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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 1-7 and 9-19 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite because the recited limitation “circuitry configured to count a cycle number of the first signal by changing a count value of the cycle number of the first signal to N before the oscillator outputs an Nth (N is an integer equal to or larger than 2) cycle of the first signal” (emphasis added) is unclear. It is not clear how the recited circuitry can perform the above recitations due to the recited circuitry does not have any specific element(s)/structure for supporting the claim such as “count a cycle number of the first signal by changing a count value of the cycle number of the first signal to N before the oscillator outputs an Nth (N is an integer equal to or larger than 2) cycle of the first signal”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Furthermore, Claims 2-7 and 9-17 are rejected due to their dependencies on the base Claim 1.
Note that Claim 8 is not indefinite because the circuitry comprises all of the element for supporting those above claimed limitations.
Claim 2 is indefinite because the recited limitation “wherein the circuitry is configured to change the count value of the cycle number of the first signal to N after 0.5 cycles elapse after the oscillator starts output of an (N-1)th cycle of the first signal” (emphasis added) is unclear. It is not clear how the recited circuitry can perform the above recitations due to the circuitry does not have any specific element(s)/structure for supporting the claim such as “change the count value of the cycle number of the first signal to N after 0.5 cycles elapse after the oscillator starts output of an (N-1)th cycle of the first signal”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 3 is indefinite because the recited limitation “the circuitry is configured to count up the cycle number of the first signal using the second edge when the oscillator starts output of the first signal and the first edge is initially generated” (emphasis added) is unclear. It is not clear how the recited circuitry can perform the above recitations due to the circuitry does not have any specific element(s)/structure for supporting the claim such as “count up the cycle number of the first signal using the second edge when the oscillator starts output of the first signal and the first edge is initially generated”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are the clear necessary structural connections of between the adder, the oscillator, and other elements of the circuitry. Clarification and/or correction is required.
Claim 5 is indefinite because the recited limitation “wherein the circuitry is configured to add 1 to the cycle number of the first signal, based on a second signal received before the oscillator starts the output of the first signal that instructs initiation of a counting operation” (emphasis added) is unclear. It is not clear how the recited circuitry can perform the above recitations due to the circuitry does not have any specific element(s)/structure for supporting the claim such as “add 1 to the cycle number of the first signal, based on a second signal received before the oscillator starts the output of the first signal that instructs initiation of a counting operation”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 6 is indefinite because the recited limitation “the circuitry is configured to count up the cycle number of the first signal using the first edge when the oscillator starts output of the first signal and the first edge is initially generated” (emphasis added) is unclear. It is not clear how the recited circuitry can perform the above recitations due to the circuitry does not have any specific element(s)/structure for supporting the claim such as “count up the cycle number of the first signal using the first edge when the oscillator starts output of the first signal and the first edge is initially generated”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 7 is indefinite because the recited limitation “a logic circuit configured to determine whether to add 1 to the cycle number of the first signal based on an output of the first circuit” is misdescriptive. As the specification clearly (see paragraphs [0227) – [0239] and in conjunction with Fig. 21] discloses that the logic circuit (236) determines whether to add 1 to the cycle number of the first signal (OSC) based on both the output signals (CNT_rise<0> and CNT_fall<0>) rather than based on an output of the first circuit only. being as a circuit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 9 is indefinite because the recited limitation “wherein the circuitry is configured to: add 1 to the cycle number of the first signal in a case where the oscillator ends the output of the first signal when the first signal is at the first logic level, and not add 1 to the cycle number of the first signal in a case where the oscillator ends the output of the first signal when the first signal is at the second logic level” (emphasis added) is unclear. It is not clear how the recited circuitry can perform the above recitations due to the circuitry does not have any specific element(s)/structure for supporting the claim such as “add 1 to the cycle number of the first signal in a case where the oscillator ends the output of the first signal when the first signal is at the first logic level, and not add 1 to the cycle number of the first signal in a case where the oscillator ends the output of the first signal when the first signal is at the second logic level”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are the clear necessary structural connections of between the oscillator, second circuit, third flip-flop and other elements of the circuitry. Clarification and/or correction is required. Furthermore, it is not clear how the recited oscillator can perform the claimed function such as “output the first signal in a period during which a third signal is at the first logic level” due to the recited oscillator does not have any specific structure for supporting that claimed function. Clarification and/or correction is required.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are the clear necessary structural connections of between the oscillator, circuitry, latch circuit, seventh signal, sixth signal, and fifth signal. Clarification and/or correction is required. Furthermore, it is not clear how the recited latch circuit can perform the claimed function such as “configured to fetch a seventh signal received from outside the semiconductor device, based on a sixth signal for which a fifth signal received from the outside the semiconductor device is delayed, wherein one cycle of the first signal is equal to delay time of the sixth signal to the fifth signal” (emphasis added) due to the recited latch circuit does not have any specific structure for supporting that claimed function. Clarification and/or correction is required.
Furthermore, Claims 13-17 are rejected due to their dependencies on the base Claim 12.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are the clear necessary structural connections of between the oscillator, circuitry, latch circuit, seventh signal, sixth signal, fifth signal, and control circuit. Clarification and/or correction is required. Furthermore, it is not clear how the recited control circuit can perform the claimed function such as “execute an operation of adjusting timing of the fifth signal and the seventh signal in a case where an absolute value of a difference between the count value output by the circuitry and a previously measured count value is larger than a threshold set beforehand” (emphasis added) due to the recited latch circuit does not have any specific structure for supporting that claimed function. Clarification and/or correction is required.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are the necessary sequence of steps before the step of changing a count value of the cycle number of the first signal to N before an N-th (N is an integer equal to or larger than 2) cycle of the first signal is output”, as described in paragraphs [0227] – [0239] and in conjunction with Fig. 21. Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps. Claim 19 is rejected due to their dependencies on the base claim 18.
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:
“circuitry configured to count a cycle number of the first signal by changing a count value of the cycle number of the first signal to N before the oscillator outputs an Nth (N is an integer equal to or larger than 2) cycle of the first signal” (emphasis added), as recited in the base Claim 1. The mentioned claim limitation (s) has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use generic placeholder “circuitry” coupled with functional languages “count a cycle number of the first signal by changing a count value of the cycle number of the first signal to N before the oscillator outputs an Nth (N is an integer equal to or larger than 2) cycle of the first signal” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the functions. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by structural modifiers. Since those terms are not recognized as the name of the specified of circuit for perform those functions but are merely a substitute for the terms “means”. Since the claim limitation(s) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-7 and 9-17 has/have been treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
“wherein the circuitry is configured to change the count value of the cycle number of the first signal to N after 0.5 cycles elapse after the oscillator starts output of an (N-1)th cycle of the first signal” (emphasis added), as recited in Claim 2. The mentioned claim limitation (s) has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use generic placeholder “circuitry” coupled with functional languages “change the count value of the cycle number of the first signal to N after 0.5 cycles elapse after the oscillator starts output of an (N-1)th cycle of the first signal” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the functions. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by structural modifiers. Since those terms are not recognized as the name of the specified of circuit for perform those functions but are merely a substitute for the terms “means”. Since the claim limitation(s) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 2 has/have been treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
“the circuitry is configured to count up the cycle number of the first signal using the second edge when the oscillator starts output of the first signal and the first edge is initially generated” (emphasis added), as recited in Claim 3. The mentioned claim limitation (s) has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use generic placeholder “circuitry” coupled with functional languages “count up the cycle number of the first signal using the second edge when the oscillator starts output of the first signal and the first edge is initially generated” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the functions. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by structural modifiers. Since those terms are not recognized as the name of the specified of circuit for perform those functions but are merely a substitute for the terms “means”. Since the claim limitation(s) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 3 has/have been treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
“wherein the circuitry is configured to add 1 to the cycle number of the first signal, based on a second signal received before the oscillator starts the output of the first signal that instructs initiation of a counting operation” (emphasis added), as recited in Claim 5. The mentioned claim limitation (s) has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use generic placeholder “circuitry” coupled with functional languages “add 1 to the cycle number of the first signal, based on a second signal received before the oscillator starts the output of the first signal that instructs initiation of a counting operation” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the functions. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by structural modifiers. Since those terms are not recognized as the name of the specified of circuit for perform those functions but are merely a substitute for the terms “means”. Since the claim limitation(s) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 5 has/have been treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
“the circuitry is configured to count up the cycle number of the first signal using the first edge when the oscillator starts output of the first signal and the first edge is initially generated” (emphasis added), as recited in Claim 6. The mentioned claim limitation (s) has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use generic placeholder “circuitry” coupled with functional languages “count up the cycle number of the first signal using the first edge when the oscillator starts output of the first signal and the first edge is initially generated” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the functions. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by structural modifiers. Since those terms are not recognized as the name of the specified of circuit for perform those functions but are merely a substitute for the terms “means”. Since the claim limitation(s) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 6 has/have been treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
“wherein the circuitry is configured to: add 1 to the cycle number of the first signal in a case where the oscillator ends the output of the first signal when the first signal is at the first logic level, and not add 1 to the cycle number of the first signal in a case where the oscillator ends the output of the first signal when the first signal is at the second logic level” (emphasis added), as recited in Claim 9. The mentioned claim limitation (s) has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use generic placeholder “circuitry” coupled with functional languages “add 1 to the cycle number of the first signal in a case where the oscillator ends the output of the first signal when the first signal is at the first logic level, and not add 1 to the cycle number of the first signal in a case where the oscillator ends the output of the first signal when the first signal is at the second logic level” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the functions. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by structural modifiers. Since those terms are not recognized as the name of the specified of circuit for perform those functions but are merely a substitute for the terms “means”. Since the claim limitation(s) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 9 has/have been treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
“a latch circuit configured to fetch a seventh signal received from outside the semiconductor device, based on a sixth signal for which a fifth signal received from the outside the semiconductor device is delayed, wherein one cycle of the first signal is equal to delay time of the sixth signal to the fifth signal” (emphasis added), as recited in Claim 12. The mentioned claim limitation (s) has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use generic placeholder “latch circuit” coupled with functional languages “fetch a seventh signal received from outside the semiconductor device, based on a sixth signal for which a fifth signal received from the outside the semiconductor device is delayed, wherein one cycle of the first signal is equal to delay time of the sixth signal to the fifth signal” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the functions. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by structural modifiers. Since those terms are not recognized as the name of the specified of circuit for perform those functions but are merely a substitute for the terms “means”. Since the claim limitation(s) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 12-17 has/have been treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
“a control circuit configured to execute an operation of adjusting timing of the fifth signal and the seventh signal in a case where an absolute value of a difference between the count value output by the circuitry and a previously measured count value is larger than a threshold set beforehand” (emphasis added), as recited in Claim 17. The mentioned claim limitation (s) has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use generic placeholder “control circuit” coupled with functional languages “execute an operation of adjusting timing of the fifth signal and the seventh signal in a case where an absolute value of a difference between the count value output by the circuitry and a previously measured count value is larger than a threshold set beforehand” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the functions. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by structural modifiers. Since those terms are not recognized as the name of the specified of circuit for perform those functions but are merely a substitute for the terms “means”. Since the claim limitation(s) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 17 has/have been treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (Paragraphs [0227] through [0239] and in conjunction with Fig. 21) as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “step” 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 step that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient a sequence of steps to perform the recited function(s). Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “changing a count value of the cycle number of the first signal to N before an N-th (N is an integer equal to or larger than 2) cycle of the first signal is output” (emphasis added), as recited in the base Claim 18. The mentioned claim limitation (s) has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use generic step “changing a count value of the cycle number of the first signal to N before an N-th (N is an integer equal to or larger than 2) cycle of the first signal is output” without reciting sufficient sequence steps to achieve the results/functions. Since those terms are not recognized as the name of the specified of method for perform those functions but are merely a substitute for the terms “step”. Since the claim limitation(s) invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 18-19 has/have been treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure/step(s) described in the specification (Paragraphs [0227] through [0239] and in conjunction with Fig. 21) as performing the claimed results/functions, and equivalents thereof.
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 sequence steps to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient sequence steps 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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marx et al. (US 6,725,067).
Marx et al. discloses in Fig. 7 a semiconductor device comprising an oscillator (High Frequency Reference Oscillator) configured to output a first signal; and means (102) for counting a cycle number of the first signal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1747. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 09:00am to 06:00pm Eastern time.
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 on 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.
/HAI L NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842 December 29, 2025