DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-16, 18-25, 27-31 are rejected in the Instant Application.
Status of claims
Claims 1, 13, 25 have been amended
Claims 5, 17, 26 have been cancelled
Claims 29-31 are newly added claims
Claims 1-4, 6-16, 18-25, 27-31 are pending in the instant application
Claims 1-4, 6-16, 18-25, 27-31 are rejected in the instant application
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4, 6-16, 18-25, 27-31 have been considered but are not persuasive. Please see examiners response below:
Applicants arguments:
Initial matter: Takada does not appear to relate to features of applicants claim 1 which require ‘receiving a request frame in a defined position…”
Applicant cannot find in Lin, including paragraph [0073] or elsewhere, any description of a request frame or a response to a request frame at all, much less a response sent "during a time period defined by the request frame," as amended claim 1 requires. Claims 13, 23 and dependent claims are argued similarly.
Examiners Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicants arguments against Takada. This teaching was not meant to address the request frames since Lin teaches the request frame. Takada in the same art teaches frames position relative to other frames utilizing synchronization to ensure messages order (Takada ¶0014 see communication system according to the present invention, the message transmitting means of each communication apparatus creates and transmits a message including identification information for identifying the transmission right, and each communication apparatus synchronizes message transmission and reception on the basis of the identification information of the received message).
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicants narrowed view of Lin. Applicant is reminded that the examiner utilizes the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim set in light of the specification. Thus in this particular instance sending in response to a request frame during a period identified by the request frame is seen broadly as during reception of the frames ie clock cycle defined by the frames [clock cycle of reception], if an error occurs within the frame transmission period the error is sent as is taught by Lin (¶0073). If there is a specific response sent then applicant needs to clarify what is being sent, further ‘period identified by the request frame’ is broad terminology as it isn’t clear if the period is calculated or defined in a parameter in the frame or somehow gathered in another manner. Lin’s clock cycles for frames are utilized to interpret the period in between frames as period defined by the frames. Claims 13, 25 and the dependent claims are addressed similarly. Examiner maintains his rejection. Applicant in their arguments refer to claim 23 as a base claim – however it appears to be a clerical issue, however if it is not, applicant is asked to provide how claim 23 is a base claim.
USC 112(b) rejection regarding indefiniteness directed to claims, 4, 16 have been withdrawn per the amendments/arguments filed in the instant application.
USC 112(b) rejections regarding claims 13, 25 and their respective dependents regarding claim interpretation invoking 112(f) are maintained. Please see examiners response below.
Applicants arguments:
Applicant respectfully disagrees that it is appropriate for the Office to interpret claims 13 or 25 as means plus function claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) sixth paragraph. The Office Action appears to improperly conclude that the terms "communications node" and "responder node" are a means-plus-function limitations based solely on the presence of functional language…Nonetheless, for purposes of advancing this application into condition for allowance, Applicant has amended claim 13 to recite "an asynchronous communications node," and claim 23 to recite "an asynchronous communications system."
Examiners Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicants response. Although amendments to the claims have been made, the amendments do no overcome the 112(f) invocation and 112(b) rejection. Applicant states that function language itself does not invoke 112(f) if sufficient structure is provided. Examiner agrees, however both claims 13 and 25 do not provide sufficient structure for the ‘communication node’ or ‘responder node’ – without sufficient structure these elements can be interpreted as possibly being implemented as software. The term asynchronous does not provide structure to the claim itself – rather a functionality. Examiner suggests applicant provide a memory and processor to provide sufficient structure for the claimed element nodes. Examiner reviewed the full specification and no mention of the nodes being hardware is addressed. Examiner maintains his rejection.
Examiner kindly suggests prior to filing a response, the applicant set up a formal interview with the examiner such that details about specific limitations can be clarified inventive concept clearly defined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
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: a “communication module configured to” in base claim 13 and “responder node is configured to” in base claim 25.
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 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) 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.
Claims 13-16, 17-24, 30 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 25, 27-28, 31 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, the corresponding structure is required to be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The corresponding structure for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm as well as the general purpose computer or microprocessor. See WMS Gaming, Inc., 184 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The written description of the specification must at least disclose the algorithm that transforms the general purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm that performs the claimed function. Aristocrat at 1338. Applicant may express the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure. See Finisar Corp., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate if the written description of the specification discloses no corresponding algorithm. Aristocrat at 1337-1338. For example, merely referencing to a general purpose computer with appropriate programming without providing any detailed explanation of the appropriate programming, see Id. at 1334, or simply reciting software without providing some detail about the means to accomplish the function, would not be an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, even when one of ordinary skill in the art is capable of writing the software to convert a general purpose computer to a special purpose computer to perform the claimed function. See Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340-1341. ***
Dependent claims are rejected to the virtue of their dependency to a rejected base claims 13 and 25.
The above cited rejections are merely exemplary.
The Applicant(s) are respectfully requested to correct all similar errors.
Claims not specifically mentioned are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 1-4, 6-16, 18-25, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US20230056001A1) hereinafter Lin in view of Takada (US20130139018A1) hereinafter Takada.
Regarding claims 1, 13, 25. Lin teaches a method (¶0009 see method), comprising:
receiving one or more data frames of a message (¶0010 see processing of frames from the second device received by the first device with multiple frames being allowed to be received in each clock cycle);
sending, in response to the request frame, a response (¶0010 see according to the frame error position indication signal and the frame correction position indication signal…sending a request to enter into a state of disabling the NAC frame transmission) during a time period defined by the request frame (Lin ¶0073 see multiple frames are allowed to be received in each clock cycle (as shown in FIG. 5A and FIG. 5B), the foregoing method for error handling of the interconnection protocol as shown in FIG. 1 can correctly and efficiently implement the transmission of the notification signal indicating the occurrence of an error in the error handling under the interconnection protocol, such as NAC frame transmission [time period being clock cycles between receiving and sending messages]).
Lin teaches receiving a request frame (see above)
Lin does not explicitly teach in frame in a defined position relative to the one or more data frames of the message
Takada however in the same field of computer networking teaches (¶0127 see bit sampling means 106 compares a position of the change in the signal considered by the bit sampling means 106 with the position of the change in the signal actually detected on the bus 5 to calculate errors and corrects the timing of the sampling)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computer networking at the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the frame error management of Lin and the teachings of Takada for relative position of frames to combine the teachings such that Lin can utilize the teachings of Takada to quickly identify positions of errors. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the results of the combination are predictable because each element in the combination is merely performing the same function it would perform separately. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because doing so will improve communication rates between communication apparatuses (Takada ¶0009).
Further regarding claim 13: Lin teaches an asynchronous communications node configured to (¶0010 see controller)
Further regarding claim 25: Lin teaches an asynchronous communications system, comprising: a commander node; and at least one responder node communicatively coupled to the commander node, wherein the responder node (¶0010 see present disclosure provides a controller for use in a first device that is linkable to a second device)
Regarding claims 2, 14. The already combined references teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving the request frame as a frame of the message in a predetermined order within the message (Lin ¶0011 see receiving a frame error position indication signal to indicate whether an error occurs in a frame in each clock cycle and a symbol position corresponding to the error and ¶0069 see FIG. 5A, FIG. 5B, or similar figures, Tm (m is an integer) on the time axis (such as T0, T1˜T5) respectively represent multiple clock cycles of the clock in a clock domain. The corresponding grids above T0, T1˜T5 indicate the symbol positions where the symbol received from the PA layer is temporarily stored in the corresponding clock cycle (for example, marked as symbol 0˜symbol 7, respectively). In a certain clock cycle, the symbol 0 from the peer side comes earlier than the symbol 7. Within the same clock cycle, the relative meaning of other symbol positions can be obtained similarly).
Regarding claims 3, 15: The already combined references teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving the request frame within a predetermined time after receiving a last data frame of the message (¶0030 see processing of frames from the second device received by the first device with multiple frames being allowed to be received in each clock cycle | Figs 5A and 5B highlight receiving frames within clock cycles).
Regarding claims 4, 16. The already combined references teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
sending the response while receiving the request frame (Lin ¶0075 see The data link layer receiver (DL RX) circuit 310 includes a frame reception processing unit 311 and a NAC transmission processing unit 315. In addition, in one embodiment, the data link layer receiver (DL RX) circuit 310 and the data link layer transmitter (DL TX) circuit 330 are respectively implemented to operate in different clock domains, and can be coupled by the synchronization modules 321, 322, and 323 to synchronize their signals [synchronization of sending and receiving is interpreted as sending while receiving]).
Regarding claims 6, 18, 27. The already combined references teach the method of claim 1, further comprising:
sending the response responsive to an SOF bit of the request frame (Lin ¶0070 see after NAC transmission is disabled the error frame is present before the correct frame. In FIG. 5A, at the clock cycle T0, the CRC of the data frame containing SOF, D00-D04, EOF, and CRC symbols (hereinafter referred to as D0x data frame) is incorrect, and thus the DL layer transmits NAC).
Regarding claims 7, 19, 28. The method of claim 1, wherein sending the response comprises sending a response frame (Lin ¶0068 see When either of the host and the device (or the target) detects an error in the received data, the one (the target) that detects the error should actively send a notification signal to the other one (or the initiator) that the error occurred. This is called a “Negative Acknowledgment Control” (NAC) frame in UniPro, and thus triggers the other one (the initiator) to retransmit data. In addition, in the above case, after the target transmits the NAC frame).
Regarding claims 8, 20. The already combined references teach the method of claim 7,
Although Lin teaches acknowledgment frames Lin does not explicitly teach wherein the response frame includes a start of frame bit followed by a plurality of acknowledgment bits
Takada however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein the response frame includes a start of frame bit followed by a plurality of acknowledgment bits (Fig 4A and ¶0097 see data frame based on the present communication protocol includes a start of frame (SOF), an ID field, a control field, a sleep bit, an error active bit (abbreviated to “EN” in FIGS. 4A and 4B), an ACK field, a slot number field (abbreviated to “SLOT” in FIGS. 4A and 4B), a data field, a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) field, and an end of frame (EOF))
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computer networking at the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the frame error management of Lin and the teachings of Takada for utilizing acknowledgement bits to combine the teachings such that Lin can utilize the teachings of Takada to add ack bits. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the results of the combination are predictable because each element in the combination is merely performing the same function it would perform separately. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because doing so will improve communication rates between communication apparatuses (Takada ¶0009).
Regarding claims 9, 21. The already combined references teach the method of claim 8,
Lin does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of acknowledgement bits are dominant bits
Takada however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein the plurality of acknowledgement bits are dominant bits (¶0101 see sleep bit is the information of 1 bit used at the time of the processing related to the sleep of the communication system and is used only in the ACK frame. When the sleep bit is set as the dominant, a general operation is performed [dominant bit used as ACK bit in the frame])
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computer networking at the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the frame error management of Lin and the teachings of Takada for utilizing acknowledgement bits utilizing dominant bits to combine the teachings such that Lin can utilize the teachings of Takada to add ack bits utilizing dominant bits. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the results of the combination are predictable because each element in the combination is merely performing the same function it would perform separately. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because doing so will improve communication rates between communication apparatuses (Takada ¶0009).
Regarding claims 10, 22. The already combined references teach the method of claim 8,
Lin does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of acknowledgement bits are recessive bits
Takada however in the same field of computer networking teaches wherein the plurality of acknowledgement bits are recessive bits (¶0101 see When the sleep bit is set as the recessive, the ACK frame is received as the sleep request and the processing related to the sleep start)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computer networking at the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the frame error management of Lin and the teachings of Takada for utilizing acknowledgement bits utilizing recessive bits to combine the teachings such that Lin can utilize the teachings of Takada to add ack bits utilizing recessive bits. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the results of the combination are predictable because each element in the combination is merely performing the same function it would perform separately. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because doing so will improve communication rates between communication apparatuses (Takada ¶0009).
Regarding claims 11, 23. The already combined references teach the method of claim 1, wherein the response indicates whether the message or the frame of the message was received (Lin ¶0077 see sends the NAC frame transmission request or a request for disabling the NAC frame transmission to the DL TX circuit 330 according to the frame error position indication signal and the frame correct position indication signal [frame data is sent indicating receipt of frames]).
Regarding claims 12, 24. The already combined references teach the method of claim 1, wherein the response includes requested data (Lin ¶0077 see sends the NAC frame transmission request or a request for disabling the NAC frame transmission to the DL TX circuit 330 according to the frame error position indication signal and the frame correct position indication signal [frame data is sent]).
Claims 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin-Takada further in view of Rennig et al. (US20230300001A1) hereinafter Rennig
Regarding claims 29, 30, 31. Lin-Takada teaches the method of claim 1,
Lin-Takada does not explicitly teach further comprising sending the response while recessive bits of the request frame are being output
Rennig however in the same field of computer networking teaches further comprising sending the response while recessive bits of the request frame are being output (¶0165 see once the seven or eight consecutive recessive bits have been received and/or once having received the expected number of bits, e.g., in response to the signal RX_OK, the hardware communication interface 5000 transfers the content of the shift register 5042, e.g., by providing the received data DATARX, e.g., by using a parallel data output PDO of the shift register 5042)
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computer networking at the effective filing date of the claimed invention given the sending of Lin and the teachings of Rennig for outputting recessive bits while sending to combine the teachings such that Lin can utilize the teachings of Rennig to output certain recessive bits. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the results of the combination are predictable because each element in the combination is merely performing the same function it would perform separately. One would be motivated to combine these teachings because doing so may the circuit to directly process the received data (Rennig ¶0163).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
References are cited not only for their quoted language but for all that they teach.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Atta Khan whose telephone number is 571-270-7364. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 09:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571) 272-7304. 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.
/ATTA KHAN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights