DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communications: the Amendment filed on October 27, 2025 and the Foreign Priority papers retrieved on June 12, 2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 5, 11-12, 16 and 18 are amended. Claims 1, 11 and 18 are independent.
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because all of the Figures filed on December 5, 2023 are degraded, showing dotted lines and dotted lettering and numbering, which may indicate applicant submitted Figures that were in greyscale. Applicant is reminded that solid lines used in the Drawings must be uniformly thick, black, and solid and the words and labels in the Drawings must be plain and legible. MPEP 608.02(f)(V).
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.
Regarding independent claim 1, line 6, recites “before or after performing the first training operation”. The phrase “before or after” is a disjunctive limitation that expressly covers two claim-scope alternatives:
(1): the second training operation is performed after the first training operation
(2): the second training operation is performed before the first training operation
Therefore, the written description must support both alternatives consisted by the amended claim language.
The specification, as filed, describes a training sequence in which the DCA code of the third internal clock signal IBCLK is selected first and then the DCA codes of the second and fourth internal clock signals QCLK and QBCLK are selected subsequently [para. 57 as well as para. 60]. These disclosures provide written description for “after performing the first training operation, performing a second training operation”, but do not describe an embodiment where the second training (the QCLK and QBCLK training) is performed before the first training (the IBLCK training). Therefore, the claim lacks written description support under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as dependent to claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 11, line 9, recites “before or after performing the first training operation”. The phrase “before or after” is a disjunctive limitation that expressly covers two claim-scope alternatives:
(1): the second training operation is performed after the first training operation
(2): the second training operation is performed before the first training operation
Therefore, the written description must support both alternatives consisted by the amended claim language.
The specification, as filed, describes a training sequence in which the DCA code of the third internal clock signal IBCLK is selected first and then the DCA codes of the second and fourth internal clock signals QCLK and QBCLK are selected subsequently [para. 57 as well as para. 60]. These disclosures provide written description for “after performing the first training operation, performing a second training operation”, but do not describe an embodiment where the second training (the QCLK and QBCLK training) is performed before the first training (the IBLCK training). Therefore, the claim lacks written description support under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as dependent to claim 11.
Regarding independent claim 18, line 7, recites “before or after performing the first training operation”. The phrase “before or after” is a disjunctive limitation that expressly covers two claim-scope alternatives:
(1): the second training operation is performed after the first training operation
(2): the second training operation is performed before the first training operation
Therefore, the written description must support both alternatives consisted by the amended claim 1 language.
The specification, as filed, describes a training sequence in which the DCA code of the third internal clock signal IBCLK is selected first and then the DCA codes of the second and fourth internal clock signals QCLK and QBCLK are selected subsequently [para. 57 as well as para. 60]. These disclosures provide written description for “after performing the first training operation, performing a second training operation”, but do not describe an embodiment where the second training (the QCLK and QBCLK training) is performed before the first training (the IBLCK training). Therefore, the claim lacks written description support under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as dependent to claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s remarks pages 9-10, filed on October 27, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 11-14 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kumar et al. (US 20210390991) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 11-14 and 18 has been withdrawn.
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 DUY H LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-5088. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9am-6pm.
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, Alexander Sofocleous can be reached at (571)272-0635. 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.
/DUY H LUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2825 /ALEXANDER SOFOCLEOUS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2825