about this in the next section  
\end{itemize}



\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:experiments}

We evaluate the performance of the proposed algorithm in both stationary and tracking experiments  In the first experiment, we estimate a fixed vector ${\bf w}^{o}$ of dimension $M=50$  The entries of the vector are independently and uniformly chosen in the range $[-1,1]$  Then, the vector is normalized so that $\|{\bf w}^o\|=1$  Regressors $\boldsymbol{x}_{k}$ are zero-mean Gaussian vectors with identity covariance matrix  The additive noise variance is such that the SNR is $20$ dB  We compare our algorithm with standard RLS and three other LMS-based algorithms: LMS, NLMS \cite{sayed2008adaptive}, VSS-LMS \cite{shin2004variable} \footnote{The used parameters for each algorithm are: for RLS $\lambda=1$, $\epsilon^{-1}=0 01$; for LMS $\mu=0 01$; for NLMS $\mu=0 5$; and for VSS-LMS $\mu_{max}=1$, $\alpha=0 95$, $C=1e-4$ } The probabilistic LMS algorithm in \cite{park2014probabilistic} is not simulated because it is not suitable for stationary environments 

In stationary environments, the proposed algorithm has only one parameter, $\sigma^2_n$  We simulate both the scenario where we have perfectly knowledge of the amount of noise (probLMS1) and the case where the value $\sigma^2_n$ is $100$ times smaller than the actual value (probLMS2)  The Mean-Square Deviation (${\sf MSD} = {\mathbb E} \| {\bf w}_0 - {\bf w}_k \|^2$), averaged out over $50$ independent simulations, is presented in Fig  \ref{fig:msd_statationary} 



\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[b]{\linewidth}
  \centering
  \centerline{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{results_stationary_MSD}}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Performance in terms of MSD of probabilistic LMS with both optimal (probLMS1) and suboptimal (probLMS2) compared to LMS, NLMS, VS-LMS, and RLS }
\label{fig:msd_statationary}
\end{figure}

The performance of probabilistic LMS is close to RLS (obviously at a much lower computational cost) and largely outperforms previous variable step-size LMS algorithms proposed in the literature  Note that, when the model is stationary, i e  $\sigma^2_d=0$ in \eqref{eq:trans_eq},  both the uncertainty $\hat{\sigma}^2_k$, and the adaptive step size $\eta_k$, vanish over time  This implies that the error tends to zero when $k$ goes to infinity  Fig  \ref{fig:msd_statationary} also shows that the proposed approach is not very sensitive to a bad choice of its only parameter, as demonstrated by the good results of probLMS2, which uses a $\sigma^2_n$ that is $100$ times smaller than the optimal value  


\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[b]{\linewidth}
  \centering
  \centerline{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fig2_final}}
\end{minipage}
\caption{Real part of one coefficient of the measured and estimated channel in experiment two  The shaded area represents two standard deviations from the prediction {(the mean of the posterior distribution)} }
\label{fig_2}
\end{figure}


\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{footnotesize}
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2pt}
\def1 5mm{1 5mm}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l@{\hspace{1 5mm}}|c@{\hspace{1 5mm}}|c@{\hspace{1 5mm}}|c@{\hspace{1 5mm}}|c@{\hspace{1 5mm}}|c@{\hspace{1 5mm}}|c@{\hspace{1 5mm}}|}
\hline
Method &  LMS &  NLMS & LMS-2013 & VSSNLMS & probLMS & RLS \\
\hline
\hline
MSD (dB) &-28 45 &-21 07 &-14 36 &-26 90 &-28 36 &-25 97\\
\hline                                                                     
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Steady-state MSD of the different algorithms for the tracking of a real MISO channel }
\label{tab:table_MSD}
\end{footnotesize}

\end{table}
\newpage
In a second experiment, we test the tracking capabilities of the proposed algorithm with {real} data of a wireless MISO channel acquired in a realistic indoor scenario  More details on the setup can be found in \cite{gutierrez2011frequency}  Fig  \ref{fig_2} shows the real part of one of the channels, and the estimate of the proposed algorithm  The shaded area represents the estimated uncertainty for each prediction, i e  $\hat{\mu}_k\pm2\hat{\sigma}_k$  Since the experimental setup does not allow us to obtain the optimal values for the parameters, we fix these parameters to their values that optimize the steady-state mean square deviation (MSD)  \hbox{Table \ref{tab:table_MSD}} shows this steady-state MSD of the estimate of the MISO channel with different methods  As can be seen, the best tracking performance is obtained by standard LMS and the proposed method  





\section{Conclusions and Opened Extensions}
\label{sec:conclusions}

{We have presented a probabilistic interpretation of the least-mean-square filter  The resulting algorithm is an adaptable step-size LMS that performs well both in stationary and tracking scenarios  Moreover, it has fewer free parameters than previous approaches and these parameters have a clear physical meaning  Finally, as stated in the introduction, one of the advantages of having a probabilistic model is that it is easily extensible:}

\begin{itemize}
\item If, instead of using an isotropic Gaussian distribution in the approximation, we used a Gaussian with diagonal covariance matrix, we would obtain a similar algorithm with different step sizes and measures of uncertainty, for each component of ${\bf w}_k$  Although this model can be more descriptive, it needs more parameters to be tuned, and the parallelism with LMS vanishes 
\item Similarly, if we substitute the transition model of \eqref{eq:trans_eq} by an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck process, 

\begin{equation}
p({\bf w}_k|{\bf w}_{k-1})= \mathcal{N}({\bf w}_k;\lambda {\bf w}_{k-1}, \sigma_d^2), \nonumber
\label{eq:trans_eq_lambda}
\end{equation}
a similar algorithm is obtained but with a forgetting factor $\lambda$ multiplying ${\bf w}_{k-1}^{(LMS)}$ in \eqref{eq:lms}  This algorithm may have improved performance under such a kind of autoregresive dynamics of ${\bf w}_{k}$, though, again, the connection with standard LMS becomes dimmer 

\item As in \cite{park2014probabilistic}, the measurement model \eqref{eq:mess_eq} can be changed to obtain similar adaptive algorithms for classification, ordinal regression, and Dirichlet regression for compositional data  

\item A similar approximation technique could be applied to more complex dynamical models, i e  switching dynamical models \cite{barber2010graphical}  The derivation of efficient adaptive algorithms that explicitly take into account a switch in the dynamics of the parameters of interest is a non-trivial and open problem, though the proposed approach could be useful 

\item Finally, like standard LMS, this algorithm can be kernelized for its application in estimation under non-linear scenarios 

\end{itemize}


\begin{appendices}

\section{KL divergence between a general gaussian distribution and an isotropic gaussian}
\label{sec:kl}

 We want to approximate  $p_{{\bf x}_1}(x) = \mathcal{N}({\bf x}; \boldsymbol\mu_1,\boldsymbol\Sigma_1)$ by $p_{{\bf x}_2}({\bf x}) = \mathcal{N}({\bf x}; \boldsymbol\mu_2,\sigma_2^2 {\bf I})$  In order to do so, we have to compute the parameters of $p_{{\bf x}_2}({\bf x})$, $\boldsymbol\mu_2$ and $\sigma_2^2$, that minimize the following Kullback-Leibler divergence,

\begin{eqnarray}
D_{KL}(p_{{\bf x}_1}\| p_{{\bf x}_2}) &=&\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} p_{{\bf x}_1}({\bf x}) \ln{\frac{p_{{\bf x}_1}({\bf x})}{p_{{\bf x}_2}({\bf x})}}d{\bf x} \nonumber  \\
&= &  \frac{1}{2} \{ -M + {\sf Tr}(\sigma_2^{-2} {\bf I}\cdot \boldsymbol\Sigma_1^{-1})  \nonumber \\
  & &  + (\boldsymbol\mu_2 - \boldsymbol\mu_1 )^T \sigma^{-2}_2{\bf I} (\boldsymbol\mu_2 - \boldsymbol\mu_1 )  \nonumber \\
 & &   +  \ln \frac{{\sigma_2^2}^M}{\det\boldsymbol\Sigma_1} \}   
\label{eq:divergence}
\end{eqnarray}
Using symmetry arguments, we obtain 
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol\mu_2^{*} =\arg \displaystyle{  \min_{\boldsymbol\mu_2}} \{ D_{KL}(p_{{\bf x}_1}\| p_{{\bf x}_2}) \} = \boldsymbol\mu_1 
\end{equation}
Then, \eqref{eq:divergence} gets simplified into 

\begin{eqnarray}
D_{KL}(p_{{\bf x}_1}\| p_{{\bf x}_2}) = \frac{1}{2}\lbrace { -M + {\sf Tr}(\frac{\boldsymbol\Sigma_1}{\sigma_2^{2}}) + \ln \frac{\sigma_2^{2M}}{\det\boldsymbol\Sigma_1}}\rbrace 
\end{eqnarray}
The variance $\sigma_2^2$ is computed in order to minimize this Kullback-Leibler divergence as

\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma_2^{2*} &=& \arg\min_{\sigma_2^2} D_{KL}(P_{x_1}\| P_{x_2}) \nonumber \\
 &=& \arg\min_{\sigma_2^2}\{ \sigma_2^{-2}{\sf Tr}\{\boldsymbol\Sigma_1\} + M\ln \sigma_2^{2} \}  
\end{eqnarray}
Deriving and making it equal zero leads to

\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial}{\partial \sigma_2^2} \left[ \frac{{\sf Tr}\{\boldsymbol\Sigma_1\}}{\sigma_2^{2}} + M \ln \sigma_2^{2} \right] = \left  {\frac{M}{\sigma_2^{2}}-\frac{{\sf Tr}\{\boldsymbol\Sigma_1\}}{(\sigma_2^{2})^2}}\right|_{\sigma_2^{2}=\sigma_2^{2*}}\left  =0 \right   
\nonumber
\end{equation}
Finally, since the divergence has a single extremum in $R_+$,
\begin{equation}
\sigma_2^{2*} = \frac{{\sf Tr}\{\boldsymbol\Sigma_1\}}{M} 
\end{equation}




\end{appendices}

\vfill
\clearpage

\bibliographystyle{IEEEbib}

Context 3: 'Quectel_QuecPython_BC25 开发板使用说明 版本：Quectel_QuecPython_BC25 开发板使用说明_V1 1日期：2021-11-30 状态：临时文件
Quectel_QuecPython_BC25 开发板使用说明一、基本概述BC25_QuecPython_EVB_V1 1 开发板（本文简称“V1 1 开发板”）是专门针对 BC25 制造，是一款小巧便携的“口袋型”开发板。体型虽小，但是功能丰富，拥 有 SIM 卡座、板载天线、磁开关、LED 等元件。开发者仅需一条 USB Type-C 数据线即可轻松玩转开发板。二、开发板资源Quectel 移远 BC25 通信模组NANO SIM 自弹卡座USB Type-C 数据接口开机按键，唤醒按键磁开关单色灯GPIO 排针上海市闵行区田林路 1016 号科技绿洲 3 期（B 区）5 号楼 200233 邮箱: info@quectel com 网址: www quectel com 1 / 6
三、开发板介绍Quectel_QuecPython_BC25 开发板使用说明开发板是为方便开发者使用 QuecPython，而设计的一款基于 BC25 通信模块 的开发板，其上集成了开发常用的配置，可以满足开发者的开发需求。V1 1 开发板正面接口V1 1 开发板配置开发板配备了多种外设。明细如下：序 号名称型号是否支持接口类 型1磁开关KTH1601SL-ST3是GPIO2LED 灯S3528UG6W9TLC2G- 是GPIOTJ- 34微动按键GPIOA5--------是是---------上海市闵行区田林路 1016 号科技绿洲 3 期（B 区）5 号楼 200233 邮箱: info@quectel com 网址: www quectel com 2 / 6
Quectel_QuecPython_BC25 开发板使用说明四、功能详解4 1 磁开关开发板集成了一个磁开关。使用磁铁靠近，可使磁开关输出引脚变为低电平， 默认为高电平。4 2 LED 灯开发板集成了一颗高亮度灯珠，可以用来做显著指示灯。上海市闵行区田林路 1016 号科技绿洲 3 期（B 区）5 号楼 200233 邮箱: info@quectel com 网址: www quectel com 3 / 6
4 3 按键开发板集成了 2 个微动按键，其功能是 S1 为开机键，S2 为睡眠唤醒按键。Quectel_QuecPython_BC25 开发板使用说明五、调试步骤1 拿到开发板 V1 1 先插上 USB 安装串口驱动，在官方 QQ 群文件搜 CP210 或者自 行百度下载 CP210x 的串口芯片驱动进行安装。2 使用串口工具（例如 QCOM_V1 6）连接 BC25 的主串口（硬件 17、18 脚）。V1 1 选择 Enhanced COM 口，波特率选择 9600,打开串口，按下 PWK 键约一秒松开进 行开机，串口工具收到消息则代表开机成 功，然后按下 EINT 键串口显示 +QATWAKEUP 表示模组唤醒了。3 从 https://python quectel com/download 下载 BC25QuecPython 版本固件， 使用 Qflash（群文件下载）选择 BC25 的调试串口（硬件 38、39 脚），波特率选 择 921600，选择 lod 后缀的固件，按下 EINT 键串口工具显示模组已经唤醒串口 工具发 AT+QSCLK=0 可关闭睡眠（不会发 AT 则多按几次 EINT 键），点击 Start 开 始下载固件,下载进度条开始下载，等待下载完成。关闭以上所有工具，并给板 子断电重新上电。4 从 https://python quectel com/download 下载 QPYCOM 工具，直接解压运行 工具，选择主串口（同第 2 步），选择 57600 波特率，打开串口。再按 PWK 按键 进行开机，会看到 QPYCOM 有打印 mount Type "help()" for more information 然后就可以进行 QuecPython 的交互调 试了。上海市闵行区田林路 1016 号科技绿洲 3 期（B 区）5 号楼 200233 邮箱: info@quectel com 网址: www quectel com 4 / 6
六、常见问题解决Quectel_QuecPython_BC25 开发板使用说明Q：模块的固件在哪？A：请登录 QuecPython 网站下载：http://python quectel com/downloadQ：哪里有开发板和其他常用资料？A：请登录 QuecPython 网站下载：http://python quectel com/downloadP S  如果您遇到任何问题，请参照本官网在线文档进行解决或访问 QuecPython 社区进行搜索、交流、提问：QuecPython 社区或者联系我们的在线支持：QQ 群 445121768获取 QuecPython 开发固件及加入官方交流群官网主页：https://python



ground_truth: The authors used simulated data and real data from a wireless MISO channel.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What did the court in In re Ferguson conclude about the transformation prong of the Bilski test?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 2: Xpp-pdf support utility
Xpp-pdf support utility
PATENT, TRADEMARK
& COPYRIGHT !
Reproduced with permission from BNA’s Patent,Trademark 11/20/09, 11/20/2009  Copyright ஽ 2009 by The Bu-reau of National Affairs, Inc  (800-372-1033) http://www bna com As the patent community anticipates a decision by the U S  Supreme Court on subject matter patentability, recent rulings by the Federal Circuit and the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences suggest strategies for preparing method patent applications that will sur- vive the Federal Circuit’s ‘‘machine-or-transformation’’ test 
The Changing Landscape of Method Claims in the Wake of In re Bilski:What We Can Learn from Recent Decisions of Federal Courts and the Board ofPatent Appeals rulings on software-based and other business methodpatent applications 
On review before the high court is the en banc ruling ‘‘Pure’’ business methods are out  Algorithms by the U S  Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit1 are out  Machines and data transformations that, in order to be eligible for patent protection, an in- ventive method must either be tied to a machine or re- While the patent community waits for the Supreme cite a transformation of an article 2 This ‘‘machine-or- Court’s decision in Bilski v  Kappos, No  08-964 (U S 
transformation’’ test replaced the Freeman-Walter- argued Nov  9, 2009) (79 PTCJ 33, 11/13/09), patent ap- Abele3 test and the ‘‘useful, concrete and tangible plicants seeking to write patentable claims are stuckwith trying to conform to the lower courts’ most recent 1 In re Bilski, 545 F 3d 943, 88 USPQ2d 1385 (Fed  Cir 
2008) (en banc) (77 PTCJ 4, 11/7/08) 
2 ‘‘The machine-or-transformation test is a two-branched Adriana Suringa Luedke and Bridget M  Hay- inquiry; an applicant may show that a process claim satisfies den are lawyers at Dorsey & Whitney, Min- § 101 either by showing that his claim is tied to a particular neapolis  Luedke can be reached at machine, or by showing that his claim transforms an article ’’ leudke adriana@dorsey com  Hayden can be reached at hayden bridget@dorsey com  3 In re Freeman, 573 F 2d 1237, 197 USPQ 464 (C C P A 
1978); In re Walter, 618 F 2d 758, 205 USPQ 397 (C C P A 
COPYRIGHT ஽ 2009 BY THE BUREAU OF NATIONAL AFFAIRS, INC 
result’’ inquiry advocated in State Street,4 each of gregating, and selling real estate property and claims which had been applied by the Federal Circuit and its reciting a method of performing tax-deferred real estate predecessor court in various cases, and both of which property exchanges were not statutory under Section 101  Since no machine was recited, the only issue be- In this article, we examine the 2008 decision of the fore the court was whether the claims met the ‘‘trans- Federal Circuit, federal district court decisions, and de- formation’’ prong of the Bilski test 13 The court held cisions of Patent and Trademark Office’s Board of that the claims ‘‘involve[d] only the transformation or Patent Appeals and Interferences  Based upon the out- manipulation of legal obligations and relationships’’ comes in these cases, we offer guidance as to what is that did not qualify under Bilski 14 patent-eligible under 35 U S C  § 101, strategies for pre- Concerning the recitation of the ‘‘creation of deed- senting methods in patent applications and claiming shares’’ in some of the claims, the court found that the these methods, and possible ‘‘fixes’’ for applications deedshares themselves were not physical objects, but drafted pre-Bilski that must now withstand scrutiny un- only represented intangible legal ownership interests in der the new machine-or-transformation test 
property 15 Therefore, the creation of deedshares wasnot sufficient to establish patent eligibility under Bil- A number of recent federal court and board decisions have applied the patent eligibility test set forth in Bilski, implemented step to an otherwise obvious method was not sufficient to avoid invalidity of the claim  In KingPharmeuticals Inc  v  Eon Labs Inc ,17 the district court held invalid claims to a method of increasing the oral Several cases have addressed (and rejected) claims bioavailability of metaxalone because the claims were obvious over the prior art asserted by the accused in- In In re Ferguson,6 the Federal Circuit reviewed the board’s rejection of claims directed to a method of mar- Two dependent claims added a step of informing the keting a product and a ‘‘paradigm’’ for marketing soft- patient of certain results, which the patentee argued ware as nonstatutory subject matter under Section was not obvious  The court rejected this argument, con- 101 7 The appellate court affirmed the board’s rejection, cluding that ‘‘[b]ecause the food effect is an inherent concluding that the method claims were neither tied to property of the prior art and, therefore, unpatentable, a particular machine or apparatus nor did they trans- then informing a patient of that inherent property is form a particular article into a different state or thing 8 The court defined a machine broadly as ‘‘a concrete The court also commented that the added step of in- thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices or com- forming the patient did not meet the patent eligibility binations of devices,’’ which did not include the ‘‘shared standard set forth in Bilski because the step did not re- marketing force’’ to which the method claims were quire use of a machine or transform the metaxalone into a different state or thing 19 Notably, this conclusion The claims directed to a ‘‘paradigm’’ were non- runs counter to the Supreme Court’s instruction that statutory because the claims did not fall within any of claims are to be examined ‘‘as a whole’’ and not dis- the four statutory categories (machines, manufactures, sected into old and new elements and that are evaluated compositions of matter and processes)  Concerning the two closest possible categories, the court concluded Recent board decisions have been consistent with the that the claimed paradigm was not a process, because holdings of the federal courts  For example, in Ex parte no act or series of acts was required, and was not a Roberts,21 the board found ineligible under Section 101 manufacture, because it was not a tangible article re- a ‘‘method of creating a real estate investment instru- sulting from a process of manufacture 10 Concerning ment adapted for performing tax-deferred exchanges’’ the recitation of a ‘‘marketing company’’ in the para- because the claim did not satisfy either the machine or digm claims, the court concluded that the patent appli- cants did ‘‘no more than provide an abstract idea—a Similarly, in Ex parte Haworth,23 a method for ‘‘at- business model for an intangible marketing com- tempting to collect payments from customers having delinquent accounts concurrently with a partner that In Fort Properties Inc  v  American Master Lease owns the delinquent accounts’’ was found to be patent LLC,12 the California district court held that claims re- ineligible because the claim wording was ‘‘broad in that citing a series of transactions involving acquiring, ag- 1980); In re Abele, 684 F 2d 902, 214 USPQ 682 (C C P A 
4 State Street Bank & Trust Co  v  Signature Financial 16 See Ex parte Roberts , 2009-004444 at 4-5 (B P A I  June Group, 149 F 3d 1368, 1370, 47 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed  Cir  1998) 19, 2009) (holding a ‘‘method of creating a real estate invest- ment instrument adapted for performing tax-deferred ex- changes’’ patent ineligible as not passing the machine-or- 7 The court accepted the board’s definition of ‘‘paradigm’’ 17 593 F  Supp 2d 501 (E D N Y  2009) 
to mean ‘‘a pattern, example or model ’’ Id  at 1362 
20 See Diamond v  Diehr, 450 U S  175, 188 (1981) 
21 No  2009-004444 (B P A I  June 19, 2009) 
12 2009 WL 249205, *5 (C D  Cal  Jan  22, 2009) 
23 No  2009-000350 (B P A I  July 30, 2009) 
it refers generally to extending an offer, receiving an machine  Accordingly, the process claims       are not acceptance, and paying a commission’’ and did not in- voke, recite or limit the method of implementation us-ing any particular machine or apparatus 24 The court also evaluated similar claims that recited the use of a ‘‘comparator’’ to perform the recited pixel- B  Software Claims Not Expressly Tied to a ‘Particular by-pixel comparison and held that this recitation also did not mandate a machine 29 While the court acknowl-edged that software was offered as one ‘‘option,’’ the Other cases have addressed software methods where court concluded that the claimed function of the com- the claim language was either not expressly tied to com- parator could also be performed in one’s mind or on pa- puter hardware components or the ties to computer per such that a machine was not required  The court components were somewhat ambiguous  In several further noted that, even though the ‘‘comparator’’ was cases, courts have rejected the recitation of generic defined as a ‘‘device,’’ ‘‘the use of the term ‘device’ is computer components as sufficient to satisfy the ‘‘ma- not synonymous with machine ’’30 As a result, none of chine’’ prong of the Bilski test  A number of these deci- the claims at issue met the ‘‘machine’’ prong of the Bil- sions also addressed the ‘‘transformation’’ prong of the Concerning the ‘‘transformation’’ prong, the court re- In Research Corporation Technology Inc  v  Mi- lied in particular upon the Abele decision in expanding crosoft Corp ,25 the district court considered the patent the requirements of this test by requiring that the eligibility of method claims in six patents directed to claimed transformation process be both ‘‘(1) limited to methods of halftoning of gray scale images by using a transformation of specific data, and 2) limited to a vi- pixel-by-pixel comparison of the image against a blue sual depiction representing specific objects or sub- noise mask  Relying on the Federal Circuit’s Bilski stances ’’31 It then concluded that a number of the analysis as well as a decision of its predecessor court, patent claims did not meet the second prong of this ex- In re Abele,26 the judge concluded that a number of the panded test because the claims did not ‘‘require any vi- sual depiction or subsequent display’’ even though the transformation test set forth in Bilski 27 claimed method did transform specific image data 32 Concerning the ‘‘machine’’ prong, the district court The district court also found other claims patent- found that the pixel-by-pixel comparison recited in the eligible under Section 101 because these claims recited claims did not require the use of a machine, but could the use of the comparison data ‘‘to produce a halftoned ‘‘dictate[d] a transformation of specific data, and [were] be done on a sheet of paper using a pen  The com- further limited to a visual depiction which represents parison uses formulas and numbers to generate a bi- specific objects ’’33 Thus, the patent eligibility of the nary value to determine the placement of a dot at a claims turned on whether the claims recited the use of location  Formulas and numbers not tied to a particu- the transformed data to generate a display 
lar machine cannot be patented, under the machine In DealerTrack Inc  v  Huber,34 the district court prong, even with a field-of-use limitation because granted a summary judgment of invalidity under § 101 they represent fundamental principles, and to do so of patent claims directed to ‘‘a computer aided method’’ would preempt the entire field  The patent claims      
of managing a credit application reciting the following do not mandate the use of a machine to achieve their algorithmic and algebraic ends  Simply because adigital apparatus such as a computer, calculator, or [A] receiving credit application data from a remote the like could assist with this comparison does not render it patent eligible material  RCT’s argument [B] selectively forwarding the credit application data that a pixel by its nature is electronic and therefore to remote funding source terminal devices; necessitates a machine is a post solution argumentand the Court rejects it  The claim construction specifies that the comparison is of a value to a mask 29 The term ‘‘comparator’’ was construed by the court to be (or set of values) to determine whether the dot is a ‘‘device (or collection of operations, as in software) that com- turned on at a specific location  This process does pares an input number (called the operand) to a number pre- not require a particular machine  The Bilski test is stored in the comparator (called the threshold) and produces clear: the process claims must be tied to a particular as output a binary value (such as ‘‘0,’’ zero) if the input is alge-braically less than the threshold [the result of comparing anoperand against a fixed threshold and setting an operand less 24 Id  at 9-10  See also, e g , Ex parte Farnes, 2009-002770 than the threshold to one value and an operand greater than (B P A I  June 2, 2009) (rejecting a method claim for develop- or equal to the threshold to another value], and produces the ing a solution to a customer experience issue including steps opposite binary value (such as ‘‘1,’’ one) if the input is algebra- of: ‘‘identifying a target customer,’’ ‘‘defining a current cus- ically greater than or equal to the threshold ’’ Id  at *17 (em- tomer experience,’’ ‘‘summarizing values and benefits’’ to pro- vide to the customer, and ‘‘identifying metrics for measuring success’’); Ex parte Salinkas, 2009-002768 (B P A I  May 18, 31 Id  at *9  Notably, Bilski concluded that the Abele visual 2009) (finding patent ineligible a method of launching a depiction was ‘‘sufficient’’ to establish transformation (545 knowledge network involving ‘‘selecting an executive spon- F 3d at 963), while the Research Corporation court went fur- sor,’’ ‘‘forming a core team of experts,’’ and ‘‘providing pre- ther by making visual depiction ‘‘required’’ to establish trans- 25 2009 WL 2413623 (D  Ariz  July 28, 2009) (78 PTCJ 432, 26 684 F 2d 902, 214 USPQ 682 (C C P A  1982) 
34 2009 WL 2020761 (C D  Cal  July 7, 2009) (78 PTCJ 341, PATENT, TRADEMARK & COPYRIGHT JOURNAL [C] forwarding funding decision data from at least tation of ‘over the Internet’ suffices to tie a process one of the remote funding source terminal de- claim to a particular machine’’ and concluded that it vices to the remote application entry and display The internet continues to exist despite the addition [D] wherein the selectively forwarding the credit ap- or subtraction of any particular piece of hardware  It may be supposed that the internet itself, rather than [E] sending at least a portion of a credit application any underlying computer or set of computers, is the to more than one of said remote funding sources ‘‘machine’’ to which plaintiff refers  Yet the internet is an abstraction  If every computer user in the world [F] sending at least a portion of a credit application unplugged from the internet, the internet would to more than one of said remote funding sources cease to exist, although every molecule of every ma- sequentially until a finding [sic ] source returns a chine remained in place  One can touch a computer or a network cable, but one cannot touch ‘‘the inter- [G] sending       a credit application       after a prede- Additionally, the court found that the recitation of the [H] sending the credit application from a first remote internet in this case merely constituted ‘‘insignificant funding source to a second remote funding extra-solution activity’’ and therefore did not qualify as a ‘‘particular machine’’ under Bilski 41 ‘‘[T]ossing in In concluding that the claim did not satisfy the Bilski references to internet commerce’’ was not sufficient to machine-or-transformation test, the court held that the render ‘‘a mental process for collecting data and weigh- claimed central processor, remote application and dis- ing values’’ patent-eligible 42 Additionally, ‘‘limiting’’ play device, and remote funding source terminal device the claim to use over the Internet was not a meaningful could be ‘‘any device’’ and did not constitute a ‘‘’par- limitation, such that the claims ‘‘broadly preempt the ticular machine’ within the meaning of Bilski ’’35 The fundamental mental process of fraud detection using court relied upon several board decisions to support its associations between credit cards ’’43 premise that ‘‘claims reciting the use of general purpose processors or computers do not satisfy the test ’’36 claim,44 notwithstanding the Federal Circuit’s holding In Cybersource Corp  v  Retail Decisions Inc ,37 the in In re Beauregard,45 the district court concluded that district court held claims for ‘‘a method for verifying the ‘‘there is at present no legal doctrine creating a special validity of a credit card transaction over the Internet’’ ‘‘Beauregard claim’’ that would exempt the claim from and ‘‘a computer readable medium containing program the analysis of Bilski ’’ Moreover, ‘‘[s]imply appending instructions for detecting fraud in a credit card transac- ‘A computer readable media including program instruc- tion       over the Internet’’ invalid under § 101 based tions’ to an otherwise non-statutory process claim is in- upon the court’s interpretation of Bilski 
sufficient to make it statutory ’’46 Consequently, this Concerning the method claim, the court considered claim also failed the Bilski test 
both the ‘‘transformation’’ and ‘‘machine’’ prongs of the In at least one instance, the U S  International Trade Bilski test  In concluding that there was no transforma- Commission has interpreted the ‘‘machine’’ prong of tion, the court focused on the intangibility of the ma- Bilski less stringently than did the district courts in the nipulated data  According to the court, transformation cases discussed above  In In the Matter of Certain Video is limited to transformation of a physical article or sub- Game Machines and Related Three-Dimensional Point- stance  Accordingly, the method claim did not qualify ing Devices,47 the accused infringer filed a motion for because the data representing credit cards did not rep- summary judgment alleging that the asserted claims resent tangible articles but instead an intangible series impermissibly sought to patent a mathematical algo- of rights and obligations existing between the account rithm  According to the movant, the recitations of a ‘‘3D pointing device,’’ ‘‘handheld device,’’ or ‘‘free space Concerning whether the claimed method was tied to pointing device’’ were not sufficient to tie the claims to a particular machine, the court assessed whether ‘‘reci- a particular machine, but served ‘‘only to limit the field-of-use of the claimed mathematical algorithm and [did] not otherwise impart patentability on the claimed math- Id  at *3  The court relied upon the holdings in Ex parte Gutta, No  2008-3000 at 5-6 (B P A I  Jan  15, 2009) (stating In denying the motion for summary judgment, the ‘‘[t]he recitation in the preamble of ‘[a] computerized method ITC first noted that, ‘‘[w]hile the ultimate determination performed by a data processor’ adds nothing more than a gen- of whether the asserted claims are patentable under eral purpose computer that is associated with the steps of the § 101 is a question of law, the Federal Circuit has ac- process in an unspecified manner ’’); Ex parte Nawathe, No 
2007-3360, 2009 WL 327520, *4 (B P A I  Feb  9, 2009) (finding‘‘the computerized recitation purports to a general purpose processor [], as opposed to a particular computer specifically programmed for executing the steps of the claimed method ’’); and Ex parte Cornea-Hasegan, No  2008-4742 at 9-10 (B P A I 
Jan  13, 2009) (indicating the appellant does not dispute ‘‘the recitation of a processor does not limit the process steps to any 44 Claims having this format are called ‘‘Beauregard’’ specific machine or apparatus ’’)  The court also cited Cyber- claims and were found to not be barred by the traditional source Corp  v  Retail Decisions Inc , (discussed below), in sup- printed matter rule in In re Beauregard, 53 F 3d 1583, 1584, 35 port of its interpretation of the required ‘‘particular machine ’’ 37 620 F  Supp  2d 1068, 92 USPQ2d 1011 (N D  Cal  2009) 47 2009 WL 1070801 (U S I T C  2009) 
knowledged that ‘there may be cases in which the legal given a dataset of feature vectors associated with the question as to patentable subject matter may turn on subsidiary factual issues’ ’’ (citation omitted)  In con- for each binary partition under consideration, rank- struing the claims, the tribunal found that there was a ing features using two-category feature ranking; and genuine dispute as to whether the claimed ‘‘devices’’represented a ‘‘particular machine’’ under the Bilski while the predetermined number of features has not test and whether the claimed ‘‘two-dimensional rota- yet been selected: picking a binary partition p; tional transform’’ was merely a mathematical calcula- selecting a feature based on the ranking for binary tion or instead meant ‘‘changing the mathematical rep- resentation of a two-dimensional quantity from oneframe of reference to a differently-oriented frame of ref- adding the selected feature to an output list if not al- erence’’ as asserted by the patentee  Additionally, the ready present in the output list and removing the se- dispute over the meaning of the claimed ‘‘two- lected feature from further consideration for the bi- dimensional rotational transform’’ also raised a dis- puted issue as to whether this element recited a trans- Notably, while the independent claim failed the formation that would qualify under the ‘‘transforma- machine-or-transformation test, its dependent claim tion’’ prong of Bilski  Given these disputed issues, the was eligible because it recited, ‘‘further comprising us- ITC concluded that it was inappropriate to grant sum- ing the selected features in training a classifier for clas- mary judgment as to the patent eligibility of the claims 
sifying data into categories ’’ In view of the specifica- A similar conclusion was reached in Versata Soft- tion, the board indicated that the ‘‘classifier’’ was a par- ware Inc  v  Sun Microsystems Inc ,48 in which the dis- ticular machine ‘‘in that it performs a particular data trict court denied the defendant’s motion for summary classification function that is beyond mere general pur- judgment of invalidity under Section 101 based upon pose computing ’’53 The board also concluded that the the Bilski court’s refusal ‘‘to adopt a broad exclusion claim ‘‘transforms a particular article into a different over software or any other such category of subject state or thing, namely by transforming an untrained matter beyond the exclusion of claims drawn to funda- classifier into a trained classifier ’’54 In Ex parte Casati,55 the board reversed the examin- Less stringent ‘‘machine’’ prong analyses are also er’s Section 101 rejection of a method claim reciting: found at the board level  For example, in Ex parteSchrader,50 the board held patent-eligible under Bilski A method of analyzing data and making predictions, reading process execution data from logs for a busi- A method for obtaining feedback from consumers re- ceiving an advertisement from an ad provided by anad provider through an interactive channel, the collecting the process execution data and storing the process execution data in a memory defining a ware-house; creating a feedback panel including at least one feed-back response concerning said advertisement; and analyzing the process execution data; generatingprediction models in response to the analyzing; and providing said feedback panel to said consumers, using the prediction models to predict an occurrence said feedback panel being activated by a consumer to of an exception in the business process 
provide said feedback response concerning said ad-vertisement to said ad provider through said interac- In this case, giving consideration to the specification, which ‘‘unequivocally describes the data warehouse aspart of the overall system apparatus, and subsequent Here, the board found ‘‘interactive channel’’ to be descriptions describe the memory/warehouse device in part of an ‘‘overall patent eligible system of appara- terms of machine executable functions,’’ the board con- tuses’’ when viewed in the context of the specification, cluded that ‘‘one of ordinary skill in the art would un- which included ‘‘the Internet and World Wide Web, In- derstand that the claimed storing of process execution teractive Television, and self service devices, such as In- data in a memory defining a warehouse constitutes formation Kiosks and Automated Teller Machines ’’51 patent-eligible subject matter under § 101 because the In another recent decision, Ex parte Forman,52 the memory/warehouse element ties the claims to a particu- board found a ‘‘computer-implemented feature selec- tion method’’ including a ‘‘classifier’’ eligible under Other recent board decisions have reached the oppo- Section 101 because it satisfied both the machine and transformation prong  Here, the ‘‘classifier’’ was recitedin a dependent claim, in which its independent claim re-cited: 53 Id  at 13 
54 Id  See also Ex parte Busche, No  2008-004750 (B P A I 
A computer-implemented feature selection method May 28, 2009) (holding a process claim and a computer pro- for selecting a predetermined number of features for gram product claim, each reciting training a machine, ‘‘are di- a set of binary partitions over a set of categories rected to machines that have such structure as may be adaptedby training ’’) 55 No  2009-005786 (B P A I  July 31, 2009) 
48 2009 WL 1084412, *1 (E D  Tex  March 31, 2009) 
56 Id  at 7  See also Ex parte Dickerson, No  2009-001172 at 49 Citing Bilski, 545 F 3d at 959 n  23 
16 (B P A I  July 9, 2009) (holding claims that ‘‘recite a comput- 50 No  2009-009098 (B P A I  Aug  31, 2009) 
erized method which includes a step of outputting information from a computer       are tied to a particular machine or appa- 52 No  2008-005348 (B P A I  Aug  17, 2009) 
PATENT, TRADEMARK & COPYRIGHT JOURNAL implemented methods ineligible under the Bilski test transformation test applied to this type of claim 63 because the claims failed to tie the method steps to any Then, applying the Bilski test, the board concluded that concrete parts, devices, or combinations of devices  For the claim did not qualify  According to the board, the example, in Ex parte Holtz,57 the board found ineligible under Section 101 a ‘‘method for comparing file tree de-scriptions’’ because the claim ‘‘obtains data (a file struc- does not transform physical subject matter and is not ture), compares data (file structures), generates a tied to a particular machine        Limiting the claims change log, and optimizes the change log without tying to computer readable media does not add any practi- these steps to any concrete parts, devices, or combina- cal limitation to the scope of the claim  Such a field- tions of devices’’ and the ‘‘file structures’’ did not repre- of-use limitation is insufficient to render an other- Similarly, in Ex parte Gutta,58 the board held ineli- gible under § 101 a ‘‘method for identifying one or moremean items for a plurality of items       having a sym- II  The Current Scope of Patent Eligibility bolic value of a symbolic attribute,’’ concluding that the These recent cases establish that some types of meth- claim ‘‘computes a variance and selects a mean item ods are clearly patent-eligible under Section 101, others without tying these steps to any concrete parts, devices, clearly are not eligible, and yet others may be depend- or combinations of devices’’ and ‘‘symbolic values are ing on how they are described and claimed 
neither physical objects nor do they represent physicalobjects ’’ First, the eligibility of system and apparatus claims is largely unaffected by the Bilski decision, with the ca- In contrast to the district court’s decision in Cyber- veat that such claims may be more closely scrutinized source Corp , discussed supra, in a recent board deci- for compliance with Diamond v  Diehr and Gottschalk sion, Ex parte Bodin,59 ‘‘a computer program product’’ v  Benson, which prohibit patenting of a claim directed was found to be patent-eligible subject matter as being to ‘‘laws of nature, natural phenomena, [or] abstract embodied in a ‘‘computer readable medium ’’ Here, the board considered whether the phrase ‘‘recorded on the Also, methods that are performed at least in part by a recording medium’’ as it is recited in the body of the machine qualify for patent eligibility under Section 101 
claims was the same as ‘‘recorded on a computer- Thus, for example, some computer-implemented and readable medium ’’ Acknowledging the differences be- software-related inventions remain patentable as long tween a statutory claim to a data structure stored on a as they are properly described and claimed as being computer readable medium compared to a nonstatutory performed by a computer or computer components 
claim to a data structure that referred to ideas reflected The tie to a machine, however, cannot merely be im- in nonstatutory processes, the board stated: ‘‘[w]hen plicit based upon the description and context of the ap- functional descriptive material is recorded on some plication or general language in the preamble of the computer-readable medium, it becomes structurally claim  Instead, the use of a machine to perform one or and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be more of the claimed functions must be expressly de- statutory in most cases since use of technology permits scribed in the body of the claim so as to be a meaning- the function of the descriptive material to be real- ful limitation on the claim  If a method claim can be read in such a way that all functions can be performed Similarly, in Ex parte Azuma,61 a claim to a ‘‘com- by a human, it will likely not pass the machine prong of puter program product       comprising: a computer us- able medium’’ was found to be directed to statutory The ‘‘Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluat- subject matter under § 101 because the language ‘‘com- ing Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U S C  § 101’’ re- puter usable medium’’ referred to tangible storage me- cently issued by the Patent and Trademark Office con- dia, such as a server, floppy drive, main memory and firm that the recitation of a general purpose computer hard disk as disclosed by appellant’s specification, and is sufficient to satisfy Section 101 where the general did not ‘‘implicate the use of a carrier wave ’’ purpose computer is ‘‘programmed to perform the pro- In an older decision, Ex parte Cornea-Hasegan,62 cess steps,       in effect, becom[ing] a special purpose however, the Board seemingly came to the opposite conclusion, holding that a claim reciting ‘‘a computer Concerning data transformation, there seems to be readable media including program instructions which agreement of the Federal Circuit and at least one dis- when executed by a processor cause the processor to trict court that a method that is both limited to transfor- perform’’ a series of steps was not patent-eligible under mation of specific data and limited to a visual depiction Bilski  The board first determined that ‘‘analysis of a representing specific objects or substances qualifies un- ‘manufacture’ claim and a ‘process’ claim is the sameunder 63 Id  at 11 
57 No  2008-004440 at 12-13 (B P A I  Aug  24, 2009) 
65 Diamond v  Diehr, 450 U S  175, 185, 205 USPQ 488 58 No  2008-004366 at 10-11 (B P A I  Aug  10, 2009) 
(1980); Gottschalk v  Benson, 409 U S  63, 67, 175 USPQ 673 59 No  2009-002913 (B P A I  Aug  5, 2009) 
60 Id  at 10 (comparing In re Lowry, 32 F 3d 1579, 1583-84, 66 ‘‘Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Sub- 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed  Cir  1994) to In re Warmerdam, 33 F 3d ject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U S C  § 101,’’ U S  Patent and 1354, 1361-62, 31 USPQ2d 1754 (Fed  Cir  1994)) 
Trademark Office, Aug  24, 2009, at 6 (78 PTCJ 530, 8/28/09) 
61 No  2009-003902 at 10 (B P A I  Sept  14, 2009) 
The authors’ recent experiences with examiners suggest that 62 No  2008-004742 (B P A I  Jan  13, 2009) 
the examiners are following these instructions 
der Section 101 67 Thus, claims analogous to those in In Concerning claims directed to computer program re Abele68 in which ‘‘data clearly represented physical products, one district court has held that appending ‘‘A and tangible objects, namely the structure of bones, or- computer readable media including program instruc- gans, and other body tissues [so as to recite] the trans- tions’’ to an otherwise non-statutory process claim is in- formation of that raw data into a particular visual depic- sufficient to make it statutory 72 The board has also tion of a physical object on a display’’ are patent- held ineligible claims to ‘‘a computer readable me- dia ’’73 The board has, however, also upheld the eligibil-ity of ‘‘a computer program product’’ as being embod- ied in a computer readable medium 74 Given these in- Bilski has had a significant impact in eliminating consistent decisions, the patent eligibility of claims in patent protection for inventions that are performed en- tirely by humans or can be interpreted as such if read Concerning claims directed to generalized computer broadly  This includes claims that describe processes processing functions, several Board decisions suggest for creating or manipulating legal and financial docu- that, absent a tie to a concrete real-world application, ments and relationships  In this area in particular, many such claims are likely to be deemed an ‘‘algorithm’’ un- pending applications filed prior to Bilski are no longer der Benson and therefore held to be non-statutory  75 patent-eligible, and many issued patents are no longer Any recitation of a specific field of use for the claimed valid  This retroactive impact of the Bilski decision is process or use of the outcome of such processes are troubling, given the investment in these patents and ap- also more likely to be found ‘‘field-of-use’’ or ‘‘post- plications, which have now been rendered essentially solution activity’’ limitations insufficient to render the worthless despite the suggestion in the Federal Circuit’s claim patent-eligible  Thus, the more tied a claimed pro- earlier State Street decision, now overruled, that such cess is to tangible results or particular applications (not claims qualified for patent protection 
just fields of use), the more likely it is to qualify under Inventions that do not fit within the four statutory categories are also not patent-eligible  The Federal Cir-cuit and the board have rejected claims directed to ‘‘a III  Presenting and Claiming Methods in Patent signal,’’ ‘‘a paradigm,’’ ‘‘a user interface’’ and ‘‘a corr-elator’’ on the basis that these items did not qualify as a ‘‘machine, manufacture, composition of matter or pro- Several strategies for describing and claiming meth- cess’’ under § 101  70 There is also an increasing focus ods or processes in patent applications may avoid or on the tangibility of the claimed invention in that, to minimize potential Section 101 problems 
qualify as a ‘‘machine’’ or ‘‘manufacture’’ under Section First, the description provided in a patent application should include well-defined steps or functions associ-ated with method or process  For example, when the claims include ‘‘initiating’’ method steps, a description Remaining areas of uncertainty concerning the scope of well-defined physical steps or functions for initiating of Section 101 include (1) what qualifies under Bilski as should be provided, and a concrete item, machine, de- a ‘‘transformation of an article or data,’’ (2) whether vice, or component that is responsible for the initiating claims to computer programs (Beauregard claims) function should be identified  For claiming ‘‘identify- qualify, and (3) whether internal computer processing ing’’ method steps, provide specific parameters for functionality not tied to a specific application or tan- making the identification, such as according to a speci- fied measurement 76 Where data is involved, the source Concerning data transformation, other than Abele- and type of data should be specified 
style claims discussed above, what qualifies as a data or Also, drawings should be provided that depict the article transformation remains unclear  Claims that concrete item, device, component or combination have been held not to meet the transformation prong in- thereof, and each method or process step or function clude claims directed to the creation or manipulation of should be linked expressly to at least one item, device data representing an intangible series of rights and ob- or component in the drawings that performs the step or ligations (e g , credit card data) and claims directed to function  Broadening language indicating that other the transformation or manipulation of legal obligations components may also be used to perform the function and relationships  Beyond these specific examples, it is may also be included to avoid an unduly narrow inter- difficult to predict what will or will not qualify as a data or article transformation under Bilski 
The claims should affirmatively claim the device, ma- chine or component performing each step or function 
67 In re Bilski, 545 F 3d at 963; Research Corporation Tech- For computer or software-related inventions, the de- nologies, 2009 WL 2413623 at *9 
scription should specify that the software functionality 68 The claimed process involved graphically displaying vari- ances of data from average values wherein the data was X-rayattenuation data produced in a two dimensional field by a com- 72 Cybersource Corp , 620 F  Supp  2d at 1080 
puted tomography scanner  See In re Bilski, 545 F 3d at 962- 73 Cornea-Hasegan, No  2008-004742 
74 Ex parte Bodin, No  2009-002913 (B P A I  Aug  5, 2009) 
69 In re Bilski, 545 F 3d at 963 
75 E g , Ex parte Greene, No  2008-004073 (B P A I  Apr  24, 70 In re Nuijten 500 F 3d 1346, 1357, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed 
2009); Daughtrey, No  2008-000202; Ex parte Arning, No 
Cir  2007) (74 PTCJ 631, 9/28/07) (signal); In re Ferguson, 558 2008-003008 (B P A I  Mar  30, 2009); Cybersource Corp , 620 F 3d 1359, 1366, 90 USPQ2d 1035 (Fed  Cir  2009) (77 PTCJ F  Supp 2d at 1080 (concerning claim 2) 
489, 3/13/09) (paradigm); Ex parte Daughtrey, No  2008- 76 See Brief of American Bar Association as Amicus Curiae 000202 (B P A I  Apr  8, 2009) (user interface); Ex parte Laba- Supporting Respondent, Bilski v  Kappos, No  08-964, ABA die, No  2008-004310 (B P A I  May 6, 2009) (correlator) 
Amicus Br  at 12-13 (U S  amicus brief filed Oct  2, 2009) (78 71 E g , Nuijten, 500 F 3d at 1356-7 
PATENT, TRADEMARK & COPYRIGHT JOURNAL is performed by a computer or computer components 
patent or published application, the option of importing Specificity as to the type of computer component per- subject matter into the specification is limited to ‘‘non- forming each function may be helpful in establishing essential’’ subject matter  In other words, the specifica- eligibility under the Bilski test 
tion can only be amended to disclose a machine for per-forming process steps as long as one skilled in the art IV  Fixing Pre-Bilski Applications to Meet the New would recognize from the original disclosure that the process is implemented by a machine  The key in mak- For patent applications filed prior to the Bilski deci- ing this type of amendment is avoiding (or overcoming) sion, it can be challenging to meet the new require- a rejection under 35 U S C  § 112, para  1, for lack of ments for patent eligibility, particularly when no ma- chine or transformations were expressly described in If incorporation by reference is not an option, a patent applicant may submit evidence, such as a decla- In some cases, there may be sufficient explicit de- ration by the inventor or a duly qualified technical ex- scription of a machine, e g , a computer, such that the pert, demonstrating that one skilled in the art would un- machine can be added into the body of the claims  For derstand the disclosed method to be one performed by example, patent applications for computer-related in- a machine  Unlike attorney argument, which can be dis- ventions sometimes contain a generic description of regarded, such evidence must be considered by the ex- computers that are used to perform the claimed method, and such a generic description may be suffi- One other option is to reformat the claims  Since Bil- cient to impart patent eligibility to the claims when the ski ostensibly does not apply to system and apparatus general-purpose computer is programmed to become a claims, in some instances it may be possible for an ap- plicant to convert his method claims into system claims For patent applications lacking in an explicit descrip- to avoid application of the Bilski test  This strategy, tion of any machine, however, the application may in- however, is unlikely to succeed where the patent speci- corporate by reference patents or publications that can fication does not describe such a system for implement- be used to bolster the specification and provide support ing the method and therefore does not provide the req- for the requisite claim amendments  When an applica- uisite disclosure of the claimed invention under Section tion incorporates by reference a U S  patent or pub- lished U S  patent application, any description from the incorporated references, whether or not the subject The future of the Bilski machine-or-transformation matter is ‘‘essential’’ to support the claims, may be im- test now rests with the Supreme Court  Regardless of ported into the specification  This option may enable the outcome of the appeal, however, it is clear that the importation of the requisite description of a machine, scope of statutory subject matter under Section 101 has which can then also be recited in the claims 77 When been narrowed  The Supreme Court now has a chance the document incorporated by reference is not a U S 
to clarify what has been excluded; it may even reject ormodify the Bilski machine-or-transformation test  How 77 Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, Eighth Ed , Rev 
this will affect the development and protection of cur- 7/2008, at § 608 01(P); see also 37 C F R  § 1 57 
rent and future technologies remains to be seen 
Source: http://www dorsey com/files/upload/luedke_bna_patent_journal_nov09 pdf
(resolução 404 2012 retificação 19062012)
RESOLUÇÃO Nº 404 , DE 12 DE JUNHO DE 2012 Dispõe sobre padronização dos procedimentos administrativos na lavratura de Auto de Infração, na expedição de notificação de autuação e de notificação de penalidade de multa e de advertência, por infração de responsabilidade de proprietário e de condutor de veículo e da identificação de condutor infrator, e dá outras providências 
Cheloidi e cicatrici ipertrofiche in dermatologia
a cura del dr  Antonio Del Sorbo - Specialista in Dermatologia e Venereologia antoniodelsorbo@libero it I Cheloidi di Alibert A volte una ferita anche apparentemente banale, guarisce lasciando una cicatrice voluminosa, rossastra e soprattutto antiestetica  I cheloidi sono cicatrici abnormi che possono far seguito a intervento chirurgico (es: tiroide, mammella, etc) e questo u
Context 3: quectel com官网文件下载（各类资料、工具）：https://python quectel com/download官网 wiki（常用于视频教程、手把手教程下载、API 库）：https://python quectel com/wiki/#/官网文档中心(拥有从入门到精通的各种文档介绍、必看)：https://python quectel com/doc/工单系统：https://workorder quectel com/QuecPython 社区：https://forumschinese quectel com/c/function-subjects/quectpython/43QuecPython 官方 QQ 开发交流群：445121768微信公众号：QuecPython移远 OTA 升级平台： https://cloudota quectel com/移远 IoT 管理平台：https://python quectel com/doc/doc/Advanced_development/zh/QuecPython Cloud/QuecCloud html上海市闵行区田林路 1016 号科技绿洲 3 期（B 区）5 号楼 200233 邮箱: info@quectel com 网址: www quectel com 5 / 6
附录 1 V1 1 开发板丝印图Quectel_QuecPython_BC25 开发板使用说明附录 2 V1 1 开发板原理图上海市闵行区田林路 1016 号科技绿洲 3 期（B 区）5 号楼 200233 邮箱: info@quectel com 网址: www quectel com 6 / 6
PIU101 PIU102 PIU103 PIU104 PIU105 PIU106 PIU107 PIU108 COR9 PIR902 PIR901 PIU109 PIU1010 PIU1011 PIU1012 PIU1013 PIU1044 PIU1043 PIU1042 PIU1041 PIU1040 PIU1039 PIU1038 PIU1037 PIU1036 COU1A PIU1014 PIU1015 PIU1016 PIU1017 PIU1018 PIU1019 PIU1020 PIU1021 PIU1022 PIU1035 PIU1034 PIU1033 PIU1032 PIU1031 PIU1030 PIU1029 PIU1028 PIU1027 PIU1026 PIU1025 PIU1024 PIU1023 COJ1 PIJ101 COC1 PIC101 PIC102 COC2 PIC201 PIC202 PIC602 COC6 PIC601 COR22 PIR2201 PIR2301 COR23 COR24 PIR2401 PIR2501 COR25 COR14 PIR1401 PIR1601 COR16 PIR2202 PIR2302 PIR2402 PIR2502 PIR1402 PIR1602 COC14 PIC1402 PIC1401 COR33 PIR3301 PIR3302 COU2 PIU201 PIU202 PIU203 PIR3002 COR30 COD6 PIR3001 PID601 PID602 COR31 PIR3102 PIR3101 PIQ201 PIQ203 COQ2 COR32 PIQ202 PIR3201 PIR3202 COR1 COD1 PIR102 PIR101 PID101 PID102 PIQ103 COQ1 PIQ102 COR13 PIR1302 PIR1301 PIQ101 PIR1501 COR15 PIR1502 PIR302 COR3 PIR301 PIR402 COR4 PIR401 PIU1045 PIU1046 PIU1047 PIU1048 PIU1049 PIU1050 PIU1051 PIU1052 PIU1053 COR19 PIR1902 PIR1901 COR20 PIR2002 PIR2001 PIU1072 PIU1071 PIU1070 PIU1069 PIU1068 COU1B PIU1054 PIU1055 PIU1056 PIU1057 PIU1058 PIU1067 PIU1066 PIU1065 PIU1064 PIU1063 PIU1062 PIU1061 PIU1060 PIU1059 PIU1073 PIU1074 PIU1075 PIU1076 PIU1077 PIU1078 PIU1079 PIU1080 COU1C PIU1088 PIU1087 PIU1086 PIU1085 PIU1084 PIU1083 PIU1082 PIU1081 PIU1089 PIU1090 PIU1091 COU1D PIU1094 PIU1093 PIU1092 COM2 COM1 1122334455667788DDCCBBAATitleNumberRevisionSizeA3Date:2021/11/1Sheet ofFile:E:\\\\  \\1 BC25 SchDocDrawn By:1J1ADCR44 7KR34 7KADC_INGNDQUECTEL_LOGOQuecPythonGNDC1100uF 6 3VGNDAUX_TXD_1V8AUX_RXD_1V8GNDUSIM1_VDDRESETNETLIGHTM_RXD_1V8M_TXD_1V8PIN19PIN20VDD_EXTPIN23PIN22PIN21R234 7KR224 7KVDD_EXTR254 7KR244 7KPIN20PIN21PIN23PIN22PIN25PIN30PIN31PIN32PIN33GNDR14 7K312Q1D1蓝 LEDNETR130RR15NCNETLIGHTC61uFGNDGND1RESERVED2MIC_P3MIC_N4SPK_P5SPK_N6PWRKEY7RESERVED8RESERVED9GND10USIM_DATA11USIM_RST12USIM_CLK13USIM_VDD14RESET_N15NET_STATUS16MAIN_RXD17MAIN_TXD18MAIN_DTR19MAIN_RI20MAIN_DCD21MAIN_CTS22MAIN_RTS23VDD_EXT24STATUS25RESERVED26GND27AUX_RXD28AUX_TXD29PCM_CLK30PCM_SYNC31PCM_DIN32PCM_DOUT33GND34ANT_MAIN35GND36GND37DBG_RXD38DBG_TXD39GND40GND41VBAT42VBAT43RESERVED44U1ABC25/EC800NGND45GND46GND47GND48RESERVED49RESERVED50RESERVED51RESERVED52RESERVED53RESERVED54RESERVED55RESERVED56RESERVED57RESERVED58USB_DP59USB_DM60USB_VBUS61RESERVED62RESERVED63RESERVED64RESERVED65I2C_SDA66I2C_SCL67RESERVED68RESERVED69GND70GND71GND72U1BEC800NGND73RESERVED74RESERVED75RESERVED76RESERVED77RESERVED78USIM_DET79RESERVED80RESERVED81USB_BOOT82RESERVED83RESERVED84RESERVED85RESERVED86RESERVED87GND88U1CEC800NGND89GND90GND91GND92GND93GND94U1DEC800NGNDGNDUSIM_DETUSB_BOOTGNDVBUSDM_EC800NDP_EC800NGNDGNDPIN3POWRKEYUSIM1_CLKUSIM1_RSTUSIM1_DATAGNDGNDD_RXD_1V8D_TXD_1V8C2100uF 6 3V+3 8VR90RADCI2C_SCL_EC800NI2C_SDA_EC800NR164 7KR144



ground_truth: It required the transformation to be limited to specific data and a visual depiction representing specific objects or substances.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: Where can users go for troubleshooting and support?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 3: 7KI2C_SDA_EC800NI2C_SCL_EC800N+3 8VPIN4PIN5PIN6R190RR200RDM_EC800NDP_EC800NUSB_DMUSB_DP+3 8VGNDR304 7K312Q2D6翠绿灯珠NETR310RR32NCPIN30+3 8VGND3OUTPUT2VCC1U2KTH1601SL-ST3VCC_1V8C141uFGNDGNDR3310KVCC_1V8PIN31磁性开关灯珠EC800N焊接R19、R20电源部分请参考官方设计BC25不焊接
COC9 PIC902 PIC901 COU3 PIU301 PIU302 PIU303 PIU306 PIU305 PIU304 COR7 PIR702 PIR701 COL1 PIL101 PIL102 PIC701 PIC702 COC7 COD2 PID202 PID201 COC10 PIC1001 PIC1002 PIC1201 PIC1202 COC12 COR8 PIR802 PIR801 PID501 PID502 COD5 COU6 PIU601 PIU602 PIU603 PIU605 PIU604 PIC1102 COC11 PIC1101 PIC802 COC8 PIC801 COR21 PIR2101 PIR2102 COUSBC1 PIUSBC100 PIUSBC10A12 PIUSBC10A9 PIUSBC10A8 PIUSBC10A7 PIUSBC10A6 PIUSBC10A5 PIUSBC10A4 PIUSBC10A1 PIUSBC10B1 PIUSBC10B4 PIUSBC10B5 PIUSBC10B6 PIUSBC10B7 PIUSBC10B8 PIUSBC10B9 PIUSBC10B12 COR10 PIR1002 PIR1001 COR11 PIC1301 PIC1302 COC13 PIR1101 PIR1102 COD4 PID401 PID402 COD3 PID301 PID302 COD7 PID701 PID702 11223344DDCCBBAATitleNumberRevisionSizeA4Date:2021/11/1Sheet ofFile:E:\\\\  \\2 POWER SchDocDrawn By:type-CDCDCGNDGNDB1VBUSB4CC2B5DP2B6DN2B7SBU2B8VBUSB9GNDB1200000000GNDA1VBUSA4CC1A5DP1A6DN1A7SBU1A8VBUSA9GNDA12USBC1USB3 1C16PFSMTGNDGNDUSB_DMUSB_DMUSB_DPUSB_DPVBUSVBUSVBUSVBUSD3ESD9L5 0ST5GD4ESD9L5 0ST5GD2SMBJ6 5CAGND1SW2VIN3VFB4EN5VBST6U3TPS563201DDCRGND2 2uHL1WPN4020H2R2MTC90 1uFR710KC120 1uFGNDGND+5V+3 8V+5VR1110KR1040 2KC130 1uFGND+3 8VD54 7KR8GND+3 8VC722uF 10VC1022uF 10VVCC_1V8C84 7uFR2110KVIN1GND2EN3NC4VOUT5U6ME6212C18M5GGNDGNDC114 7uFGND+5VD7SS34VBUS+5V
COC3 PIC301 PIC302 COCARD1 PICARD10C1 PICARD10C2 PICARD10C3 PICARD108 PICARD109 PICARD1010 PICARD1011 PICARD10C5 PICARD10C6 PICARD10C7 PICARD10CD PIR1202 COR12 PIR1201 PIU501 PIU503 PIU504 PIU505 PIU506 COU5 PIU502 11223344DDCCBBAATitleNumberRevisionSizeA4Date:2021/11/1Sheet ofFile:E:\\\\  \\4 SIM-CARD SchDocDrawn By:123456U5USIM1_VDDUSIM1_RSTUSIM1_CLKUSIM1_DATAGND10KR12USIMGNDVCCC1RSTC2CLKC3I/OC7VPPC6GNDC5CDCDEP8EP9EP10EP11CARD1SMN-303GNDC30 1uFUSIM_DET
COJ5 PIJ501 PIJ502 PIJ503 PIJ504 PIJ505 PIJ506 PIJ507 PIJ508 PIJ509 PIJ5010 PIJ5011 PIJ5012 PIJ5013 PIJ5014 PIJ5015 COJ6 PIJ601 PIJ602 PIJ603 PIJ604 PIJ605 PIJ606 PIJ607 PIJ608 PIJ609 PIJ6010 PIJ6011 PIJ6012 PIJ6013 PIJ6014 PIJ6015 COU4 PIU409 PIR501 PIR502 COR5 COS1 PIS101 PIS102 COR17 COS2 PIR1702 PIR1701 PIS201 PIS202 COR18 PIR1802 PIR1801 COR2 PIR201 PIR202 PIC402 COC4 PIC401 PIC502 COC5 PIC501 PIR602 COR6 PIU405 PIR601 PIU406 PIC1702 PIC1701 COC17 PIU407 PIU402 PIU408 PIU403 PIU404 PIU401 PIU4024 PIU4023 PIU4022 PIU4021 PIU4020 PIU4019 PIU4018 PIU4017 PIU4016 PIU4015 PIU4014 PIU4013 PIU4012 PIU4011 PIU4010 PIU400 COR26 COR27 PIR2602 PIR2702 PIR2601 PIR2701 COR28 COR29 PIR2802 PIR2902 PIR2801 PIR2901 11223344DDCCBBAATitleNumberRevisionSizeA4Date:2021/11/1Sheet ofFile:E:\\\\  \\6 GPIO+UART SchDocDrawn By:GPIOAUX_RXD_1V8AUX_TXD_1V8GNDD_TXD_1V8D_RXD_1V8S1S2GNDVDD_EXTPOWRKEYPIN19VBUSRI_SCI1GND2D+3D-4VIO5VDD6REGIN7VBUS8-RST9CTS_ECI10RTS_ECI11RXD_ECI12TXD_ECI13GPIO 1_ECI14GPIO 0_ECI15NC16RI_ECI17CTS_SCI18RTS_SCI19RXD_SCI20TXD_SCI21GPIO 2_SCI22GPIO 1_SCI23GPIO 0_SCI24GND0U4CP2105GND1uFC17R5NC1uFC4C50 1uFGNDGNDR6NCR20RADC_INM_TXD_1V8M_RXD_1V8PIN19PIN25PIN33PIN30PIN31PIN32USB_DMUSB_DPM_RXD_1V8M_TXD_1V8R260RR270RR280RR290RD_RXD_1V8D_TXD_1V8PIN3PIN4PIN5PIN6PIN20PIN21PIN22PIN23123456789101112131415J5Header 15123456789101112131415J6Header 15R170RR180RUSB_BOOTI2C_SCL_EC800NI2C_SDA_EC800N+3 8VRESETGNDVCC_1V8VCC_1V8+5VEC800N不焊接CP2105
'



ground_truth: Online documentation, QuecPython community, online support: QQ group 445121768.