DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: each claim contains multiple periods resulting in the claims having multiple sentences. Each claim can only be a single sentence starting with a capital letter and ending with a period. All other periods should be converted to the appropriate punctuation as per 608.01(n). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: the applicant uses parenthesis to contain what are actually claim limitations that should not be. Parenthesis are use for reference characters. Therefore the applicant needs to remove the parenthesis and incorporate those limitations properly into the claim language. See MPEP 608.01(m). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-6 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims should use transitional phrases consistent with MPEP 2111.03. For example: “comprising” or “consisting of”. Claims 2 and 4 use the phrase “with the addition of” which should be corrected and claims 3 and 5 don’t use any transitional phrases. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Claim 1 recites many limitations throughout the claim language that has insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Such as “the management scheme”, “the items”, “the next buffer select”, “The buffer’s reference count”, “the freepool”, “the FIFO IN and OUT offset”, “the sender”, “the receiver” and “the buffer pool”. For the first instance of a term, it should be preceded by “a” instead of “the” and any subsequent recitation of that term should use the word “the”, but otherwise be identical.
Claim 2 recites many limitations throughout the claim language that has insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Such as “the exception signal pulse width”, “this event”, “the other thread”, “the exception-event signal” and “the exception-event pulse”. For the first instance of a term, it should be preceded by “a” instead of “the” and any subsequent recitation of that term should use the word “the”, but otherwise be identical.
The remaining claims are very similar to these two and have the same issues with insufficient antecedent basis. The applicant is advised to carefully review the claim language for any additional issues with antecedent basis that the examiner may have missed.
The term “close together” in claims 2, 4 and 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close together” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. How together do the rising and falling edges have to be to be considered close?
Claim 1 recites the limitation in (ii): “each buffer can appear on more that one queue”, this limitation does not describe under what conditions the buffer does and does not appear on more that one queue and there is unclear.
Claim 1 recites the limitation in (ii): “each buffer can appear on more than one queue by the use of intermediate buffer select elements linked onto each queue where each points to an individual buffer”, it is unclear what the term “each” is modifying. What is pointing to an individual buffer?
Claim 1 recites the term “intermediate buffer select elements in (ii) and “a number of elements” in (iii). It is unclear if these are the same elements or different elements. If they are the same elements, they should use the exact same terminology.
Claim 1 recites the limitation in (iii): “the FIFO is initially empty and one or a plurality of elements are added up to the limit of the pre-allocated size. Items are removed or read out in the order they were added”. It is unclear what items are removed or read out. Are the “items” the same is the “one or a plurality of elements”, if so the terms should be consistent.
The limitation in item (iv) of claim 1 beginning with “because” is intended use. This isn’t a 112 issue, but the examiner wanted to bring this to the applicants attention because limitations directed to intended use are not give patentable weight. See MPEP 2103 (C).
Claim 1 recites the limitation in (v): “two FIFOs are allocated for each, one inbound (from central) and one outbound (to central). It is unclear what the term “each” is modifying. Allocated for each what?.
Claim 1 recites the term “Qis” in (vi), it is unclear what this term is referring too.
Claim 1 recites the limitation in (vi): “a plurality of non-central threads send and receive Qis to/from the central thread via FIFOs and use those buffers as required”. It is unclear what buffers “those buffers” are referring too for the various previously claimed buffers.
Claim 1 recites the limitation in (vii): “no synchronization locks are used”. It is unclear what the scope of this limitations is. Does not mean the claimed locks are never used, not used during the claimed steps, no used during certain time periods? Further clarification is required.
Claims 3 and 5 have many of the same problems as claim 1 above and need to be corrected in the same manner.
Claim 2 uses the “#” in the preamble. This should be removed.
Claim 2 recites the term “this event” in (ii) and (iii), it is unclear what event is being referred too. If this is supposed to be the exception-event, this claim language needs to be consistent.
Claim 2 recites the term “the other thread” in (ii), it is unclear what thread is being referred to here.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “to operate normally except that it doesn’t put the buffer onto its outbound FIFO” in (ii). It is unclear what the terms “it” and “its” is referring too. The claim language should explicitly state what “it” is in the claims.
Claims 4 and 6 have many of the same problems as claim 2 above and need to be corrected in the same manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Even though the claims are replete with indefinite language, the examiner has done a search of the prior art for the inventive concept and supplies these references in the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ALSIP whose telephone number is (571)270-1182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kenneth M. Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/MICHAEL ALSIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2136