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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“receiving module for obtaining an initial sampling phase” in claim 1.
“first shift module for shifting each sampling phase” in claim 1
“second shift module for shifting each sampling phase” in claim 1
“sampling module for sampling the valid data” in claim 1.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
It is unclear how to realize "whether or not the first reference sampling phase is located at the target jump edge" in Claim 1, even in consideration of the detailed description of the invention. In this regard, for example, according to the disclosure of paragraphs 68-78, it can be understood that the presence of the jump edge between the phases is confirmed by the XOR processing related to a certain sampling phase and the sampling phases continuous thereto. However, it is unclear how to determine the position of the "target jump edge" itself, and there is no disclosure as to how to determine "whether or not it is located on the target jump edge", and it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art. In addition, this issue also applies to other claims and independent claim 8 as well.
Claims 6, 11 and 12 recites that "the steps of the method are executed concurrently at least once", but the steps specified in Claim 1 is clearly a process over time. The detailed description of the invention does not show a specific processing method, and it is unclear how it is realized. Therefore, the detailed description of the invention of this application is not clearly and sufficiently described to the extent that a person skilled in the art could implement the inventions according to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 8 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitations “receiving module for obtaining an initial sampling phase”, “first shift module for shifting each sampling phase”, “second shift module for shifting each sampling phase”, “sampling module for sampling the valid data” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The instant specification merely states “The various modules in the above data double oversampling system can be fully or partially implemented through software, hardware, and their combinations. The above modules can be embedded in hardware or independent of the processor in the computer device, or stored in software in the memory of the computer device for the processor to call and execute the corresponding operations of the above modules” within paragraph 140. However, these parts of the specifications fail to set forth an adequate disclosure so that one skilled in the art will understand what structure performs the recited functions of the modules. Fig. 8 further shows the modules in box form but there is no adequate structure mentioned for such modules as to a hardware element (such as a DSP, microchip, sensor, etc.) for one in the ordinary skills to identify the “modules” of the claim for accomplishing the functions as stated within the claim.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
In Claim 1, it is specified that "the first reference sampling phase is the sampling phase after shift which is adjacent to the target jump edge and behind the target jump edge", and it is expressed in claim 2 that there may be a case where the "first reference sampling phase" is not "after the target jump edge", such as "when the first reference sampling phase is located on the target jump edge", and as a result, it is not clear how to interpret it. In addition, in such a specific case, if the position of the "target jump edge" itself cannot be grasped, it is deemed that "after" and "above" cannot be distinguished, and therefore, it is deemed that it is assumed that the position is grasped (for example, in Claim 2, it is understood that the case of being located on the target jump edge is determined first, and if it is not located, it is determined whether or not the adjacent phase labels are equal. If they are equal, the phase label corresponding to the first reference sampling phase is closer to the target jump edge due to shifting, but it is clear that the position of the target jump edge needs to be known as long as the case is divided into this case and the case of being located on the target jump edge). If the position of the target jump edge is known in the first place, the central position of the bit (optimum sampling phase), which is a position 0.5 bits away from the target hopping edge, can also be specified, but it is unclear how the position (not the presence) of the target jump edge is grasped. In addition, the same applies to other claims.
The relation between the "shift rule" of Claim 3 and the shifting at the steps of Claim 2 cited by Claim 3 is unclear. (In addition, even with reference to the detailed description of the invention, since it is shown as corresponding to the shifting direction and the magnitude of the shift of S120, it should be noted that the support requirement is not satisfied. Furthermore, the disclosure describes that "the sampling phase after the third shift is located at the target jump edge, which means that the second initial sampling phase and the fourth initial sampling phase are all located at the intermediate phase of the corresponding lead code, that is, the second initial sampling phase is located at the intermediate phase of D1, and the fourth initial sampling phase is located at the intermediate phase of D2, and since each initial sampling phase is moved forward by 0.25 bits at the first shift, the optimum sampling phase is located at the intermediate phase of the corresponding lead code only by moving backward by 0.25 bits at the second shift", but if the sampling phase after the third shift (the position of 0.25 from the third initial sampling phase) is located at the target jump edge, the intermediate phase of the lead code (in addition, since it is recognized as the midpoint of two adjacent jump edges) is located at the second and fourth sampling phases. It is confirmed whether or not it is not the initial sampling phase (the position minus 0.25,+0.75 from the target jump edge) but the phases after the second and fourth shifts (the phases after the third shift, that is, the positions 0.5 before and after the target jump edge), and when responding, it is described in the written opinion, etc. Please explain in detail including the basis thereof.
Regarding claims 6, 11 and 12, the steps within claims 1, 2 and 3 are somehow performed concurrently, however this is confusing since the steps of the claims seem to occur one after the other i.e. in claim 1, the third step doesn’t seem to occur until the first two steps are completed. Thus, it is unclear how these steps are performed concurrently.
Furthermore,
Claim 1 states “obtaining the initial sampling phase corresponding to the two adjacent bits and the phase label of each initial sampling phase”. Where and what are these two adjacent bits? Furthermore, if an initial sampling phase is being obtained, where is “each initial sampling phase” coming from? Are there supposed to be multiple initial sampling phases? Furthermore, the claim states “wherein the optical sampling phase is closer to the middle phase of the corresponding preamble, and the first reference sampling phase…is adjacent to the target jump edge and behind the target jump edge”. What is “closer to the middle phase”? How close is considered closer? Since the claim states “corresponding preamble”, are there multiple preambles? Furthermore, what is “adjacent to the target jump and behind the target jump”? This limitation is vague and confusing. Is adjacent not comprising behind? And in what direction is “behind” i.e. relative to?
Claim 5 also comprises similar issues with “behind the target jump” limitation as in claim 1.
Claim 8 suffers from similar issues as claim 1 above.
Furthermore, the following claims also comprise insufficient antecedent basis for the following underlined limitations:
Claim 1 states “obtaining the initial sampling phase corresponding to the two adjacent bits and the phase label…the GPON frame includes the preamble…whether the adjacent phase labels of the target jump… the first reference sampling phase…obtaining the optical phase sampling phase…to the middle phase of the corresponding preamble”.
Claim 2 states “the step…in the case…according to the first preset shift rule…to the adjacent initial sampling phase…in the case…obtaining the second adjacent phase labels…according to the second preset shift rule…in the case…according to the third preset shift rule”.
Claim 3 states “the step”.
Claim 4 states “wherein before the step…by sampling the corresponding bit…in the case”.
Claim 5 states “wherein the step…the final reference phase”.
Claim 6 states “the steps”.
Claim 7 states “the step”
Claim 8 also suffers from similar antecedent issues as claim 1 above.
Claims 11-14 all states “the step”.
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 10 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole is/are drawn to a computer readable medium (CRM) which, under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), covers a signal per se unless otherwise defined in the application to exclude ineligible signal embodiments. When looking to the Specification of the published application, paragraph [00144] indicates “The computer program can be stored in a non-volatile computer-readable storage medium, and when executed, the computer program may include processes in the embodiments of the above method. Among them, any reference to memory, storage, database, or other media used in the various embodiments provided in the invention may include non-volatile and/or volatile memory”. However, the conditional nature of this language leaves the storage medium open-ended and may contain a non-statutory embodiments. Therefore, the claim(s) as a whole, given BRI and in light of the Specification, has/have embodiments that are drawn to a signal per se and is/are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the notice of reference cited (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANESH K BARUA whose telephone number is (571)270-1017. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Sat: 11-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Payne can be reached on 5712723024. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PRANESH K BARUA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635