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 5 and 11 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 reads "output information held in the third holding circuit to outside" but should read, "output information held in the third holding circuit'. Claim 11 reads "wherein one first holding circuit" but should read, "wherein the first holding circuit". 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 1-17 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
The term “count time” in claim 1 is unclear because it is not defined in applicant's disclosure and based on the claim construction a definition cannot be derived, therefor unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim. For purposes of examination, "count time" will be assumed to mean counting pulses.
The term “to hold N sets (N being an integer equal to or greater than 1) of identification information indicating one of the plurality of count periods and a pulse count value corresponding to the identification information” in claim 1 is ambiguous because it is unclear what term indicates. Is it the N sets that indicates or the identification information that indicates the one of the plurality of count periods and a pulse count value corresponding to the identification information. Therefore the metes and bounds of this limitation can not be determined, therefore it is indefinite.
The term “compare the pulse count value held in the first holding circuit with the N pulse count values held in the second holding circuit and perform an update process of holding, in the second holding circuit, identification information that specifies each of count periods whose rank of magnitude of a pulse count value in descending order is up to the N-th, and a pulse count value corresponding to the identification information” It is unclear what exactly is being updated by the statement perform an update process of holding. Further, the limitation “descending order is up to the N-th” is unclear where the descending order starts and ends. “up to the N-th” doesn’t specify if this is the end of the descent or the start.
The term “a distribution of frequencies for each of the plurality of count periods whose rank of magnitude of a pulse count value in descending order is up to the N-th” in claim 6 is unclear for the same reasoning applied in the rejection of claim 1.
The term “holds the identification information indicating a count period whose rank of magnitude of a pulse count value in descending order is up to the N-th” in claim 7 is unclear for the same reasoning applied in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation "a plurality of the pulse generation circuits arranged to form a plurality of rows and a plurality of columns, wherein the first holding circuit, the second holding circuit, and the comparison circuit are arranged so as to correspond to each of the plurality of pulse generation circuits” is unclear because it is not clear what it means that the circuits correspond to pulse generation circuits. Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN J SLAUGHTER whose telephone number is (571)388-3021. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at 571-270-5144. 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.
/ETHAN JAKOB SLAUGHTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648