DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Cross Reference to Related Applications
2. This application is a National Stage Application, filed under 35 U.S.C. § 371, of International Application No. PCT/SE2022/050397, filed April 22, 2022; the contents of which as are incorporated by reference in their entirety.
Claims status
3. This office action is a response to an application filed on October 15, 2024 in which claims 1-18 are pending for examination.
Based on the Preliminary Amendment filed on October 15, 2024, the listing of claims replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in the application.
Drawings
4. The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on October 15, 2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The Examiner has considered the reference(s) listed on the Information Disclosure Statements submitted on October 15, 2024 and January 23, 2026.
Claim Objections (minor informalities)
6. Claims 1, 2, 10, 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “…a slave node (S1-SN)…”, “…in a data ring-bus (1)…”, “…clock input (5)…”, and “data input (6)” in lines 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8.
It appears that (S1-SN), (1), (5) and (6) from the claim is referring back to labels (“S1-SN”, 1, 5 and 6) from figure 1. [Note: It appears that the claims included in current claims were inadvertently copied from PCT application and/or labels from figure are inadvertently included in the claims].
The claim should be amended as follows (to remove/delete all labels of the figure in the claim):
For example: “…a slave node …” “…in a data ring-bus …”, “…clock input …”, and “data input ”.
Claims 10, 17 and 18 are also objected for the same reason as claim 1 (to remove the labels of the figure in the claims).
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “…for providing a trigger signal in a slave node (S1-SN) in a data ring-bus (1), which slave node (S1-SN) comprises a clock input (5) and a data input (6), the method comprising …”.
The claim recites “a slave node” in line 1 and “slave node” in line 2. It appears that “slave node” in line 2 is referring back to “a slave node” in line 1.
In order to avoid antecedent basis issues, it is suggested to suggested to replace with “the slave node” in line 2.
If applicant is of the opinion that “slave node” in line 2 is not referring back to “a slave node” of line 1, further clarification is requested and it is suggested to fix antecedent basis issues.
Claims 10, 17 and 18 are also objected for the same reason as claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “…the end of the first data message was received,…” in line 9-10.
To avoid any questions of antecedence, while “the end” is not explicitly recited, examiner interprets “the end” as finding antecedence in an implied pre-existing “an end”.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “…the start of a subsequent data message…” in line 4.
To avoid any questions of antecedence, while “the start” is not explicitly recited, examiner interprets “the start” as finding antecedence in an implied pre-existing “a start”.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “…the end of the first data message was received,…” in line 7.
To avoid any questions of antecedence, while “the end” is not explicitly recited, examiner interprets “the end” as finding antecedence in an implied pre-existing “an end”.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites “A data ring-bus (1) comprising a master node (M) and a plurality of devices (S1-SN) according to claim 8…”. For clarity and consistency, it is suggested to incorporate steps/processes recited in claim 8 into claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites “Computer program…the method according to claim 1”. For clarity and consistency, it is suggested to incorporate steps/processes recited in claim 1 into claim 18.
For the purpose of examinations, the examiner will interpret the claims as best understood.
Further clarification is requested to understand what applicant is trying to accomplish.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 10-16 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.
Claim 10 fails to recite the claim structure in the body of the claim.
In particular, claim 10 recites, in the preamble, “A device (S1-SN) configured to…,wherein the device is configured to…”, and thus claim is a machine claim.
MPEP 2106 defines a machine as follows:
Machine – a concrete thing, consisting pf parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices. Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. (1Wall.) 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650 (1863). This includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result. Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267, 14 L. Ed. 683 (1854).
Yet, the body of the claim recites steps/actions “…to update a slot…”, “…to adjust, when a first data message is received…” and “…to provide a trigger signal…” without any structure required by the machine claim, which create confusion when directed infringement occurs.
The claim is indefinite. See IPXL v. Amazon, 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed.Cir.2005).
Claim 10 is 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.
Claim 10 is written in continuous form without preamble and body of the claim. It is unclear which part of the claim is preamble and which part of the claim is the body. It is suggested to clearly identify the preamble and the body of the claim.
Claims 11-16 are also rejected for the same reason as claim 10 since the claims 11-16 are dependent on claim 10.
For the purpose of examinations, the examiner will interpret the claims as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
10. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
11. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 18 recites, inter alia, “Computer program for providing …”.
After close inspection, the Examiner respectfully notes that the disclosure, as a whole, does not specifically identify what may be included as a computer program and what is not to be included as a computer program.
An Examiner is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during examination. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer program (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent or includes non-limiting examples. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal, per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter.
Therefore, given the non-limiting list of examples of computer program from the disclosure and the broadest reasonable interpretation, the computer program of the claim may include transitory propagating signals. As a result, the claim pertains to non-statutory subject matter.
However, the Examiner respectfully submits the claims drawn to such a computer program, a computer readable program and a storage medium that cover both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. For additional information, please see the Patents’ Official Gazette notice published February 23, 2010 (1351 OG 212).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 1-18 would be allowable contingent upon or subject to the following conditions: (1) after clarifying the issues related with claim objections, 101 and 112 as stated above, (2) that the subject limitation(s) are not taken alone but in view of the entirety of the claim language including any preceding claim limitation, any proceeding claim limitations, and any intervening claim limitations, and (3) that all independent claims were amended with similar features and the amendments were submitted in a formal response. [Note: In a case of given the scope of the claimed amendments and/or the arguments would require further consideration or search may result in new ground(s) of rejection.]
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1-18, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior arts of record (pertinent prior art as stated below) fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “adjusting the slot counter value C to S, for the clock cycle in which the end of the first data message was received, wherein S is in the interval 2 to Max-1,receiving a subsequent data message after the first data message, and providing a trigger signal when the slot counter value C equals T, if the end of the subsequent data message is received when the slot counter value C is valid, wherein a valid slot counter value C is S and at least one of S-1 and S+1, wherein T > S+1 and wherein T < Max”.
Citations of Pertinent Prior Art
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
• Amarilio et al. (US 2019/0155781 A1) entitled: "Transfer Of Master Duties To A Slave On A Communication Bus"
• LOVELL et al. (US 2022/0334634 A1) entitled: "Systems And Methods For Reducing Power Consumption In Embedded Machine Learning Accelerators"
• KIM et al. (US 2021/0303497 A1) entitled: "Method Of Operating Audio Subsystem For USB Module, System-On-Chip Performing The Same And Method Of Operating System-On-Chip Using The Same"
• Tong et al. (US 2021/0202707 A1) entitled: "Systems And Methods For Transmission Of Audio Information"
• Tu et al. (US 2021/0034096 A1) entitled: "Systems And Methods For Clock Synchronization In Transmission Of Audio Information"
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SITHU KO whose telephone number is 571-272-8647. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Friday 8:30am-5:00pmEST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edan Orgad can be reached on 571-272-7884. 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.
/SITHU KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights