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 .
Drawings
The drawings, received on 21 March 2024, are acceptable for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) to “generate a first pulsed output by sampling a data input using a first clock signal having first pulses and a second clock signal having second pulses that do not overlap the first pulses, the first clock signal and the second clock signal separated by a phase shift”, “generate a second pulsed output by sampling the data input using a third clock signal having third pulses and a fourth clock signal having fourth pulses that do not overlap the third pulses, the third clock signal and the fourth clock signal separated by the phase shift”, and “output a third pulsed output based on the first pulsed output and the second pulsed output”.
The limitations of generating a first pulsed output by sampling a data input using a first clock signal having first pulses and a second clock signal having second pulses that do not overlap the first pulses where the first clock signal and the second clock signal separated by a phase shift, generating a second pulsed output by sampling the data input using a third clock signal having third pulses and a fourth clock signal having fourth pulses that do not overlap the third pulses where the third clock signal and the fourth clock signal separated by the phase shift, and outputting a third pulsed output based on the first pulsed output and the second pulsed output, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a first pulse generator circuit”, “a second pulse generator circuit”, and/or “a multiplexor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “first pulse generator circuit”, the first limitation encompasses a user drawing a first clock signal and a second clock signal where the pulses do not overlap and the clock signals are separated by a phase shift and generating an output based upon a comparison of the high and low states of each clock signal. The second limitation, absent “a second pulse generator circuit”, similarly encompasses drawing a first clock signal and a second clock signal where the pulses do not overlap and the clock signals are separated by a phase shift and generating an output based upon a comparison of the high and low states of each clock signal. Lastly, the final limitation, but for “a multiplexor”, encompasses a user drawing a diagram representing the first pulsed output and the second pulsed output and again multiplexing the two input pulsed outputs into a third pulsed output. If a claim limitation and/or claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the claim only recites three additional elements – using a first pulse generator circuit to perform the first limitation, using a second pulse generator circuit to perform the second limitation, and a multiplexor to perform the third limitation. Here, the circuits and multiplexors and their corresponding steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a first pulse generator circuit to perform the first limitation, using a second pulse generator circuit to perform the second limitation, and a multiplexor to perform the third limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 further limits Claim 1 by claiming that “the first clock signal and the third clock signal are separated by an additional phase shift”. Here, the limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Here, a user can simply phase shift the first clock signal relative to the third clock signal. If a claim limitation and/or claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 further limits Claim 1 by claiming that “the second clock signal and the fourth clock signal are separated by the additional phase shift”. Here, the limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Here, a user can simply phase shift the second clock signal relative to the fourth clock signal. If a claim limitation and/or claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 further limits Claim 1 by claiming that “the additional phase shift is a 180 degree phase shift”. Here, the limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Here, a user can perform a phase shift of 180⁰ the first clock signal relative to the third clock signal and the second clock signal relative to the fourth clock signal. If a claim limitation and/or claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 further limits Claim 1 by claiming that “the phase shift is a 45 degree phase shift”. Here, the limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Here, a user can perform a phase shift of 45 degrees on the first clock signal and the second clock signal and the second clock signal relative to the fourth clock signal and on the third clock signal and the fourth clock signal. If a claim limitation and/or claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 further limits Claim 1 by claiming that “the first pulses and the third pulses have a pulse width of one unit interval”. Here, the limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Here, a user can draw the pulses of the first clock signal and the pulses of the third clock signal with a width of one unit. If a claim limitation and/or claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 further limits Claim 1 by claiming that “the second pulses and the fourth pulses have a pulse width of three unit intervals”. Here, the limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Here, a user can draw the pulses of the second clock signal and the pulses of the fourth clock signal with a width of three units. If a claim limitation and/or claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 8, Claim 8 further limits Claim 6 by claiming that “transitions from high states to low states of pulses of the first clock signal correspond to transitions from low states to high states of pulses of the second clock signal”. Here, the limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Here, a user can require that the transitions from high states to low states of pulses of the first clock signal correspond to transitions from low states to high states of pulses of the second clock signal. If a claim limitation and/or claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 9, Claim 9 further limits Claim 1 by claiming that “the third pulsed output is a one eighth rate pulsed output”. Here, the limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Here, a user can require that the third pulsed output is a one eighth rate pulsed output. If a claim limitation and/or claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) to “generating a first pulsed output having first pulses by sampling a data input using a first clock signal and a second clock signal, the second clock signal shifted relative to a system clock by a first phase shift”, “generating a second pulsed output having second pulses by sampling the data input using a third clock signal and a fourth clock signal, the third clock signal shifted relative to the system clock by a second phase shift and the fourth clock signal shifted relative to the system clock by a third phase shift”, and “outputting, by a multiplexor, a third pulsed output having the first pulses and the second pulses by combining the first pulsed output and the second pulsed output”.
The limitations of generating a first pulsed output having first pulses by sampling a data input using a first clock signal and a second clock signal where the second clock signal shifted relative to a system clock by a first phase shift, generating a second pulsed output having second pulses by sampling the data input using a third clock signal and a fourth clock signal where the third clock signal shifted relative to the system clock by a second phase shift and the fourth clock signal shifted relative to the system clock by a third phase shift, and outputting a third pulsed output having the first pulses and the second pulses by combining the first pulsed output and the second pulsed output, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a multiplexor”, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the first limitation encompasses a user generating, perhaps visually through a drawing, generating a first pulsed output having first pulses by sampling a data input using a first clock signal and a second clock signal where the second clock signal shifted relative to a system clock by a first phase shift. The second limitation similarly encompasses a user generating, through a drawing for example, a second pulsed output having second pulses by sampling the data input using a third clock signal and a fourth clock signal where the third clock signal shifted relative to the system clock by a second phase shift and the fourth clock signal shifted relative to the system clock by a third phase shift. Lastly, the final limitation, but for “a multiplexor”, encompasses a user generating, by a drawing for example, outputting a third pulsed output having the first pulses and the second pulses by combining the first pulsed output and the second pulsed output. If a claim limitation and/or claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, the claim only recites one additional element – using a multiplexor to perform the third limitation. Here, the multiplexors and their corresponding steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a multiplexor to perform the third limitation amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 further limits Claim 16 by claiming that “the first clock signal includes first pulses having a width of one unit interval and the second clock signal includes second pulses having a width of three unit intervals”. Here, the limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Here, a user can draw the pulses of the first clock signal and the pulses of the second clock signal with a width of one unit and three units respectively. If a claim limitation and/or claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 further limits Claim 17 by claiming that “the first pulses and the second pulses do not overlap”. Here, the limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Here, a user can draw the pulses of the first clock signal and the pulses of the second clock signal to not overlap. If a claim limitation and/or claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 further limits Claim 16 by claiming that “the third pulsed output is a one eighth rate pulsed output”. Here, the limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Here, a user can require that the third pulsed output is a one eighth rate pulsed output. If a claim limitation and/or claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 further limits Claim 16 by claiming that “the first phase shift is 45 degrees, the second phase shift is 180 degrees, and the third phase shift is 225 degrees”. Here, the limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Here, a user can perform a phase shift of 45 degrees on the second clock signal shifted relative to a system clock by, a phase shift of 180 degrees on the third clock signal shifted relative to the system clock, and a phase shift of 225 degrees on the fourth clock signal shifted relative to the system clock. If a claim limitation and/or claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-15 are allowed.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2474