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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
in FIG. 1, “primary sampling points” in S102 should be “primary sampling point” (see “primary sampling point” in S103 and S104 and “main sampling point A” in FIGs. 3 and 4);
FIGS. 2-6 includes text that does not measure at least .32 cm (1/8 inch) in height thereby failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3);
in FIG. 2, the text within the blocks is blurry; and
FIG. 4 includes non-English text (see 37 CFR 1.84(p)(2)).
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because on lines 1-2, “detection, the said method comprising” should be “detection. The method includes:”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
in paragraph [0046], “primary sampling points” should be “primary sampling point” (see “primary sampling point” in paragraphs [0048] and [0053])
in paragraph [0052], line 9, the two occurrences of “ABCD” should be “ABDC”;
in paragraph [0057], “ABGEF” on lines 10 and 11, respectively, should be “ABGFE”;
in paragraph [0062], line 1, the two occurrences of “ABCD” should be “ABDC”;
in paragraph [0062], line 3, “ABGEF” should be “ABGFE”;
in paragraph [0067], line 2, the comma should be a period;
in paragraph [0072], line 1, “circuit10” should be “circuit 10”;
in paragraph [0073], line 1, “circuit20” should be “circuit 20”;
in paragraph [0074], line 1, “circuit30” should be “circuit 30”;
in paragraph [0075], line 1, “circuit40” should be “circuit 40”;
in paragraph [0076], line 1, “circuit50” should be “circuit 50”;
in paragraph [0077], line 1, “circuit60” should be “circuit 60”;
in paragraph [0078], line 1, “circuit70” should be “circuit 70”; and
in paragraph [0079], line 1, “circuit80” should be “circuit 80”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, line 1, the comma should be deleted;
in claim 1, “input pulse signals” on line 2 should be “an input pulse signal” (see FIGs. 1 and 2) and each occurrence of “input pulse signals” on lines 3, 4, 6-7 and 10, respectively, should be “input pulse signal”;
in claim 1, line 3, “the primary sampling points” should be “a primary sampling point” (see “the primary sampling point” in claim 1, line 5);
in claim 1, line 4, “the first area” should be “a first area”;
in claim 1, line 5, “the preceding” should be “a preceding”;
in claim 1, line 6, “the second area” should be “a second area”;
in claim 1, line 7, “the subsequent” should be “a subsequent”;
in claim 1, line 8, “obtain the” should be “obtain a”;
in claim 1, line 10, “the phase” should be “a phase”;
in claim 2, each occurrence of “input pulse signals” on lines 1, 3, 4, and 5, respectively, should be “input pulse signal”;
in claim 2, each occurrence of “second input pulse signals” on lines 4 and 5, respectively, should be “second input pulse signal”;
in claim 3, line 2, “a second input pulse signals” should be “the second input pulse signal”;
in claim 3, line 4, “second input pulse signals” should be “second input pulse signal”;
in claim 3, each occurrence of “third input pulse signals” on lines 5 and 5-6, respectively, should be “third input pulse signal”;
in claim 4, each occurrence of “input pulse signals” on lines 2, 4, and 5, respectively, “input pulse signal”;
in claim 4, the examiner suggests replacing “through” on lines 4 and 6, respectively, with “using”;
in claim 5, each occurrence of “input pulse signals” on lines 2, 4, and 5-6, respectively, “input pulse signal”;
in claim 5, the examiner suggests replacing “through” on lines 4 and 7, respectively, with “using”;
in claim 6, line 2, “a first comparison result” should be “the first comparison result”;
in claim 6, the examiner suggests replacing “through” on lines 3 and 4, respectively, with “using” (see paragraphs [0060]-[0061]);
in claim 7, each occurrence of “input pulse signals” on lines 2, 4, and 10, respectively, “input pulse signal”;
in claim 8, line 1, the comma should be deleted;
in claim 8, “input pulse signals” on line 2 should be “an input pulse signal” (see FIGs. 1 and 2) and each occurrence of “input pulse signals” on lines 3, 6-7, 7-8, 16, 17 and 21, respectively, should be “input pulse signal”;
in claim 8, line 3, “the first area” should be “a first area”;
in claim 8, line 4, “the preceding unit time of the primary sampling point” should be “a preceding unit time of a primary sampling point”;
in claim 8, line 7, “the second area” should be “a second area”;
in claim 8, line 8, “the subsequent” should be “a subsequent”;
in claim 8, line 16, “the data sampling” should be “a data sampling”;
in claim 8, line 21, “the phase” should be “a phase”;
in claim 9, each occurrence of “input pulse signals” on lines 2-3 and 4, respectively, should be “input pulse signal”;
in claim 9, each occurrence of “second input pulse signals” on lines 3, 4, and 5, respectively, should be “second input pulse signal”;
in claim 9, line 4, “send” should be “sending”;
in claim 10, each occurrence of “second input pulse signals” on lines 2-3 and 3, respectively, should be “second input pulse signal”;
in claim 10, each occurrence of “third input pulse signals” on lines 3-4, 4 and 5, respectively, should be “third input pulse signal”;
in claim 10, line 4, “input pulse signals” should be “input pulse signal”; and
dependent claim(s) are also objected to under the same ground(s) as the claim(s) from which it depends.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3 and 10 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.
With regard to claim 3, it is unclear how the steps in claim 1 are performed based on (or with respect to) both the “third input pulse signals” (see “replacing the input pulse signals with the third input pulse signals” on lines 5-6) and the “second input pulse signals” (see “replacing the input pulse signals with the second input pulse signals” in claim 2, lines 4-5). For example, is each step based on at least one of the second or third input pulse signals or are the steps performed based on each of the second or third input pulse signals? According to the detailed description and FIG. 2, the steps are performed with respect to the “third input pulse signal” that is obtained by the decision feedback equalizer.
Similarly, with regard to claim 10, it is unclear how the first integration circuit, the second integration circuit and the data sampling circuit, respectively, receives/processes both the third input pulse signals” (see “replacing the input pulse signals with the third input pulse signals and sending the third input pulse signals to the first integration circuit, the second integration circuit and the data sampling circuit” on lines 4-6) and the “second input pulse signals” (see “replacing the input pulse signals with the second input pulse signals and send[ing] the second input pulse signals to the first integration circuit, the second integration circuit and the data sampling circuit” in claim 9, lines 4-6). Since each of the respective circuits receive the second input pulse signals and the third input pulse signals, does each of the respective circuits process one of the signals or both signals?
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2 and 4-9 are allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim objections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: prior art of record does not teach or suggests in combination a method for phase detection comprising the steps in claim 1, lines 4-11. Prior art of record also does not teach or suggests in combination an apparatus for phase detection comprising a first integration circuit, a second integration circuit, the comparator, the error sampling circuit and the phase detection logic as recited in claim 8, lines 2-15 and 19-21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references disclose systems with phase detection:
He et al. (US Patent No. 9,479,364 B2); Lu (US Patent No. 11,438,134 B2) and Teterwak (US Publication No. 2024/0348420 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Betsy Deppe whose telephone number is 571-272-3054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, 7:00 am - 3:00 pm (ET).
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, Sam Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/BETSY DEPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633