DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communications filed on 1/12/2023.
Currently, claims 1-8 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Section 3.1 (below):
With respect to independent claim 1, this claim states “Circuitry for automatically aligning and locking to at least one of a communication signal bit rate or wavelength, and for re-clocking and re-generating the communication signal, the circuitry comprising:
clock data recovery (CDR) circuitry: and
microprocessor (MPU) circuitry” (Emphasis added).
However, the only stated/logical structural relationship is that “CDR circuitry” and the “MPU circuitry” are contained within the overall claimed “Circuitry” (stated in the preamble). Where the structural relationships between the CDR and MPU (as well as functionality) are omitted, i.e. the basic/fundamental input and output relationships of the various claimed circuits/circuitry are absent from the scope of claim 1. Furthermore, the claimed “CDR circuitry” and the “MPU circuitry” in the body of claim 1 are completely are not explicitly, logically, or functionality connected to the functional limitations stated in the preamble, where these functional limitations exist solely within the preamble and are not required to the read/imported into the body of the claim 1.
In fact, the scope of the claim 1 is so broad that the claim does not explicitly, functionally, or logically require any particular circuit/circuitry to receive (or output) any signal(s) to/from any other circuit/circuitry; thus the scope of instant claim 1 is effectively a list of parts within the overall claimed “Circuitry” (stated in the preamble).
Therefore, the scope of claim 1 fails the threshold requirements for clarity and precision as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02(II) due to the absence/omission of particular and distinct language that identifies/defines (either explicitly, logically, or functionally) functionality of the claimed circuitry in the body of the claim; and/or the structural relationships between the various claimed circuitry in the body of the claim (in the context addressed above).
Where dependent claims 2 and 3 each fail to mitigate the rationale for the rejection of independent parent claim 1, and thus are each rejected using similar rationale (as addressed above). The Examiner notes that dependent claims 2 and 3 further compound the issue addressed for claim 1 (above), since these claims introduce new additional circuits/circuitry while also omitting the structural relationship(s) (and functionality). In other words, dependent claims 2 and 3 merely add to the ‘list of parts’ without correcting the fundamental problem (i.e. indefinite claim scope) of independent claim 1 (as previously addressed).
Section 3.2 (below):
With respect to independent claim 4, this claim states “A system for automatically aligning and locking to at least one of a communication signal bit rate and wavelength and for re-clocking and re-generating the communication signal, the system comprising:
network equipment;
customer equipment;
a communication signal defining a bit rate and a wavelength, wherein the communication signal travels via a plurality of paths between the network equipment and the customer equipment;
clock data recovery (CDR) circuitry along the plurality of paths; and
a microprocessor (MPU) circuitry in communication with the CDR circuitry;
wherein the CDR circuitry automatically aligns and locks to at least one of a communication signal bit rate and wavelength, and re-clocks and re-generates the communication signal” (Emphasis added).
Section 3.2a (below):
Firstly, the “a communication signal defining a bit rate and a wavelength” (per se) as renders the scope of the claim 4 to be indefinite with regards to the knowledge and abilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) since the cited phrase/limitation contradicts the fundamental and basic concepts in the known technology area/art. For example, the meaning of the “a communication signal defining a bit rate and a wavelength” would logically require that the communication signal by itself defines the modulated bit rate and the wavelength implemented at the transmitter/TX (which is either the network equipment or the customer equipment). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the opposite is true, i.e. the transmitter defines the wavelength and bit rate of the future communication signal (using various parameters) and then physically generates and transmits the communication signal at the (transmitter defined) wavelength and bit rate.
Dependent claims 5 and 6 each fail to mitigate the indefinite scope of independent parent claim 4 (as addressed above) and thus are each rejected for similar rationale as claim 4 above.
Section 3.2b (below):
Secondly, various phrases and concepts are introduced multiple times within the body of independent claim 4; i.e. “communication signal”, “wavelength” and “bit rate” are logically introduced multiple times within the body of the claim, and thus instant claim 4 requires two different communication signals, two different wavelengths, and two different bit rates (which are logically detached from each other).
Additionally but not exclusive, the two different communications signals (each with their own respective wavelength and bit rate) contradicts the technical/engineering merits of the Detailed Specification, where the re-clocked and re-generated communication signal is shown (in the Detailed Specification) to be the same communication signal (at the same wavelength and same bit rate) as the communication signal received and processed by the CDR circuitry (albeit ‘cleaned up’).
Where the multiple introductions of the “communication signal”, the “wavelength” and the “bit rate” within the body of independent claim 4 (as well as the contradict between claim 4 and the Detailed Specification) as addressed and emphasized above, means that claim 4 fail(s) the threshold requirements for clarity and precision as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II, which also renders the scope of claim 4 to be indefinite with regards to the knowledge and abilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II).
Dependent claims 5 and 6 each fail to mitigate the indefinite scope of independent parent claim 4 (as addressed above) and thus are each rejected for similar rationale as claim 4 above.
Section 3.3 (below):
With respect to independent claim 7, this claim states “A method for provisioning clock data recovery circuitry, comprising the steps of:
automatically aligning and locking CDR circuitry to at least one of a communication signal bit rate or wavelength: and
re-clocking and re-generating a communication signal via the CDR circuitry” (Emphasis added).
Where independent claim 7 introduces “a communication signal” multiple times (see above) and thus instant claim 7 requires two different communication signals that are logically detached from each other.
Additionally but not exclusive, the two different communications signals (each with their own respective wavelength and bit rate) contradicts the technical/engineering merits of the Detailed Specification, where the re-clocked and re-generated communication signal is shown (in the Detailed Specification) to be the same communication signal (at the same wavelength and same bit rate) as the communication signal received and processed by the CDR circuitry (albeit ‘cleaned up’).
Where the multiple introductions of the “communication signal” within the body of independent claim 7 (as well as the contradict between claim 7 and the Detailed Specification) as addressed and emphasized above, means that claim 7 fail(s) the threshold requirements for clarity and precision as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II, which also renders the scope of claim 7 to be indefinite with regards to the knowledge and abilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II).
Dependent claim 8 fails to mitigate the indefinite scope of independent parent claim 7 (as addressed above) and thus are each rejected for similar rationale as claim 7 above. Where the examiner notes that limitations of dependent claim 8 introduce “a communication signal” a third time, which further compounds the rationale of the rejection of parent independent claim 7.
Examiner’s Comments
Looking beyond the various issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as stated above, instant claims 1-7 seem to claim subject matter from the Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (instant figures 1-4 and paragraphs [0005-0017] of the instant Specification) instead of claiming new subject of the actual invention that uses two different CDR (with different directions, uplink and downlink starting at instant figure 5a) with adaptive rate selection of both CDRs (see instant figure 15 in which CDR1 and CDR2 selectively controlled to the same rate or different/asymmetric rates).
Additionally, the Examiner notes that various prior art references are cited in the specification (see [0014-0017] of the instant Specification) without being cited in the separate IDS. In fact, no IDS has been submitted for this case.
Allowable Subject Matter
No allowable subject matter will be indicated until the above 112(b) issues are clarified/resolved (either by amendments or arguments).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and are cited in the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M. Perez, telephone number (571)270-3231. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday: 10am to 6pm EST.
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, David C. Payne can be reached on (571)272-3024. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JAMES M PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635 6/14/2025