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 . 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: correct the instances of “the MIPI” in lines 4, 5, and 6 to ‘the MIPI circuit’ to maintain consistent terminology with the first instance of “Mobile Industry Processor Interface (MIPI) circuit”.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: correct the instance of “the MIPI” to ‘the MIPI circuit’ to maintain consistent terminology.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: correct the instances of “the MIPI” to ‘the MIPI circuit’ to maintain consistent terminology.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: correct the instances of “the MIPI” to ‘the MIPI circuit’ to maintain consistent terminology.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: correct the instance of “the MIPI” to ‘the MIPI circuit’ to maintain consistent terminology.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: correct the instances of “the MIPI” to ‘the MIPI circuit’ to maintain consistent terminology.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: correct the instances of “the MIPI” to ‘the MIPI circuit’ to maintain consistent terminology.
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.
Claims 1-20 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, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because there is no definitive scope provided for the value of “N”, and therefore the scope of “N” includes negative, zero, and infinite values. Claims 2-11 are rejected due to dependence on claim 1.
Claim 12 is indefinite because there is no definitive scope provided for the value of “N”, and therefore the scope of “N” includes negative, zero, and infinite values. Claims 13-19 are rejected due to dependence on claim 12.
Furthermore, claim 12 recites the limitation "the MIPI circuit" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because there is no first instance of ‘a MIPI circuit’.
Claim 20 is indefinite because there is no definitive scope provided for the value of “N”, and therefore the scope of “N” includes negative, zero, and infinite values.
Furthermore, claim 20 recites the limitation "the MIPI circuit" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because there is no first instance of ‘a MIPI circuit’.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 12-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the IEEE paper A 24-Gb/s MIPI C-/D-PHY Receiver Bridge Chip With Phase Error Calibration Supporting FPGA-Based Frame Grabber by Song, C. et al., hereinafter referred to as Song.
Referring to claim 1, Song discloses a Mobile Industry Processor Interface (MIPI) circuit, comprising: N pins (pg. 714, 1. Introduction, 10 pins), a path control component and N interface components (pg. 714, fig. 1, Abstract, receiver bridge chip); wherein the path control component is configured to control connection states of the N pins with the N interface components according to an operating mode of the MIPI, the operating mode of the MIPI comprises a camera physical layer (CPHY) mode and a display physical layer (DPHY) mode (pg. 714, fig. 1, Abstract, receiver bridge chip supports both the C-PHY version 1.1 and D-PHY version 2.0), and the MIPI comprises └(N/3)┘ CPHY lanes (pg. 714, fig. 1, C-PHY 3-lane), and └(N/2)┘ -1 DPHY data lanes and 1 DPHY clock (CLK) lane (pg. 714, fig. 1, D-PHY 5 lane).
As to claim 2, Song discloses each of the CPHY lanes comprises 3 interface components (pg. 714, fig. 1, C-PHY 3-lane), each of the DPHY data lanes comprises 1 interface component, and the DPHY CLK lane comprises 1 interface component (pg. 714, fig. 1, D-PHY 5 lane).
Referring to claim 12, Song discloses a chip (pg. 714, Abstract, bridge chip), wherein the chip comprises the MIPI circuit, comprising: N pins (pg. 714, 1. Introduction, 10 pins), a path control component and N interface components (pg. 714, fig. 1, Abstract, receiver bridge chip); wherein the path control component is configured to control connection states of the N pins with the N interface components according to an operating mode of the MIPI, the operating mode of the MIPI comprises a camera physical layer (CPHY) mode and a display physical layer (DPHY) mode (pg. 714, fig. 1, Abstract, receiver bridge chip supports both the C-PHY version 1.1 and D-PHY version 2.0), and the MIPI comprises └(N/3)┘ CPHY lanes (pg. 714, fig. 1, C-PHY 3-lane), and └(N/2)┘ -1 DPHY data lanes and 1 DPHY clock (CLK) lane (pg. 714, fig. 1, D-PHY 5 lane).
As to claim 13, Song discloses each of the CPHY lanes comprises 3 interface components (pg. 714, fig. 1, C-PHY 3-lane), each of the DPHY data lanes comprises 1 interface component, and the DPHY CLK lane comprises 1 interface component (pg. 714, fig. 1, D-PHY 5 lane).
Referring to claim 20, Song discloses an electronic device, wherein the electronic device comprises a chip (pg. 714, Abstract, bridge chip) and a display (pg. 724, computer monitor; pg. 725, display module), wherein the chip comprises the MIPI circuit, the MIPI comprising: N pins (pg. 714, 1. Introduction, 10 pins), a path control component and N interface components (pg. 714, fig. 1, Abstract, receiver bridge chip); wherein the path control component is configured to control connection states of the N pins with the N interface components according to an operating mode of the MIPI, the operating mode of the MIPI comprises a camera physical layer (CPHY) mode and a display physical layer (DPHY) mode (pg. 714, fig. 1, Abstract, receiver bridge chip supports both the C-PHY version 1.1 and D-PHY version 2.0), and the MIPI comprises └(N/3)┘ CPHY lanes (pg. 714, fig. 1, C-PHY 3-lane), and └(N/2)┘ -1 DPHY data lanes and 1 DPHY clock (CLK) lane (pg. 714, fig. 1, D-PHY 5 lane).
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 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 3-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Suzuki et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0367317), hereinafter referred to as Suzuki.
As to claims 3 and 14, while the fig. 8 of Song depicts circuit components including resistors, Song does not appear to explicitly disclose the MIPI further comprises: N resistors of termination; one end of each of the resistors of termination is connected to one of the pins; and the other end of each of the resistors of termination is connected to the path control component.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize termination resistor as a common component of signaling circuitry and Suzuki teaches MIPI transmission circuitry including termination resistors connected to signal line pins and path components ([0052], [0071]).
Song and Suzuki are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, MIPI transmission circuitry.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Song and Suzuki before him or her, to modify the signaling circuitry of Song to include a termination resistor as taught by Suzuki because the prior art of Song and Suzuki demonstrate that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable signaling termination circuitry applicable to the transmission signaling.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (see MPEP 2143.I.A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Song and Suzuki to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As to claims 4 and 15, Song discloses each of the interface components comprises: a high-speed receive (HSRX) and a low-power transceiver (pg. 714, high-speed (HS) RX; pg. 718, fig. 7, LP RX, LP TX); wherein the low-power transceiver is connected to one of the pins (pg. 718, fig. 7).
While the fig. 8 of Song depicts circuit components including resistors, Song does not appear to explicitly disclose two input ends of the HSRX are connected to two resistors of termination through the path control component respectively, each of the resistors of termination is connected to input ends of two different HSRXs through the path control component respectively.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize termination resistor as a common component of signaling circuitry and Suzuki teaches MIPI transmission circuitry including termination resistors connected to signal line pins and path components ([0052], [0071]).
Song and Suzuki are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, MIPI transmission circuitry.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Song and Suzuki before him or her, to modify the signaling circuitry of Song to include a termination resistor as taught by Suzuki because the prior art of Song and Suzuki demonstrate that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable signaling termination circuitry applicable to the transmission signaling.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (see MPEP 2143.I.A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Song and Suzuki to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As to claim 5, Song discloses each low-power transceiver comprises: a Low-Power Receive (LPRX), a Low Power Contention Detector (LPCD), and a Low-Power Transmit (LPTX) (pg. 718, fig. 7); wherein the LPRX is configured to receive lower-frequency signals for data transmission in a low-power mode, the LPCD is configured to detect a low-power signal voltage on a bi-directional data lane, the LPTX is configured to send data signals in a low-power mode (pg. 714, The interface for low power (LP) mode is accomplished by transmitting ten data in parallel using single-ended signaling over the ten pins used in HS mode).
Claims 6-7, 9-11, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Suzuki, as applied to claims 3-5 and 14-15 above, further in view of Hori et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0058759), hereinafter referred to as Hori.
As to claims 6 and 16, while Song depicts grounding and switcher circuitry (pg. 719, fig. 8; pg. 721, fig. 15(a)) and the operating mode of the MIPI is the DPHY mode or CPHY mode, Song does not appear to explicitly disclose N grounding components, wherein each of the grounding components comprises a first switcher and a second switcher; one connection end of the first switcher is connected to one connection end of the second switcher and to the ground, respectively; the other connection end of the first switcher is connected to the other connection end of the second switcher and the other end of a resistor of termination, respectively; the first switcher is configured to connect or disconnect the other end of the resistor of termination with the ground according to a control signal of a control end when the operating mode of the MIPI is the DPHY mode; and the second switcher is configured to connect or disconnect the other end of the resistor of termination with the ground according to the control signal of the control end when the operating mode of the MIPI is the CPHY mode.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize grounding components as a common component of signaling circuitry and Hori teaches CPHY and DPHY circuitry including corresponding pin grounding components and first and second switchers configured to connect or disconnect (fig. 1, [0056]).
Song, Suzuki, and Hori are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, MIPI transmission circuitry.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Song, Suzuki, and Hori before him or her, to modify the signaling circuitry of Song to include ground circuitry as taught by Hori because the prior art of Song, Suzuki, and Hori demonstrate that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable signaling grounding circuitry applicable to the transmission signaling.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (see MPEP 2143.I.A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Song, Suzuki, and Hori to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As to claims 7 and 17, while Song depicts grounding and switcher circuitry (pg. 719, fig. 8; pg. 721, fig. 15(a)) and each of the CPHY lanes and DPHY lanes having associated circuitry components, Song does not appear to explicitly disclose each of the CPHY lanes is associated with 3 grounding components, 3 connection ends respectively of 3 second switchers in the 3 grounding components are connected to each other; and each of the DPHY lanes is associated with 2 grounding components, 2 connection ends respectively of 2 first switchers in the 2 grounding components are connected to each other.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize grounding components as a common component of signaling circuitry and Hori teaches CPHY and DPHY circuitry connection ends including grounding components and first and second switchers (fig. 1, [0056]).
Song, Suzuki, and Hori are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, MIPI transmission circuitry.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Song, Suzuki, and Hori before him or her, to modify the signaling circuitry of Song to include ground circuitry as taught by Hori because the prior art of Song, Suzuki, and Hori demonstrate that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable signaling grounding circuitry applicable to the transmission signaling.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (see MPEP 2143.I.A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Song, Suzuki, and Hori to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As to claims 9 and 18, while Song discloses the path control component comprises N control units (pg. 714, fig. 1, Abstract, receiver bridge chip; pg. 715, fig. 2) and depicts grounding and switcher circuitry (pg. 719, fig. 8; pg. 721, fig. 15(a)) and each of the CPHY lanes and DPHY lanes having associated circuitry components, Song does not appear to explicitly disclose a third switcher and a fourth switcher; one connection end of the third switcher is connected to one of the pins; the other connection end of the third switcher is connected to one connection end of one interface component; one connection end of the fourth switcher is connected to another one of the pins; the other connection end of the fourth switcher is connected to the other connection end of the one interface component; and the third switcher and the fourth switcher are configured to connect or disconnect the one interface component with the pins according to a control signal of a control end.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize grounding components as a common component of signaling circuitry and Hori teaches CPHY and DPHY circuitry including corresponding pin grounding components and third and fourth switchers configured to connect or disconnect (fig. 1, [0056]).
Song, Suzuki, and Hori are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, MIPI transmission circuitry.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Song, Suzuki, and Hori before him or her, to modify the signaling circuitry of Song to include ground circuitry as taught by Hori because the prior art of Song, Suzuki, and Hori demonstrate that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable signaling grounding circuitry applicable to the transmission signaling.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (see MPEP 2143.I.A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Song, Suzuki, and Hori to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As to claim 10, while Song discloses the control units (pg. 714, fig. 1, Abstract, receiver bridge chip; pg. 715, fig. 2) and depicts switcher circuitry (pg. 719, fig. 8; pg. 721, fig. 15(a)), Song does not appear to explicitly disclose the control units further comprises two or more additional switchers; wherein the one connection end of the one interface component is further connected to one connection end of the one of the additional switchers, wherein the other one connection end of the one interface component is further connected to one connection end of the other of the additional switcher.
However, Hori teaches CPHY and DPHY circuitry including corresponding a plurality of additional switchers connected to connection ends (fig. 1, [0056]).
Song, Suzuki, and Hori are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, MIPI transmission circuitry.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Song, Suzuki, and Hori before him or her, to modify the signaling circuitry of Song to include ground circuitry as taught by Hori because the prior art of Song, Suzuki, and Hori demonstrate that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable signaling grounding circuitry applicable to the transmission signaling.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (see MPEP 2143.I.A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Song, Suzuki, and Hori to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As to claims 11 and 19, while Song discloses ith control units, where i=3m, m being a positive integer, ith interface components connection ends, connections to (i+1)th pin, the ith interface component, the ith pin, and the ith control unit (pg. 714, fig. 1, Abstract, receiver bridge chip; pg. 715, fig. 2) and depicts switcher circuitry (pg. 719, fig. 8; pg. 721, fig. 15(a)), Song does not appear to explicitly disclose the ith control unit further comprises a fifth switcher, where i=3m, m being a positive integer; one connection end of the fifth switcher is connected to one connection end of the ith interface component, and the other connection end of the fifth switcher is connected to the (i+1)th pin, wherein the other connection end of the ith interface component is connected to the ith pin through one switcher in the ith control unit.
However, Hori teaches CPHY and DPHY circuitry including fifth switcher configuration of connection end components (fig. 1, [0056]).
Song, Suzuki, and Hori are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, MIPI transmission circuitry.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Song, Suzuki, and Hori before him or her, to modify the signaling circuitry of Song to include ground circuitry as taught by Hori because the prior art of Song, Suzuki, and Hori demonstrate that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable signaling grounding circuitry applicable to the transmission signaling.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (see MPEP 2143.I.A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Song, Suzuki, and Hori to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song, Suzuki, and Hori, as applied to claims 3-5 above, further in view of Devashya Shivarama et al. (US Pub. No. 2025/0077462), hereinafter referred to as Devashya.
As to claim 8, while Song teaches the circuitry including capacitors (pg. 720, junction capacitors of transistors such as CSB and CDB, which are used in this design) and depicts grounding and switcher circuitry (pg. 719, fig. 8; pg. 721, fig. 15(a)), and Hori further teaches capacitor circuitry and CPHY and DPHY circuitry including corresponding pin grounding components and first and second switchers (fig. 1, [0056]), the combination of Song, Suzuki, and Hori does not appear to explicitly disclose one end of the capacitor is connected to the first switcher and the second switcher, and the other end of the capacitor is connected to ground.
However, Devashya teaches MIPI PHY circuitry arrangement including a grounding component configuration employing capacitors ([0025], [0048]).
Song, Suzuki, Hori, and Devashya are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, MIPI transmission circuitry.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Song, Suzuki, Hori, and Devashya before him or her, to modify the signaling circuitry of Song to include capacitor connection as taught by Devashya because the prior art of Song, Suzuki, Hori, and Devashya demonstrate that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately; and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable signaling grounding circuitry applicable to the transmission signaling.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (see MPEP 2143.I.A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Song, Suzuki, Hori, and Devashya to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The US Pub. No. 2025/0355480 of Zhang et al., the US Pub. No. 2019/0045090 of Chiueh, and the article A Multi-Lane MIPI CSI Receiver for Mobile Camera Applications by Lim et al. are pertinent to MIPI PHY architecture.
The examiner has cited particular column, line, and/or paragraph numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching of all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
Applicants seeking an interview with the examiner, including WebEx Video Conferencing, are encouraged to fill out the online Automated Interview Request (AIR) form (http://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html). See MPEP §502.03, §713.01(11) and Interview Practice for additional details.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T OBERLY whose telephone number is (571)272-6991. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 800am-430pm (MT).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dr. Henry Tsai can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center 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.
/ERIC T OBERLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184