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 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 13-15 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.
a) regarding claim 13:
The limitations, “a storage element coupled to the clock generator circuitry and capable of storing a row value and a column value for a data frame, and wherein the clock generator circuitry includes a mode selection circuit capable of determining that a ratio of a product of the row and column values to a divide ratio of the programmable clock divider is an integer,” and “a storage element coupled to the clock generator circuitry and capable of storing a column number of a data frame, and wherein the clock generator circuitry is capable of changing the programmable divide ratio for the programmable clock divider to a value of one-half the column number,” fails to comply with the written description requirement. The specification fails to describe a single embodiment capable of both “storing a row value and a column value for a data frame, and wherein the clock generator circuitry includes a mode selection circuit capable of determining that a ratio of a product of the row and column values to a divide ratio of the programmable clock divider is an integer,” and “storing a column number of a data frame, and wherein the clock generator circuitry is capable of changing the programmable divide ratio for the programmable clock divider to a value of one-half the column number.” It appears the applicant has claimed two separate embodiments (i.e. Figures 7A and 16A) in a single invention.
b) regarding claims 14 and 15:
The claims are rejected based on their dependence from claim 13.
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, 3, 4, 12-15, 18 and 21-23 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.
a) regarding claim 1:
It is unclear and therefore indefinite if “a divide ratio of the programmable clock divider” in line 12 is the same or different from “a divide ratio for the programmable clock divider” in line 4.
b) regarding claim 3:
The claim is rejected based on its dependence from claim 1.
b) regarding claim 4:
It is unclear and therefore indefinite if “a divide ratio for the programmable clock divider” in line 4 is the same or different from “a divide ratio for the programmable clock divider” in line 4 of claim 1.
c) regarding claim 12:
It is unclear and therefore indefinite if “a divide ratio for the programmable clock divider” in line 4 is the same or different from “a divide ratio of the programmable clock divider” in line 12 of claim 8.
d) regarding claim 13:
It is unclear and therefore indefinite if “a storage element” in lines 1-2 is the same or different from “a storage element” in line 9 of claim 8.
It is unclear and therefore indefinite if “a data frame” in line 3 is the same or different from “a data frame” in line 10 of claim 8.
e) regarding claims 14-15:
The claims are rejected based on their dependence from claim 13.
f) regarding claim 18:
It is unclear and therefore indefinite if “a divide ratio for the clock divider” in lines 3-4 is the same or different from “a divide ratio of a clock divider” in lines 19-20 of claim 16.
g) regarding claims 21-23:
The claims are rejected based on their dependence from claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 11, 16, 19 and 20 are allowed.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 18 and 21-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious a device comprising: a storage element coupled to the reference clock generator, wherein: the storage element is capable of storing a column number of a data frame; and the reference clock generator is capable of changing the divide ratio for the programmable clock divider to a value of one-half the column number, along with all the other limitations as required by claim 5.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious a device comprising: a storage element coupled to the clock generator circuitry and capable of storing a row value and a column value for a data frame, and wherein the clock generator circuitry includes a mode selection circuit capable of determining that a ratio of a product of the row and column values to a divide ratio of the programmable clock divider is an integer, along with all the other limitations as required by claim 8.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious a method comprising: receiving the first value includes receiving first values that include a row value and a column value of a data frame; and determining the first divide ratio includes determining that a ratio of a product of the row and column values to a product of two and a divide ratio of a clock divider is an integer, along with all the other limitations as required by claim 16.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious a method comprising: wherein the first value is a column value of a data frame, and determining the first divide ratio includes determining dividing the column value by 2, along with all the other limitations as required by claim 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-8, 11-16 and 18-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick O'Neill whose telephone number is (571)270-1677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Lincoln Donovan can be reached at (571)272-1988. 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.
/PATRICK O NEILL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842