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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN 2021/10207122.8, filed on 02/25/2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 provided on 08/10/2023, and translation of the certified copy provided on 06/10/2026, and certification of the translation of the certified copy provided on 06/10/2026.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amending of claims 1, 5, and 10-13.
The Examiner acknowledges the cancellation of claim 4.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues that the amendment to claims 10-13 appear to overcome the given 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection. The Examiner agrees. This rejection has been withdrawn.
The Applicant argues that the specification is now in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms”. The Examiner disagrees. The term “MCU module” does not remedy the deficiency of “full, clear, concise, and exact terms” with regards to “MCU control circuit”. The acronym “MCU” is not defined within the disclosure, and “module” does not further clarify what exactly the “MCU module” is.
Claim Interpretation
As disclosed, “MCU module” has no established definition, structure, or meaning. For purposes of examination, the Examiner considers “MCU module” to mean any component which can perform the claimed functional limitations of the “MCU module” in claims 1, 5, and 10-13.
As disclosed, “DA conversion circuit” has no established definition, structure, or meaning. As recognized in the art , CN 110137793 A discloses a “digital-to-analog converter (DAC)” (see paragraph [0079] of Examiner provided translation) which can perform the claimed functional limitation of “DA conversion circuit” in claim 9. For purposes of examination, “DAC conversion circuit” will be interpretated as “digital to analog conversion circuit”, thus accepted in the art as the term “DAC converter”.
As disclosed, “DA chip” has no established definition, structure, or meaning. As recognized in the art, CN 110391590 A discloses a “multi-channel DA (digital-to-analog) chip” (see paragraph [0103] of Examiner provided translation) which can perform the claimed functional limitations of the “DA chip” in claims 2, 11, and 13. For purposes of examination, “DA chip” will be interpretated as “digital to analog chip”, thus accepted in the art as the term “DA chip”.
Specification
The amendment filed 06/10/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132 (a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “MCU module”. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office action.
However, the disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: “MCU module”, more specifically the acronym “MCU”. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
Applicant’s revision to the drawings, submitted on 06/10/2026 are acknowledged but not accepted.
The drawings, particularly Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, are still not of sufficient quality to permit examination. The Examiner appreciates an improvement was made to the size of the aforementioned figures for visibility, and recommends to overcome this objection that the resolution of the aforementioned figures is increased to ensure readability of all reference characters pointing to or placed on the depicted components of each figure,
Accordingly, replacement drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to this Office action. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Applicant is given a shortened statutory period of TWO (2) MONTHS to submit new drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.81. Extensions of time may be obtained under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a) but in no case can any extension carry the date for reply to this letter beyond the maximum period of SIX MONTHS set by statute (35 U.S.C. 133). Failure to timely submit replacement drawing sheets will result in ABANDONMENT of the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 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, 5, 10-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 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 “MCU module”. The “module” is not set forth in the original specification filed 08/10/2023. Alternatively, a “MCU control circuit” was set forth in the original specification, particularly on pg. 3, second - fourth paragraphs. Therefore, the limitation “MCU module” must be cancelled from the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “MCU module”. Although the “module” is discussed in amended Claim 1, this term is not set forth in the original specification filed 08/10/2023. Alternatively, a “MCU control circuit” was set forth in the original specification, particularly on pg. 3, second - fourth paragraphs. Therefore, the limitation “MCU module” must be cancelled from the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “MCU module”. The “module” is not set forth in the original specification filed 08/10/2023. Alternatively, a “MCU control circuit” was set forth in the original specification, particularly on pg. 3, second - fourth paragraphs. Therefore, the limitation “MCU module” must be cancelled from the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “MCU module”. Although the “module” is discussed in amended Claim 1, this term is not set forth in the original specification filed 08/10/2023. Alternatively, a “MCU control circuit” was set forth in the original specification, particularly on pg. 3, second - fourth paragraphs. Therefore, the limitation “MCU module” must be cancelled from the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “MCU module”. Although the “module” is discussed in amended Claim 1, this term is not set forth in the original specification filed 08/10/2023. Alternatively, a “MCU control circuit” was set forth in the original specification, particularly on pg. 3, second - fourth paragraphs. Therefore, the limitation “MCU module” must be cancelled from the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “MCU module”. Although the “module” is discussed in amended Claim 10, this term is not set forth in the original specification filed 08/10/2023. Alternatively, a “MCU control circuit” was set forth in the original specification, particularly on pg. 3, second - fourth paragraphs. Therefore, the limitation “MCU module” must be cancelled from the claim.
Claims 1-13 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 “MCU module”. It is unclear what an “MCU module” is, as the acronym “MCU” is undefined and the “module” does not provide any structure, function, or meaning to this limitation. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite as what could and what could not be the “MCU module” is unclear. Examiner suggests that the acronym “MCU” is expanded. By their dependency, the following claims are also rejected: 2/1, 3/1, 5/1, 6/1, 7/1, 8/1, 9/1, 11/1, 12/11/1. For purposes of examination, the Examiner considers “MCU module” to mean any component which can perform the claimed functional limitations of the “MCU module.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “MCU module”. It is unclear what an “MCU module” is, as the acronym “MCU” is undefined and the “module” does not provide any structure, function, or meaning to this limitation. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite as what could and what could not be the “MCU module” is unclear. Examiner suggests that the acronym “MCU” is expanded.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “MCU module”. It is unclear what an “MCU module” is, as the acronym “MCU” is undefined and the “module” does not provide any structure, function, or meaning to this limitation. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite as what could and what could not be the “MCU module” is unclear. Examiner suggests that the acronym “MCU” is expanded. By its dependency, the following claims is also rejected: 13/10. For purposes of examination, the Examiner considers “MCU module” to mean any component which can perform the claimed functional limitations of the “MCU module.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “MCU module”. It is unclear what an “MCU module” is, as the acronym “MCU” is undefined and the “module” does not provide any structure, function, or meaning to this limitation. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite as what could and what could not be the “MCU module” is unclear. Examiner suggests that the acronym “MCU” is expanded. For purposes of examination, the Examiner considers “MCU module” to mean any component which can perform the claimed functional limitations of the “MCU module.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “MCU module”. It is unclear what an “MCU module” is, as the acronym “MCU” is undefined and the “module” does not provide any structure, function, or meaning to this limitation. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite as what could and what could not be the “MCU module” is unclear. Examiner suggests that the acronym “MCU” is expanded. For purposes of examination, the Examiner considers “MCU module” to mean any component which can perform the claimed functional limitations of the “MCU module.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “MCU module”. It is unclear what an “MCU module” is, as the acronym “MCU” is undefined and the “module” does not provide any structure, function, or meaning to this limitation. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite as what could and what could not be the “MCU module” is unclear. Examiner suggests that the acronym “MCU” is expanded. For purposes of examination, the Examiner considers “MCU module” to mean any component which can perform the claimed functional limitations of the “MCU module.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JASMIN KAUR MUNDI whose telephone number is (571) 272-9755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. 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.
/J.K.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2828
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights