DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 01/21/25 for application number 18/997,185. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, IDS, Claims, and Certified Copy of Foreign Priority Application.
The Preliminary Amendment filed 01/21/25 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10 and 12-17 are amended, and Claims 18 and 19 are added. Therefore, Claims 1-19 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 12-16 recite, “the data parsing control module comprises a parsing circuit unit and a storage unit, and the parsing circuit unit is configured to parse the PING message in the delayed data, continuously adjust the DELAY value, and store a minimum DELAY value allowing successful parsing and a maximum DELAY value at which parsing begins to fail in the storage unit” and should instead read, “the data parsing control module comprises a parsing circuit unit and a storage unit, and the parsing circuit unit is configured to parse the PING message in the delayed data, continuously adjust the DELAY value, and store in the storage unit, a minimum DELAY value allowing successful parsing and a maximum DELAY value at which parsing begins to fail” (emphasis added) to clarify the values are stored in the stored unit.
Claim 18 recites, “A chip, comprising a chip body, wherein the signal skew compensation apparatus a module for executing the method based on claim 8 is arranged inside the chip body” and should instead read, “A chip, comprising a chip body, wherein the signal skew compensation apparatus comprises a module for executing the method based on claim 8 is arranged inside the chip body.” (emphasis added) Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations are:
“a clock detection module, configured to detect a frequency output” in Claim 1;
“a DELAY module, configured to receive a data signal and introduce a delay” in Claim 1;
“the data parsing module, configured to receive the delayed data and parse a PING message” in Claim 1;
“the parsing unit configured to parse the PING message” in Claim 1;
“a storage unit” in Claim 1; and
“an optimum sampling point calculating unit configured to calculate the DELAY value” in Claim 1.”
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the Specification shows additional disclosure indicating the clock detection module “may be implemented using two computers and a comparator” in Paragraph 71.
Paragraph 75 of the Specification discloses the DELAY module as comprising a DELAY control unit and a DELAY unit. However, while Paragraph 76 of the Specification discloses a “DELAY unit 202 may be implemented using a line delay subunit 221 and a selection subunit 222. The line delay subunit 221 comprises a plurality of sequentially connected delay circuits, and an output terminal of each of the delay circuits is connected to the selection subunit 222,” it is unclear what relation a DELAY module or DELAY control unit have to delay units as disclosed in Paragraph 4 of the Specification.
The data parsing control module of Claim 1 is disclosed as comprising a parsing unit and a storage unit in Paragraph 89. Moreover, a storage unit is disclosed as being implemented using registers, in paragraph 89.
Finally, there does not appear to be any structure disclosed for a parsing unit nor optimum sampling point calculation unit.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations 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 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his 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 (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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts of performing the entire claim function of a “parsing unit” and an “optimum sampling point calculation unit.”
Claims 1-19 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim limitations “parsing unit” and an “optimum sampling point calculation unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Additionally, line 5 recites “a DELAY module, configured to receive a data signal…” (emphasis added). However, it is unclear whether “DELAY” is intended to be an abbreviation, as it appears to be used as such throughout the Claims and the Specification as filed. The term “DELAY” is repeated in lines 7, 10, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22-24, 26, and 27, without additional clarification. For the purposes of examination, a “DELAY module” is interpreted to be a module which introduces signal delays or skew.
Claims 2-4, 6, 7, and 17 depend on Claim 1 and similarly recite the “DELAY” term, but do not provide any additional clarification as to the meaning of the term. As such, the claims are rejected accordingly.
Claim 1, line 10, recites, a “PING message” (emphasis added). The term is repeated in lines 13, 21, and 25, but does not appear to provide any clarification as to the term. As with the “DELAY” term, it is unclear whether “PING” is intended to be an abbreviation. However, paragraph 88 of the Specification as filed discloses an embodiment indicating a PING message specifically contains a total of 24 bits as illustrated in Table 1. As such, for the purposes of examination, “PING message” is interpreted according to the embodiment provided in paragraph 88.
Claim 8 recites limitations similar to Claim 1, and is rejected accordingly.
Claims 12 and 13 depend on Claim 8 but do not provide clarification regarding the “PING message,” and are rejected accordingly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 would be allowed once the outstanding claim objections and claim rejections under 35 USC 112 are resolved.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Meinerzhagen et al, US 10,784,865 B1, discloses minimum error detection and correction.
Yang et al., US 8,576,625 B1 discloses estimating offset amounts occurring upon determination of a decode failure.
Ku et al., US 2005/0265064 A1, discloses determining the minimum delay where no errors are determined, and determining the maximum delay where no errors are determined.
However, none of the references, individually nor in combination, explicitly teach a clock detection module, configured to detect a frequency output of an input clock signal; a DELAY module, configured to receive a data signal and introduce a delay, wherein a delay amount is controlled and delayed data is output based on the frequency detected by the clock detection module and a DELAY value output by a data parsing control module; and the data parsing control module, configured to receive the delayed data and parse a PING message therein in the delayed data, and adjust the output DELAY value based on a parsing result, the data parsing control module comprises a parsing circuit unit and a storage unit, and the parsing circuit unit is configured to parse the PING message in the delayed data; a current DELAY value is increased based on a preset step size until the minimum ELAY value is obtained upon successful initial parsing, and the DELAY value is continuously increased until a parsing error occurs to obtain the maximum DELAY value, in combination with the remaining limitations as required by Claim 1. As such, Claim 1 would be allowed once the outstanding objections and rejections noted above were overcome.
Claim 8 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 1, and would be allowed accordingly.
Claims 2-7, 15, and 17, and Claims 9-14, 16, 18, and 19 depend on Claims 1 and 8, respectively, and would be allowed accordingly.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 PT.
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, Andrew J Jung can be reached at (571) 270-3779. 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.
/Paul Yen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights