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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature of “a storage database” as recited in claim 7 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 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 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutek (Pat# 10,449,379).
As to claim 1, Kutek discloses a system for performing functional testing of a device under test (10) , wherein the system comprising: - a self-testing protocol (11) configured to conduct a functionality test and generate a test data that corresponds to a result of the functionality test; - one or more Light Emitting Diodes or other light emitting means (14) configured to - generate an encoded signal corresponding to the generated test data, and- provide a user interface for indicating one or more states of the device to an end user; and - a reader (31,32) configured to read and decode the encoded signal to provide a functional test analysis for the device.
It is noted that the device of Kutek is used to test (10) but does not explicitly about the device under test (10) including a plurality of components in the device. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the device under test (10) would have a plurality of components connected with each other, therefore the functional test would apply to these components.
As to claim 2, Kutek discloses a system as mentioned in claim 1,wherein the functional test analysis comprises: an identity of the device (102), indication of functionality pass or failure of the device, nature of failure of the device, threshold of pass or failure for the device, component missing or mismatch in the device (see column 4, lines 1-15).
As to claim 3, Kutek discloses a system as mentioned in claim 1, wherein the one or more Light Emitting Diodes or other light emitting means (14) is LED which is selected from at least one of: Organic Light Emitting Diodes, is configured to indicate the one or more states of the device selected from: a working mode of the device or other user interface function. (see column 3, lines 31-42)
As to claim 4, Kutek discloses a system as mentioned in claim 1,wherein the encoded signal from an encoder (13) is considered generating in accordance with an encoding scheme .
As to claim 8, the apparatus of Kutek as mentioned in claim 1 would perform the method steps as recited in claim 8.
As to claim 9, the apparatus of Kutek performs the method steps as recited in claim 8, wherein the functional test analysis comprises: indication of functionality pass or failure of the device.
As to claim 10, the apparatus of Kutek performs the method steps as recited in claim 8, wherein the one or more states of the device is selected from: a charging status or a working mode of the device or other user interface function.
As to claim 11, the apparatus of Kutek performs the method steps as recited in claim 8, wherein the encoded signal is generated in accordance with an encoding scheme.
Claims 5-7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kutek (Pat# 10,449,379) in view of Francis et al (Pat#6,526,048).
As to claims 5 and 12, Kutek discloses a system as mentioned in claims 1 and 4 but does not mention about wherein the encoding scheme is selected from a return to zero (RZ) line coding, a non return to zero (NRZ) line coding.
Francis et al teach the encoding form is selected from a return to zero (RZ) line coding or a non return to zero (NRZ) line coding (see colu8mn 3, lines 39-67).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the encoding code in the device of Kutek is selected from a well-known Return to zero (RZ) line coding or a non return to zero (NRZ) line coding as taught by Francis et al.
As to claims 6 and 13, Kutek in view of Francis et al disclose a system as mentioned in claims 1 and 4-5. It appears that the encoded signal in the device of Kutek is implemented as a lighting pattern corresponding to electrical signals of a single wire serial interface.
As to claims 7 and 14, Kutek discloses a system as mentioned in claim 1, Kutek uses a display (33) for displaying decoded test status data and the functionality test. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the display would inherently include “a storage data base” for the purpose of storing the test data and the functionality test and for displaying the test result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Itoh et al (PG-PUB# 20100220777) disclose test apparatus for 64B/66B encoding process.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINH P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1964. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00am-4:00pm.
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, Phan Huy can be reached on 571-272-7924. 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.
/VINH P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights