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 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 1-7 and 21-37 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 31, applicant explains that the output of 165 is coupled to the input of 135, which Examiner agrees with. Accordingly, applicant appears to suggest that the output of 135 is indirectly coupled to the input of 165. This indirect coupling is through 145 and 155. Examiner agrees that typically, having intervening components is within the normal scope of interpretation of "couple" such as is provided in paragraph 107 of the application - "device A is coupled to device B through intervening component C if intervening component C does not alter the functional relationship between device A and device B, such that device B is controlled by device A via the control signal generated by device A."
Here, device A could be 135, device B could be 165, meaning component C could be 145. However, it appears that 145 does alter the functional relationship between A and B. The structure of 145 aligns with that of 135 and 165, where SYNCIN is propagated through detection circuitry 210, NAND gates 405, 425, then amplifiers 435 and 455 where there the output are dependent on the input but without a direct current flow, then to 525 and 530 where a reference clock is generated to control 240 and 250, which only then outputs SYNCOUT. This process repeats again for 155.
It does not appear that device B is controlled by device A via the control signal generated by device A because device C substantially transforms SYNCIN, from a clock at SYNCIN to a reference voltage to a duty cycle indication and eventually back to a clock at SYNCOUT. Likewise, intervening components 145 and 155 alter the functional relationship between 135 and 165 due to the above steps.
Another interpretation of coupling is when the upstream component is electrically coupled with a current to the downstream component. However, amplifiers such as 435 show how the input control the current source coupled to the output without such a current path, so 135 and 165 are not coupled via current.
Accordingly, it is requested that Applicant verify their interpretation of coupling and whether that means that any amount of intervening components, including those that substantially change the signal and functionality and do not have a connecting current flow, falls within the limits of that interpretation. Currently as it stands, that appears to be contrary to the definition provided in paragraph 107.
Regarding claims 2-7, 21-30, and 32-37, these claims are rejected since they depend on claims above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIBIN CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5768. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at (571) 270-7166. 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.
/SIBIN CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights