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 .
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: “input monitoring module”, “output monitoring module”, and “monitoring result processing module” in claims 1-20.
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.
The specification describes these modules as being implemented by a hardware logic circuit (paragraph 158, lines 5-8).
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 Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 19 refers to “the sampling component signals of output image data of the image data processing module according to an output control signal of the image data processing module to obtain a second pixel value under each component, and obtaining the number of second pixel values included in each pixel range under each of the components as the output monitoring result according to a pixel range to which the second pixel value under each of the components belongs”; however, antecedent claim 16 does not appear to contain this limitation. It appears as if the claim was intended to depend on claim 18. For the sake of consideration on the merits, it will be treated as depending on claim 18.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,119,072. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the disclosure of the ‘072 patent anticipates the current claim.
Current claim 1
Claim 1, ‘072 patent
1. A protection apparatus for an image data processing module, comprising: an input monitoring module, connected to an input end of the image data processing module, for monitoring an input of the image data processing module to obtain an input monitoring result;
1. A protection circuit for a data path, including an input processing circuit, an output processing circuit, and a comparison module; wherein the input processing circuit is electrically connected with the input data bus of the data path,
an output monitoring module, connected to an output end of the image data processing module, for monitoring an output of the image data processing module to obtain an output monitoring result; and
the output processing circuit is electrically connected with the output data bus of the data path,
an input terminal of the data path is electrically connected with the input data bus, and an output terminal of the data path is electrically connected with the output data bus;
a monitoring result processing module, connected to the input monitoring module and the output monitoring module, respectively,
the comparison module is electrically connected to the input processing circuit and the output processing circuit, respectively;
the input processing circuit is configured to perform a check operation on an input data frame obtained from the input data bus according to a preset check mode to obtain a first operation result; the output processing circuit is configured to perform a check operation on an output data frame obtained from the output data bus and corresponding to the input data frame according to the preset check mode to obtain a second operation result; and
for determining an operating state of the image data processing module based on the input monitoring result and the output monitoring result.
the comparison module is configured to acquire the first operation result and the second operation result, and generate a first error alarm signal for the data path based on the first operation result and the second operation result.
Both the current claim 1 and claim 1 of the ‘072 patent disclose a protection apparatus for an image data processing module, comprising: an input monitoring module, connected to an input end of the image data processing module, for monitoring an input of the image data processing module to obtain an input monitoring result; an output monitoring module, connected to an output end of the image data processing module, for monitoring an output of the image data processing module to obtain an output monitoring result; and a monitoring result processing module, connected to the input monitoring module and the output monitoring module, respectively, for determining an operating state of the image data processing module based on the input monitoring result and the output monitoring result.
Claim 1 of the ‘072 patent further discloses wherein an input terminal of the data path is electrically connected with the input data bus, and an output terminal of the data path is electrically connected with the output data bus; and the comparison module is configured to generate a first error alarm signal for the data path based on the first operation result and the second operation result.
Since the current claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of the ‘072 patent, but is not identical thereto, it is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipation-type double patenting.
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8, 10, and 16-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,119,072. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the disclosure of the ‘072 patent anticipates the current claim.
Current claims 10 and 16
Claims 8, 10 and 16-17, ‘072 patent
10. A protection method for an image data processing module, comprising: monitoring an input of the image data processing module to obtain an input monitoring result;
8. A protection method for a data path, including steps of: electrically connecting an input processing circuit with an input data bus of a data path; electrically connecting an output processing circuit with an output data bus of the data path; electrically connecting an input terminal of the data path with the input data bus; electrically connecting an output terminal of the data path with the output data bus; performing a check operation on an input data frame obtained from the input data bus according to a preset check mode to obtain a first operation result;
monitoring an output of the image data processing module to obtain an output monitoring result; and
performing a check operation on an output data frame obtained from the output data bus and corresponding to the input data frame according to the preset check mode to obtain a second operation result; and
determining an operating state of the image data processing module based on the input monitoring result and the output monitoring result.
generating a first error alarm signal for the data path based on the first operation result and the second operation result.
10. The protection method according to claim 8, wherein the step of performing a check operation on an input data frame according to a preset check mode to obtain a first operation result includes: generating and transmitting an input frame end signal when it is determined, based on an input control signal, that a whole of the input data frame has been acquired; and performing, based on the input control signal, sampling and packaging on valid signals of the input data signals, and transmitting a first sampling and packaging result; and generating, based on the first sampling and packaging result, the first operation result that is obtained through performing the check operation on the input data frame.
16. The protection method according to claim 10, wherein the step of performing a check operation on an output data frame corresponding to the input data frame according to the preset check mode to obtain a second operation result includes: generating and transmitting an output frame end signal and a comparison enable signal when it is determined, based on an output control signal, that a whole of the output data frame has been acquired; performing, based on the output control signal, sampling and packaging on valid signals of the output data signals, and transmitting a second sampling and packaging result; and generating, based on the second sampling and packaging result, the second operation result that is obtained through performing the check operation on the output data frame.
16. The protection method according to claim 10, wherein the monitoring an input of the image data processing module to obtain an input monitoring result further comprises: monitoring whether the input control signal of the image data processing module is correct, and if not, outputting a corresponding error alarm signal.
17. The protection method according to claim 16, wherein the step of generating a first error alarm signal for the data path based on the first operation result and the second operation result includes: comparing the first operation result with the second operation result in response to the comparison enable signal, and generating the first error alarm signal when a comparison result is that the first operation result and the second operation result do not match with each other.
Both the current claim 10 and claim 8 of the ‘072 patent disclose a protection method for an image data processing module, comprising: monitoring an input of the image data processing module to obtain an input monitoring result; monitoring an output of the image data processing module to obtain an output monitoring result; and determining an operating state of the image data processing module based on the input monitoring result and the output monitoring result.
Both the current claim 16 and claim 8 of the ‘072 patent disclose outputting a corresponding error alarm signal.
Both the current claim 10 and claim 17 of the ‘072 patent disclose determining an operating state of the image data processing module based on the input monitoring result and the output monitoring result.
Both the current claim 16 and claim 17 of the ‘072 patent disclose wherein the monitoring an input of the image data processing module to obtain an input monitoring result further comprises: monitoring whether the input control signal of the image data processing module is correct, and if not, outputting a corresponding error alarm signal.
The current claims 10 and 16 are not identical to claims 8 and 17 of the ‘072 patent, particularly in view of claims 11 and 16 of the ‘072 patent, which claim 17 of the ‘072 patent incorporates by reference.
Based on this, current claims 10 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipation-type double patenting.
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goyins et al. (US 2004/0049726), hereafter referred to as Goyins’726.
Referring to independent claim 10, Goyins’726 anticipates a protection method for an image data processing module, comprising: monitoring an input of the image data processing module to obtain an input monitoring result (Once the CRC 112 has been calculated for a data block by CRC generator 104, in one embodiment, the CRC 112 is then appended to the data block, see figure 1 and paragraph 23, lines 1-3); monitoring an output of the image data processing module to obtain an output monitoring result (CRC generator 124 calculates a CRC 214 based on the received message block (without the embedded CRC 112) using the same generator polynomial G[x] that was used by CRC generator 104 to generate the CRC 112, see figure 2 and paragraph 33, lines 1-4); and determining an operating state of the image data processing module based on the input monitoring result and the output monitoring result (Comparator 210 compares the two CRC's 112 and 214, and outputs an error signal 212 if the two values 112 and 214 are not equal, see figure 2 and paragraph 34, lines 7-9).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 and 13 appear to contain allowable subject matter, but cannot currently be allowed due to double patenting issues.
Claims 14-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12 and 21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Referring to independent claim 1, the prior art of record does not appear to anticipate, explicitly teach, or fairly suggest a monitoring result processing module, connected to the input monitoring module and the output monitoring module, respectively, for determining an operating state of the image data processing module based on the input monitoring result and the output monitoring result.
Further, it would not have been obvious to combine the above-emphasized limitations with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Goyins et al. (US 2004/0049726) discloses a comparator that appears to be connected to a CRC generator and CRC register on the output end. However, this module is not connected to the CRC generator on the input end; therefore, it does not appear to anticipate or explicitly teach the subject matter determined to be allowable.
Vinayak et al. (US 2009/0021303) discloses a phase correction loop that monitors the RF input signal and compares the phase of the RF input signal with the phase of the output signal of the PA, resulting in a control signal that varies the phase of the RF signal coming out of the phase shifter. However, this does not appear to anticipate or explicitly teach the subject matter determined to be allowable.
Note that independent claim 12 contains the corresponding limitations of claim 1 as shown above; therefore, it is considered to be allowable by the same reasoning accordingly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shan et al. (US 2015/0309897) discloses an input terminal of a local error recovery control signal connected to an input terminal of the local error correction selector.
Vinayak et al. (US 2009/0021303) discloses a phase correction loop that monitors the RF input signal and compares the phase of the RF input signal with the phase of the output signal of the PA, resulting in a control signal that varies the phase of the RF signal coming out of the phase shifter.
Bendak et al. (US 6,961,366) discloses a receive monitor monitoring the integrity of communications including digital frame structures having overhead, payload, and forward error correction sections on the first and second receive paths by monitoring integrity criteria selected from the group including overhead bytes, synchronization status, loss of clock, bit error rate, and signal to noise ratio and supplying a control signal responsive to the communication integrity at a first output.
However, these do not appear to anticipate or explicitly teach the subject matter determined to be allowable.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B ROCHE whose telephone number is (571)270-1721. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:30 - 7.
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, Henry Tsai can be reached at (571)272-4176. 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.
/J.B.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2184
/HENRY TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2184