Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
Claim 2-4 recites “the control circuit changes the oscillation period based on a detection result”. However, the drawings do not illustrate the oscillation period changed based on the detection result. The applicant is required to amend the claims to correspond to the subject matter shown in the drawings.
Claim 5 recites “The control circuit counts a number of times of the occurrence of the error and, performs control to generate an error notification”. However, Figure 1 illustrates separate structures performing these functions. Specifically, Figure 1 shows a retry counter performing the” count a number of times of the occurrence of the error”, and a comparator “generates an error notification”, rather than the control circuit performing both functions as recited in the claim.
The features specified above must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
“71” is not shown in Figure 6. It appears reference number “71” should be “81”. (paragraph 0060)
“76” is not shown in Figure 6. (paragraph 0061)
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference number “81” in Figure 6 is not found in the Detailed Description.
The drawings are objected to because Figure 15 contains translation error.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0067, line 9, “b3” should read “b2”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “a control circuit configured to change an oscillation period based on a detection result, divide a random number, and cause the randomness test circuit to execute”. However, the specifications describe the structure as operating based on the recited results and being configured to perform the recited operations. The claim, as presently written, attributes only the first operation as being based on the result, while separately reciting the other operations without the same relationship.
In response to this rejection, claim 1 could be amended to more closely correspond to the disclosure by reciting: “a control circuit, based on a detection result, configured to: (A) change an oscillation period; (B) divide a random number, and (C) cause the randomness test circuit to execute.” Such an amendment would more clearly align the claim language with the disclosure in the specification.
Regarding claims 2-4, these claims depend from claim 1 and are rejected for the same reason.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “the control circuit counts a number of times of the occurrence of the error and performs control to generate an error notification”. However, the specification describes that the first function is performed by the retry counter, and the second function is performed by the comparator (paragraph 0071). As shown in Figure 1, control circuit, retry counter and comparator are illustrated as separate and distinct structures. In addition, claim 5 depends from claim 2, which is dependent from claim 1, and is rejected for the same reason.
By way of example, claim 5 could be amended to more closely correspond to the specification by positively reciting a retry counter and a comparator generator as structural elements of the claim and modifying the functional language associated with the control circui8t to say: “the control circuit configured to instruct the retry counter to count a number of times of the occurrence of the error and, when a count value reaches an upper limit, the comparator generates an error notification.” Such an amendment would more clearly align the claim language with the disclosure in the specification.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “a control circuit configured to change an oscillation period based on a detection result, divide a random number, and cause the randomness test circuit to execute”. However, the specifications describe the structure as operating based on the recited results and being configured to perform the recited operations. The claim, as presently written, attributes only the first operation as being based on the result, while separately reciting the other operations without the same relationship.
By way of example, claim 6 could be amended to more closely correspond to the disclosure by reciting: “a control circuit, based on a detection result, configured to: (A) change an oscillation period; (B) divide a random number, and (C) cause the randomness test circuit to execute”. Such an amendment would more clearly align the claim language with the disclosure in the specification.
In addition, claim 6 recites “a sampling circuit configured to capture the oscillation output from the selector using a first clock and generate a random number value”. However, the specification describes “a sampling circuit configured to capture the oscillation output of a ring oscillator using a first clock and generate a random number value” (paragraph 0019). The claim attributes performance of a function to a structure that, according to the specification, does not perform that function.
Regarding claim 7, the claim depends from claim 6 and rejected for the same reason.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jaime Cuebas whose telephone number is (571)272-9131. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 6:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Caldwell can be reached at 571-272-3702. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAIME JOSE CUEBAS RUIZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2182
(571)272-9131
/ANDREW CALDWELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2182