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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/26/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 set forth in the amendment submitted 5/04/2026 form the basis of the present examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 7-8, filed 5/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 10-17 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhashi in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20080116899 A1 in view of TOMITAKA MAKOTO (Hereinafter, “Tomitaka”) in the Patent application Publication Number JP2011133454A (Publication Date 2011-07-07), the rejection of Claim(s) 4, 7-9 and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhashi ‘899 A1 in view of Tomitaka ‘454A, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Webb et al. (Hereinafter, “Webb”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20120176174 A1 have been fully considered as follows:
Applicant’s Argument:
Applicant argues on page 7-8, of the remarks, filed on 5/04/2026, regarding the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 10-17 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhashi in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20080116899 A1 in view of TOMITAKA MAKOTO (Hereinafter, “Tomitaka”) in the Patent application Publication Number JP2011133454A (Publication Date 2011-07-07), the rejection of Claim(s) 4, 7-9 and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhashi ‘899 A1 in view of Tomitaka ‘454A, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Webb et al. (Hereinafter, “Webb”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20120176174 A1, that “In the pending rejection, the claimed feature of "determin[ing] whether an abnormality is present in one or more of the channels at least in part by comparing the final width value and an initial width value for the first pulse signal" is rejected over Tomitaka. However, in Tomitaka, abnormalities are detected by comparing a measured width value to a preset acceptable width value range. Accordingly, during the Examiner interview, the applicant's representatives and the Examiner agreed that Tomitaka does not teach testing a single pulse at different stages to determine whether an abnormality is present (Remarks-Page 7).
As discussed with the Examiner, independent claim 1 has been amended to clarify that the final width value and the initial width value are both measured relative to a single pulse. Accordingly, as should be appreciated from the reasoning presented above, and as agreed upon by the Examiner during the Examiner interview, amended independent claim 1 overcomes the pending rejection (Remarks-Page 8)”.
Similar Argument for independent claims 13 and 20.”
Examiner Response:
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks page 7-8, of the remarks, filed on 5/04/2026, regarding the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 10-17 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhashi in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20080116899 A1 in view of TOMITAKA MAKOTO (Hereinafter, “Tomitaka”) in the Patent application Publication Number JP2011133454A (Publication Date 2011-07-07), the rejection of Claim(s) 4, 7-9 and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhashi ‘899 A1 in view of Tomitaka ‘454A, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Webb et al. (Hereinafter, “Webb”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20120176174 A1, as applied to the Final office Action mailed on 3/04/2026 have been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection of independent claims 1, 13 and 20 has been withdrawn. However, applicant has amended the claim 1, and added the limitation, “determine whether an abnormality is present in one or more of the channels at least in part by comparing the final width value of the first pulse signal and an initial width value for the first pulse signal” which overcomes the present rejection. Therefore, the rejection of the rejection(s) of Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 10-17 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhashi in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20080116899 A1 in view of TOMITAKA MAKOTO (Hereinafter, “Tomitaka”) in the Patent application Publication Number JP2011133454A (Publication Date 2011-07-07), the rejection of Claim(s) 4, 7-9 and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsuhashi ‘899 A1 in view of Tomitaka ‘454A, as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Webb et al. (Hereinafter, “Webb”) in the US Patent Application Publication Number US 20120176174 A1, as applied to the Final office Action mailed on 3/04/2026 has been withdrawn. Applicant’s argument is moot in view of newly applied combination of references.
However, the limitation, “final width” is not clear. Claim limitation, “final width” is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as explained below. Therefore 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, as set forth below; See the rejection set forth below.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 13 recites “a sampler that is configured to receive the first pulse signal through the channels and conduct a sampling process on the first pulse signal, based on a second pulse signal; a width analyzer that is configured to measure a first width of the first pulse signal and generate a first measurement value, based on a result of the sampling process; ……. calculate a final width value of the first pulse signal based on the first measurement value.” The meaning of the language “conduct a sampling process on the first pulse signal, based on a second pulse signal” and “generate a first measurement value” and “calculate a final width value of the first pulse signal based on the first measurement value” is unclear. It is not clear how a sampling process is conducted based on a second pulse signal. It is not clear what is the relationship between first pulse signal and second pulse signal. It is not clear what method or steps are used to conduct a sampling process based on a second pulse signal. It is not clear what is a measurement value. It is not clear what value is considered as the measurement value. Is the measurement value a first width value or any transformed value from the first pulse width? Therefore, the limitation is not clear. It is not clear how a final width is measured based on the first measurement. It is not clear which width is considered as the final width. Is this the last width of the pulse signal or any average value of the width? It is not clear what steps are used to calculate final width. Therefore, claim language is not clear.
Claims 13 and 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, because of the same reason as stated above for independent claim 1.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite by virtue of their dependence from claims 1, 8 and 15.
Examiner Note: For expedite prosecution, examiner asked applicant’s representative in the Interview held on 24th March, 2026 to include the limitation from paragraph 53 of the present application (as filed) to make the limitation “final width” clear. However, the limitation is still unclear. Therefore claims 1-20 are now 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, as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ishida et al. (US 6593765 B1) discloses, “Testing Apparatus And Testing Method For Semiconductor Integrated Circuit-The present invention relates to a testing apparatus and testing method for semiconductor integrated circuits, more specifically a testing apparatus and testing method for semiconductor integrated circuits which have high observability and can readily detect presence and absence of delay faults and stuck-at faults (Column 1Line 7-12). According to the present invention, absence and presence of a delay fault of a path under test can be detected by giving a pulse width of a waveform of transient power supply current, comparing the pulse width with an upper limit value of an allowable delay time. Furthermore, according to the present invention, when a test pattern which can activate a plurality of paths is available, delay faults of the plural paths can be simultaneously detected (Column 5 Line 55-62). According to the present invention, absence and presence of a stuck-at fault of a path under test can be detected by giving a pulse width of a waveform of transient power supply current, and comparing the pulse width to a value taking into account variations of a fabrication process (Column 5 Line 63-67). As described above, according to the present embodiment, a pulse width t.sub.PW of a waveform of transient power supply current is given and compared with an upper limit value T' of an allowable delay time, whereby the test is made for detecting the absence or presence of a delay fault of a path under test. Furthermore, according to the present embodiment, a waveform of transient power supply current is measured, which is easier than the measurement made on the voltage signals. When a test pattern which can activate simultaneously a plurality of paths is available, it is possible to simultaneously test delay faults of the plurality of paths (Column 12 Line 55-65)-However Ishida does not disclose a calculator that is configured to: calculate a final width value of the first pulse signal based on the first measurement value;
determine whether an abnormality is present in one or more of the channels at least in part by comparing the final width value of the first pulse signal and an initial width value for
the first pulse signal.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NASIMA MONSUR whose telephone number is (571)272-8497. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am-6:00 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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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.
/NASIMA MONSUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights