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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Korea on 11/06/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 10-2023-0151503 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55, nor has it been received.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), 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), 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 limitations are: “storage unit” in claim 4; and “comparison unit”, “re-synchronization performing unit” and “calibration logic unit” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, 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) (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).
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 3, it is suggested that the term “circuit” or some other structural term be added after the limitation “a clock recovery”.
Similarly in line 6, it is suggested that the term “circuit” or some other structural term be included after the limitation “a data recovery”.
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.
Claims 9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 9, recites “the second calibration period” in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the re-synchronization point data" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the alternative calibration period" in lines 1-2. This limitation is not previously introduced in the claim.
Claim 17 recites "the abnormal clock signal" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, in line 8, the limitation: “recover the alternative calibration to normal” is unclear as the “alternative calibration” is recited in the claim as being a process, and it is unclear how to “recover” a “process” as claimed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2025/0021153 in view of Brown et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,384,828.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses an electronic device 300 (Fig. 3) comprising: a first electronic device (i.e. transmitter) and a second electronic device (i.e. receiver), wherein the second electronic device, after performing preamble calibration (i.e. based on preambles 922, Fig. 9, ¶ [0063]), performs an alternative calibration upon receiving a synchronization pattern from the first electronic device (i.e. synchronization patterns 924). Zhang further discloses that an error may result in loss of synchronization causing the need for the receiver to resynchronize (¶ [0064]), but does not expressly show that the synchronization pattern is a random pattern, and that a re-synchronization process uses re-synchronization point data and the reception data.
Brown discloses a system for resynchronizing a transmitter and a receiver where a random pattern is sent after synchronization has been lost, such that a resynchronization process is performed involving re-synchronization point data generated at the resynchronization point and the reception data, as the receiver detects the pattern and generates a pattern detect signal at a resynchronization point (col. 7, ll. 42-60), and resynchronization is reestablished (col. 7, l. 64 to col. 8, l. 31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ a re-synchronization process using a random pattern to establish resynchronization based on a resynchronization point and received data, as suggested by Brown, in the electronic device of Zhang, in order to quickly reestablish communication if synchronization is lost.
Regarding claim 12, in the proposed combination, once resynchronization is established, the device of Zhang will continue normal operation, including reception of preamble 922 and synchronization pattern data 924 used in alternative calibration (see Zhang, Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 13, in the proposed combination, in response to the re-synchronization process being completed, the second electronic device of Brown performs uploading matched re-synchronization point data (Fig. 11 – step 1124).
Regarding claim 14, in the proposed combination, the re-synchronization process is considered to be performed on all delay steps during the alternative calibration period, as all bits of the pattern are judged to be present by pattern detector 850 (Brown, col. 7, ll. 43-56; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 15, in the proposed combination, re-synchronization is considered to be performed when all bits in the pattern are completely received (Brown, col. 7, ll. 43-56; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 16, in the proposed combination, re-synchronization would not be required if synchronization patterns 924 are reliably received (Zhang, ¶ [0063]).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mutou U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0036904 in view of Brown et al. U.S. Patent No. 5,384,828.
Regarding claim 17, Mutou discloses a calibration method for an electronic device, comprising: performing preamble calibration using a first electronic device 20 and a second electronic device 10 (Fig. 2), as a preamble part (Prep) is recognized in order to instantiate processing of a received frame (¶ [0102]); checking, after performing the preamble calibration, a synchronization pattern (Sync) from the first electronic device 20 using the second electronic device 10 (¶ [0102]); performing an alternative calibration in response to the random pattern being confirmed as phase information from signal change points of the synchronization pattern are extracted and used to adjust phases of PLL clocks (¶ [0073]); and checking for a noisy clock signal during the alternative calibration, as clock data recovery circuit 105 adjusts the phase of the clock of the PLL circuit 107 based on the phase information from the synchronization pattern (¶ [0102], also see ¶¶ [0003]-[0004]). As a matter of claim construction, the claim limitations regarding performing a re-synchronization process and continuing to perform the alternative calibration in response to the re-synchronization process being completed are only performed in response to an abnormal clock signal occurring, thus the method does not require those steps during an iteration if/when an abnormal clock signal does not occur.
Mutou does not expressly disclose that the synchronization pattern is a random pattern. Brown discloses use of a random synchronization pattern (col. 4, ll. 28-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a random pattern for a synchronization pattern, as suggested by Brown, in the method of Mutou, as is a combining of prior art elements according to known methods, yielding predictable results (see MPEP § 2143 I.A.)
Regarding claim 18, in the proposed combination, Mutou further discloses that the alternative calibration includes detecting/matching the received synchronization pattern at the receiver, where the alternative calibration continues as long as the pattern is reliably detected (¶¶ [0007]-[0008]).
Regarding claim 19, as the performing of the re-synchronization process is only performed in response to an abnormal clock signal occurring (see claim 17), the method does not require those steps during an iteration if/when an abnormal clock signal does not occur.
Regarding claim 20, as the changing a delay step limitation and subsequent steps only occurs in response to the data synchronization mismatching, the method does not require those steps during an iteration if/when data synchronization matches.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4-8 and 10 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David B. Lugo whose telephone number is 571-272-3043. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Hannah Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. 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.
/DAVID B LUGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631 3/4/2026