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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this office action and presented for examination. Claims 2 and 14-18 are newly amended by the response received July 22, 2025.
Applicant is advised that should claim 16 be found allowable, claim 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive — see the first indefinite rejection of claim 1 for the reason why the language of the title (“SUPPLY PARAMETER TO PLURALITY OF SIGNAL PROCESSING CIRCUITRIES”) is not being considered to be clearly indicative of the invention. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Examiner generally notes that if a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the examiner will, at the time of allowance, change the title by an examiner’s amendment to increase informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. However, the drawings in the file wrapper do not meet this requirement — see, for example, the array of white dots that causes the lines, text, and numbers to appear fuzzy and blurry. This may be caused by dithering being applied when a conversion from greyscale to black has taken place; if so, Examiner recommends ensuring that any submitted drawings do not contain any grey elements.
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.
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 1-20 are 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. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A signal processing device comprising: a parameter supply circuitry configured to output a plurality of parameters; a plurality of signal processing circuitries, at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries configured to: receive one of the plurality of parameters from the parameter supply circuitry, and process an input signal based on the one of the plurality of parameters, wherein the plurality of signal processing circuitries process the input signal in series” in lines 1-8. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, this limitation encompasses the possibility that only one (as one example of a number that is less than a total number of the plurality of signal processing circuitries) of the plurality of signal processing circuitries is configured to receive one of the plurality of parameters from the parameter supply circuitry, and process an input signal based on the one of the plurality of parameters, wherein the plurality of signal processing circuitries process the input signal in series; however, the original disclosure (e.g., FIG. 2, which shows a plurality of signal processing circuitries performing processing in series, not just one) does not appear to provide support for this limitation.
Claims 2-20 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the parameter supply circuitry includes a selection circuitry configured to select the one of the plurality of parameters from among the plurality of parameters, and supply the one of the plurality of parameters to the at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries” in lines 2-6. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., FIG. 13 and FIG. 14, which discloses, for example, multiple parameter selection units 191-198 respectively associated with signal processing modules 111-118) does not appear to provide support for the parameter supply circuitry including a selection circuitry configured to select the one of the plurality of parameters from among the plurality of parameters, and supply the one of the plurality of parameters to the more than one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries (which is a scenario encompassed by the claim in view of the “at least one” language).
Claim 11 is rejected for failing to alleviate the rejection of claim 10 above.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “supply the one of the plurality of parameters to the plurality of signal processing circuitries via a queue” in lines 11-12. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., FIG. 13 and FIG. 14, which shows that multiple queues are used to provide parameters to the plurality of signal processing circuitries) does not appear to provide support for supplying the one of the plurality of parameters to the plurality of signal processing circuitries via a queue.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “supply the one of the plurality of parameters to the plurality of signal processing circuitries via a queue” in lines 11-12. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., FIG. 13 and FIG. 14, which shows that multiple queues are used to provide parameters to the plurality of signal processing circuitries) does not appear to provide support for supplying the one of the plurality of parameters to the plurality of signal processing circuitries via a queue.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries is further configured to supply INIT, which is a control signal giving an instruction on initialization, to the plurality of signal processing circuitries, and supply the one of the plurality of parameters to the plurality of signal processing circuitries via a queue” in lines 8-12. However, the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation. For example, the original disclosure (e.g., FIG. 6) does not appear to provide support for the at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries being that which is further configured to supply INIT, which is a control signal giving an instruction on initialization, to the plurality of signal processing circuitries, and supply the one of the plurality of parameters to the plurality of signal processing circuitries via a queue.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A signal processing device comprising: a parameter supply circuitry configured to output a plurality of parameters; a plurality of signal processing circuitries, at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries configured to: receive one of the plurality of parameters from the parameter supply circuitry, and process an input signal based on the one of the plurality of parameters, wherein the plurality of signal processing circuitries process the input signal in series” in lines 1-8. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, it is indefinite as to whether all of the plurality of signal processing circuitries that are included in the set of “at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries” receive a same one of the plurality of parameters, or whether all of the plurality of signal processing circuitries that are included in the set of “at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries” receive respective parameters of the plurality of parameters, or whether another interpretation is intended.
On one hand, the specification, drawings, and other portions of the claims appear to imply the second interpretation above (i.e., all of the plurality of signal processing circuitries that are included in the set of “at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries” receive respective parameters of the plurality of parameters).
For example, claim 1 recites (with emphasis added by examiner) “control the parameter supply circuitry to output each of the plurality of parameters … in such a manner that pipeline processing is performed on the input signal” in line 10.
For example, claim 9 recites (with emphasis added by examiner) “the parameter supply circuitry is further configured to supply the plurality of parameters to the plurality of signal processing circuitries via a queue” in lines 2-3. Significantly, note that paragraph [0094]-[0095] (under the “THIRD EMBODIMENT” heading) discloses (with emphasis added by examiner) “[0094] The register module 102 may supply the parameter to each signal processing module via a queue. FIG. 10 illustrates a main configuration example of the signal processing device 100 in that case. As illustrated in FIG. 10, in the signal processing device 100 in this case, the register module 102 includes queues 171 to 178. The queues 171 to 178 correspond to the signal processing modules 111 to 118, respectively, and temporarily hold parameters supplied to the respective signal processing modules in a first-in first-out manner.
[0095] That is, the register module 102 supplies the parameter to be supplied to the signal processing module 111 to the signal processing module 111 via the queue 171 (after temporarily holding the parameter in the queue 171). Similarly, parameters are supplied to the other signal processing modules via respective corresponding queues.”
In particular, the first sentence of paragraph [0094] above discloses “The register module 102 may supply the parameter to each signal processing module via a queue”, which may imply in a vacuum that a plurality of signal processing circuitries are configured to receive a same parameter by a same queue. However, in the context of the immediately following disclosure (also italicized above, with some underlining), the language of the first sentence of paragraph [0094] merely appears to be imprecise language, and paragraphs [0094]-[0095], when considered as a whole, implies the second interpretation above (all of the plurality of signal processing circuitries that are included in the set of “at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries” receive respective parameters of the plurality of parameters). Examiner further submits that paragraphs [0094]-[0095] give no implicit or explicit indication that the aforementioned first sentence of [0094] is intended to be a separate embodiment from the remaining portions of paragraphs [0094]-[0095].
Similarly, see paragraph [0058], which discloses (with emphasis added by examiner) “The register module 102 holds the parameter supplied from the master and supplies the parameter to the signal processing modules 111 to 118 at a predetermined timing. The signal processing modules 111 to 118 perform the respective signal processes using the parameters supplied from the register module 102. That is, the register module 102 is a parameter supply unit that supplies a parameter used for pipeline processing to each signal processing module”.
In particular, the first sentence of paragraph [0058] above discloses “The register module 102 holds the parameter supplied from the master and supplies the parameter to the signal processing modules 111 to 118”, which may imply in a vacuum that a plurality of signal processing circuitries are configured to receive a same parameter. However, in the context of the immediately following disclosure (also italicized above) — as well as other portions of the disclosure which use similar language, such as paragraphs [0094]-[0095] above — the language of the first sentence of paragraph [0058] merely appears to be imprecise language, and paragraph [0058], when considered as a whole (e.g., in view of the second sentence, and the “that is” language of the third sentence), implies the second interpretation above (all of the plurality of signal processing circuitries that are included in the set of “at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries” receive respective parameters of the plurality of parameters). Examiner further submits that paragraph [0058] gives no implicit or explicit indication that the aforementioned first sentence of [0058] is intended to be a separate embodiment from the second sentence of paragraph [0058].
(Note that the aforementioned citations are merely examples and are not comprehensive. For example, paragraph [0106] discloses “That is, the parameters selected by the parameter selection units 191 to 198 are supplied to the respective signal processing modules.”)
As explained above, other portions of the claims and specification (such as the ones detailed above) appear to imply the second interpretation above (i.e., all of the plurality of signal processing circuitries that are included in the set of “at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries” receive respective parameters of the plurality of parameters).
On the other hand, claim 1 nevertheless recites the imprecise language explained by Examiner above, and Applicant argues that the cited claim limitation encompasses the first interpretation above, and argues that the first interpretation above is a separate embodiment from the second interpretation above.
Therefore, Examiner maintains that the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For the purposes of prior art analysis, in view of Applicant’s position, Examiner is taking the first interpretation to be the case.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A signal processing device comprising: a parameter supply circuitry configured to output a plurality of parameters; a plurality of signal processing circuitries, at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries configured to: receive one of the plurality of parameters from the parameter supply circuitry, and process an input signal based on the one of the plurality of parameters … a control circuitry configured to control the parameter supply circuitry to output each of the plurality of parameters” in lines 1-10. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. For example, in the scenario in which only one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries is configured to receive one of the plurality of parameters from the parameter supply circuitry (which is a scenario encompassed by the claim in view of the “at least one” language), it is indefinite as to how the control circuitry is configured to control the parameter supply circuitry to output “each of the plurality of parameters” such that pipeline processing is performed on the input signal.
Claims 2-20 are rejected for failing to alleviate the rejections of claim 1 above. Note that claim 10 further recites a limitation (“selection circuitry configured to select the one of the plurality of parameters from among the plurality of parameters, and supply the one of the plurality of parameters to the at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries”) which is related to the limitation of claim 1 addressed above (“at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries configured to: receive one of the plurality of parameters”). Note that claim 14, lines 11-12, further recites a limitation (“supply the one of the plurality of parameters to the plurality of signal processing circuitries”) which is related to the limitation of claim 1 addressed above (“at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries configured to: receive one of the plurality of parameters”). Note that claim 15, lines 11-12, further recites a limitation (“supply the one of the plurality of parameters to the plurality of signal processing circuitries”) which is related to the limitation of claim 1 addressed above (“at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries configured to: receive one of the plurality of parameters”). Note that claim 16, lines 11-12, further recites a limitation (“supply the one of the plurality of parameters to the plurality of signal processing circuitries”) which is related to the limitation of claim 1 addressed above (“at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries configured to: receive one of the plurality of parameters”). Note that claim 17, lines 11-12, further recites a limitation (“supply the one of the plurality of parameters to the plurality of signal processing circuitries”) which is related to the limitation of claim 1 addressed above (“at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries configured to: receive one of the plurality of parameters”). Note that claim 18, lines 11-12, further recites a limitation (“supply the one of the plurality of parameters to the plurality of signal processing circuitries”) which is related to the limitation of claim 1 addressed above (“at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries configured to: receive one of the plurality of parameters”).
Claim 13 recites the limitation “an operation mode of the at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries” in lines 2-3. However, it is indefinite as to whether this operation mode is the same as, or different from, the operation mode implicit in the limitations “the parameter supply circuitry is further configured to supply a control signal controlling an operation mode to a normal mode or a bypass mode to the plurality of signal processing circuitries” in claim 12, lines 2-3, and “a plurality of signal processing circuitries, at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries” in claim 1, lines 3-4. If the same, antecedent basis language should be used for clarity.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a bypass mode” in line 3. However, it is indefinite as to whether this bypass mode is the same as, or different from, “a bypass mode” as recited in claim 12, line 3. If the same, antecedent basis language should be used for clarity.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “The signal processing device according to claim 12, wherein … the control circuitry is further configured to skip supply of START, which is a control signal giving an instruction to start the processing of the input signal, to the at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries in which the operation mode is set to the bypass mode by the parameter supply circuitry” in lines 1-7. Claim 1, upon which claim 13 is indirectly dependent, recites the limitation “A signal processing device comprising: a parameter supply circuitry configured to output a plurality of parameters; a plurality of signal processing circuitries, at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries configured to: receive one of the plurality of parameters from the parameter supply circuitry, and process an input signal based on the one of the plurality of parameters, wherein the plurality of signal processing circuitries process the input signal in series” in lines 1-8. Therefore, claim 13 is indefinite as to whether the at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries process the input signal or do not process the input signal.
Response to Arguments
Applicant on page 11 argues: “However, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the Office's objection in view of Applicant's amendments to the Title of the Invention.”
However, Examiner submits that the title of the invention is not descriptive — see the specification section above.
Applicant on page 11 argues: “Applicant has amended FIGS. 1-25 to address the Office's concerns. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the Office's objection to FIGS. 1-25.”
However, the objections to the drawings appear to remain applicable to the newly amended drawings.
Applicant on page 11 argues: “With respect to item 15…”
However, the item being referred to in the aforementioned argument (and the items being referred to further respective arguments) appear to refer to item numbers of an office action that is not the most recent office action. Examiner requests that Applicant use item numbers of the most recent office action for clarity.
Applicant across pages 11-13 argues: ‘With respect to item 15, the Office asserts that "the original disclosure does not appear to provide support for this limitation... [as the limitation] encompasses the possibility that only one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries are configured to receive one of the plurality of parameters from the parameter supply circuitry, and process an input signal based on the one of the plurality of parameters; however, the original disclosure (e.g., FIG. 2) does not appear to provide support for this limitation."3 Applicant respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 does not recite "only one." Instead, claim 1 recites "at least one." FIG. 2 of the corresponding pre-grant U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0376449A illustrates each of signal processing modules 111-118 receiving a parameter from the register module 102. Therefore, contrary to the Office's assertions, FIG. 2 of the corresponding pre-grant U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0376449A1 does support the limitation of "a plurality of signal processing circuitries, at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries configured to: receive one of the plurality of parameters from the parameter supply circuitry" because at least one of the signal processing modules 111-118 receives a parameter from the register module 102. In responding to Applicant's above remarks regarding claim 1, the Office states that "[h]owever, an original claim may lack written description support when a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. In the instant case, Examiner submits that the original claim is a broad genus claim (by using the language "at least one", which covers both the embodiment of "just one" and the embodiment of "a plurality of), but the disclosure only describes a narrow species (the embodiment of "a plurality of) with no evidence that the genus is contemplated."4 Applicant respectfully disagrees. MPEP § 608 states "Applicant may rely for disclosure upon the specification with original claims and drawings, as filed. See also 37 CFR 1.121(f) and MPEP § 608.04."5 Contrary to the Office's assertions, the disclosure does not describe a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. Paragraphs [0061] and [0062] of the corresponding pre-grant U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0376449A1 teach the following6: … In view of paragraphs [0061] and [0062], Applicant's disclosure teaches that the control module supplies a control signal VLATCH to the register module 102 that gives an instruction on a timing of switching a parameter on per-module basis because Applicant's disclosure specifically states that these teachings are applicable to all of the signal processing modules 111-118. In other words, paragraphs [0061] and [0062] of Applicant's disclosure teaches individual control of all the signal processing modules with the control module 101 at the same time such that the genus claim is contemplated.’
However, the emphasized-by-Applicant portion of paragraphs [0061] and [0062], and Applicant’s subsequent remarks, appear to support Examiner’s position that the disclosure only describes a narrow species (the embodiment of “all”) with no evidence that the genus is contemplated (the embodiments of “just one”, “more than one and less than all”, and “all”). Examiner maintains that the original disclosure (e.g., FIG. 2, which shows a plurality of signal processing circuitries performing processing in series, not just one) does not provide support for “at least one” (which is broader in scope than “all”, given that “at least one” further encompasses the species of “just one” and “more than one and less than all”) of the plurality of signal processing circuitries being configured to perform the recited receiving and processing. Examiner further notes that claim 1 further recites that “the plurality of signal processing circuitries” perform processing in lines 7-8.
Applicant on page 13 argues: ‘With respect to item 16, Applicant respectfully disagrees because at least paragraph [0062] of the corresponding pre-grant U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0376449A1 supports claim 2. In responding to Applicant's remarks, the Office asserted that "[h]owever, paragraph [0062] of the aforementioned PGPUB does not appear to provide support for the limitation cited by Examiner in the rejection of item 16, and Applicant does not explain how the aforementioned paragraph provides support."7 Applicant respectfully disagrees. As explained above, paragraphs [0061] and [0062] of Applicant's disclosure teaches individual control of all the signal processing modules with the control module 101 at the same time such that the genus claim is contemplated. However, Applicant has also amended claim 2 to clarify the support with respect to paragraphs [0061] and [0062]. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of claim 2 in view of Applicant's amendments.’
Although it is unclear as to how Applicant’s argument above regarding paragraphs [0061] and [0062] are applicable to the particular rejection set forth on the language of claim 2, Applicant’s amendments to claim 2 overcome the previously presented written description rejection of claim 2.
Applicant across pages 13-14 argues: ‘[w]ith respect to item 17, Applicant respectfully disagrees because at least paragraphs [0106]-[0112] of the corresponding pre-grant U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0376449A1 support claim 10. In responding to Applicant's remarks, the Office asserted that "[h]owever, paragraphs [0106]-[0112] of the aforementioned PGPUB do not appear to provide support for the limitation cited by Examiner in the rejection of item 17, and Applicant does not explain how the aforementioned paragraphs provide support."8 Applicant respectfully disagrees. Paragraphs [0106]-[0112] of the corresponding pre-grant U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0376449A1 teach parameter selection units that directly support the "selection circuitry" features of claim 10.’
However, Applicant’s further arguments do not appear to address how the entirety of the cited claim limitation is taught, or address the particular rationale for the rejection given by the Examiner. Examiner recommends that Applicant cite particular portions of paragraph [0106]-[0112] and explain how these particular portions provide support for the claimed subject matter, in its entirety, specified in the rationale for rejection. For example, Examiner recommends explaining how these particular portions provide support not just for selection circuitry in general, but for selection circuitry that, in particular, selects “the one of the plurality of parameters” to be supplied to more than one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries, and supplies “the one of the plurality of parameters” to the more than one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries. (As noted in the rejection, the “more than one” scenario is encompassed by the claim in view of the “at least one” language.)
Applicant on page 14 argues: ‘With respect to items 18 and 19, Applicant respectfully disagrees because at least paragraphs [0094]-[0101] of the corresponding pre-grant U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0376449A1 support claims 14 and 15. In responding to Applicant's remarks, the Office asserted that "[h]owever, paragraphs [0094]-[0101] of the aforementioned PGPUB do not appear to provide support for the limitation cited by Examiner in the rejection of items 18 and 19, and Applicant does not explain how the aforementioned paragraphs provide support."9 Applicant respectfully disagrees. Paragraphs [0094]-[0101] of the corresponding pre-grant U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0376449A1 teach queues that directly support the "queue" feature of claims 14 and 15.’
However, Applicant’s further arguments do not appear to address how the entirety of the cited claim limitation is taught, or address the particular rationale for the rejection given by the Examiner. Examiner recommends that Applicant cite particular portions of paragraph [0094-[0101] and explain how these particular portions provide support for the claimed subject matter, in its entirety, specified in the rationale for rejection. For example, Examiner recommends explaining how these particular portions provide support not just for a queue in general, but for a queue that, in particular, supplies “the one of the plurality of parameters” to “the plurality of processing circuitries”.
Applicant on page 14 argues: ‘With respect to item 20, Applicant respectfully disagrees because at least paragraphs [0079]-[0092] of the corresponding pre-grant U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0376449A1 supports claim 15. In responding to Applicant's remarks, the Office asserted that "[h]owever, paragraphs [0079]-[0092] of the aforementioned PGPUB do not appear to provide support for the limitation cited by Examiner in the rejection of item 20, and Applicant does not explain how the aforementioned paragraphs provide support."10 Applicant respectfully disagrees. Paragraphs [0079]-[0092] of the corresponding pre-grant U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0376449A1 teach a control signal INIT that directly support the "INIT" feature of claim 15.’
However, Applicant’s further arguments do not appear to address how the entirety of the cited claim limitation is taught, or address the particular rationale for the rejection given by the Examiner. Examiner recommends that Applicant cite particular portions of paragraph [0079]-[0092] and explain how these particular portions provide support for the claimed subject matter, in its entirety, specified in the rationale for rejection. For example, Examiner recommends explaining how these particular portions provide support not just for a control signal INIT in general, but for the overall subject matter that the at least one of the plurality of signal processing circuitries is further configured to supply INIT, which is a control signal giving an instruction on initialization, to the plurality of signal processing circuitries, and supply the one of the plurality of parameters to the plurality of signal processing circuitries via a queue.
Applicant across pages 14-15 argues: ‘In responding to Applicant's above remarks regarding claims 16-20, the Office states that the cited sections do not provide support for respective claims 16-20 and Applicant does not explain how the cited section provides support." Applicant respectfully disagrees. Contrary to the Office's assertions, the burden remains with the Office to explain why the cited sections do not provide support for the respective claims 16-20. The Office's failure to provide this explanation is a deficiency in the Advisory Action. Applicant respectfully requests clarification in the next Action. In responding to Applicant's remarks, the Office asserted the following12: However, Examiner has cited specific limitations of the claims which are not supported by the original disclosure, as well as specific portions of the original disclosure which would be readily understood to show subject matter that is at odds with the specific limitation. As one example, regarding item 16, FIG. 2 would be readily understood to show the control circuitry supplying VLATCH to REGISTER MODULE 102, rather than a SIGNAL PROCESSING MODULE. Applicant cites paragraph [0062] of the corresponding pregrant U.S. Patent Publication; however, paragraph [0062] discloses "the control module 101 supplies a control signal VLATCH to the register module 102", with no alternative embodiments disclosed that involve VLATCH being sent to SIGNAL PROCESSING MODULE. As it is therefore not apparent or intuitive how paragraph [0062] provides support for the cited limitation, Examiner submits that the burden shifts to Applicant to explain why the cited paragraph does provide support for the cited limitation. Examiner notes that Applicant has cited 7 paragraphs as providing support for the limitation associated with item 17; 8 paragraphs as providing support for the limitations associated with items 18 and 19; and 14 paragraphs as providing support for the limitation associated with item 20. Examiner submits that, as with the rationale for the written description rejection associated with item 16, the rationales for the written description rejections for items 17-20 would be readily understood. Examiner further submits that, as with the paragraph cited by Applicant in association with item 16, it is not apparent or intuitive how the paragraphs cited by Applicant in association with items 17-20 provide support for the cited limitations. Therefore, for each of these items, Examiner submits that the burden is not currently on the Office to additionally explain why each of the aforementioned 29 paragraphs do not provide the required support. Therefore, Examiner disagrees with Applicant's assertion of a deficiency in the Advisory Action. Applicant has also amended claim 2 to clarify the support with respect to paragraph [0062]. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration of claim 2 in view of Applicant's amendments.’
As noted above, in view of Applicant’s amendments to claim 2, the associated written description rejection is withdrawn. However, Applicant does not appear to provide further arguments associated with the aforementioned items, in response to the Examiner’s most recent remarks regarding the aforementioned items.
Applicant across pages 16-17 argues: ‘With respect to items 21-23, Applicant respectfully disagrees because at least paragraph [0058] of the corresponding pre-grant U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0376449A1 support claims 16-18. In responding to Applicant's remarks, the Office asserted the following13: However, Examiner submits that paragraph [0058], when considered in the context of the entirety of the original disclosure, does not provide support for the relevant limitation. Specifically, Examiner submits that the original disclosure provides support for a plurality of parameters being respectively supplied to a plurality of processing circuitries: see, for example, FIG. 13 and 14. In general, Examiner submits that many individual portions of the original disclosure should be interpreted in the context of the overall original disclosure. For example, paragraph [0094] of the PGPUB discloses "The register module 102 may supply the parameter to each signal processing module via a queue", which may be interpreted in a vacuum to mean that a same queue supplies a same parameter to each signal processing module; however, two sentences later, for example, paragraph [0094] conveys that a plurality of queues respectively corresponding to a plurality of signal processing modules is used (as explicitly shown in FIG. 13). As another example, paragraph [0113] of the PGPUB discloses "In other words, the register module 102 can switch parameters supplied to respective signal processing modules independently of each other", which appears to contradict a same parameter being supplied to each signal processing module. Therefore, Examiner submits that the limitation "supply the one of the plurality of parameters to the plurality of processing circuitries" was not described in the original disclosure in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Contrary to the Office's assertions, Applicant's disclosure is not contradictory, but rather, discloses multiple embodiments. Paragraph [0094] is describing a third embodiment and paragraph [0113] is describing a fourth embodiment. Applicant's disclosure is not limited to describing only one embodiment. Therefore, contrary to the Office's assertions "supply the one of the plurality of parameters to the plurality of processing circuitries" is described in paragraphs [0112] and [0113] in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention with respect the fourth embodiment.’
However, Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s aforementioned arguments, as detailed in the rationale for the first indefinite rejection of claim 1 set forth above. Nevertheless, for the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner is withdrawing the rejections associated with the aforementioned items, as the indefinite rejection appears to be the root issue.
Applicant across pages 17-18 argues: ‘With respect to items 26 and 27, Applicant respectfully notes that MPEP § 2173.04 states "[b]readth of a claim is not to be equated with indefiniteness. In reMiller, 441 F.2d 689, 169 USPQ 597 (CCPA 1971); In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788, 166 USPQ 138, 140 (CCPA 1970) ("Breadth is not indefiniteness."). A broad claim is not indefinite merely because it encompasses a wide scope of subject matter provided the scope is clearly defined." While the recitations of claim 1 may have breadth, the breadth of claim 1 should not be equated with indefiniteness as set forth in MPEP § 2173.04. In responding to Applicant's above remarks regarding claims 26 and 27, the Office states that "[h]owever, Applicant does not appear to address Examiner's specific rationales for indefiniteness. For example, regarding item 26, Applicant does not convey whether the former possible interpretation is intended, the latter possible interpretation is intended, both interpretations are intended, or whether another possible interpretation is intended, and does not explain how the scope is clearly defined. For example, regarding item 27, Applicant does not explain how the claim is merely broad rather than not clearly defined in the particular scenario set forth by Examiner."14 Applicant respectfully disagrees. The fact that claims may be interpreted in more than one way is evidence of breadth, not indefiniteness. If the claims cannot be interpreted at all, for example, the claims inadvertently include non-sensical words, or are missing words entirely, then the claims are indefinite because they cannot be interpreted. The pending claims do not include non-sensical words and are not missing words such that the claims can be interpreted. Therefore, while the recitations of the pending claims may have breadth, the breadth of the pending claims should not be equated with indefiniteness as set forth in MPEP § 2173.04. In responding to Applicant's previous remarks, the Office asserted the following15: Applicant does not appear to address Examiner's specific rationales for indefiniteness. For example, regarding item 26, Applicant does not convey whether the former possible interpretation is intended, the latter possible interpretation is intended, both interpretations are intended, or whether another possible interpretation is intended, and does not explain how the scope is clearly defined. For example, regarding item 27, Applicant does not explain how the claim is merely broad rather than not clearly defined in the particular scenario set forth by Examiner. As noted in MPEP § 2173.04, "a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. For example, a genus claim that covers multiple species is broad, but is not indefinite because of its breadth, which is otherwise clear. But a genus claim that could be interpreted in such a way that it is not clear which species are covered would be indefinite (e.g., because there is more than one reasonable interpretation of what species are included in the claim)." Examiner submits that the rationales for rejection convey why the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Indefiniteness occurs when the Office is incapable of determining what species are included in the claim. The fact that the Office has arrived at three different interpretations is evidence that the Office has determined what species are included in the pending claims. Therefore, contrary to the Office's assertions, claims 1-20 are not indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) because the Office has determined what species are included in the pending claims. For at least the reasons above, claims 1-20 are patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).’
However, Examiner submits that the Office conveying multiple possible distinct interpretations of claim language is not evidence that the Office had determined the metes and bounds of the claim language. Examiner further submits that claim language may be indefinite even if it does not use non-sensical words or is missing words entirely. Examiner also notes that Applicant does not appear to address the indefinite rejections of items beyond items 26 and 27.
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 KEITH E VICARY whose telephone number is (571)270-1314. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 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.
/KEITH E VICARY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2182