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 Objections
Claims 7, 13, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7, line 3, it appears “an internal time stamp with detection of the trigger event” should be worded “an internal time stamp with the detection of the trigger event”.
Claim 13, line 5, it appears “these samples” should be worded “the samples”.Claim 21, line 1, it appears “wherein clocking, in each of a plurality of signals sensors” should be “wherein the clocking, in each of the plurality of signal sensors”.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.
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.
Claims 1-20 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.
Referring to claim 1, the claim recites multiple instances of “internal time stamps”. As currently recited, it is not always clear which instances of “internal time stamps” or referring to the same or different instances of “internal time stamps” throughout the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the test signal sample" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because it is not clear which “test signal sample” is being referred to as there are a plurality of samples.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the internal time stamps of each of the plurality of signal sensors" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as only a single “internal time stamp” is previously claimed for each of the sensors.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the internal time stamps of the other signal sensors" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these underlined limitations in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the samples" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the corresponding internal time stamps" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is not clear which instance of “internal time stamps” is being referred back to from claim 1.
Claim 5 recites “its respective internal clock signal”. This implies that there are multiple “internal clock signals”, however, only an “internal clock signal” is previously recited in the claims creating an indefinite issue.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "these samples" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first one of the corresponding samples" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Referring to claim 15, similar to the rejection of claim 1 above, the claim also recites multiple instances of “internal time stamp” that makes it unclear which “internal time stamp” recitations are the same or different. For example, lines 4 and 6 each recite, “to associate an internal time stamp”. Are these referring to the same “internal time stamp” or different?
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the other signal sensors" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Referring to claim 20, the claim has similar “internal time stamp(s)” indefinite issues as explained in the rejection of claims 1 and 15.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the other signal sensors" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
It appears, as best understood by the Examiner, that claims 1-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin Knapp whose telephone number is (571)270-3008. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:30 pm (ET).
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, Albert Decady can be reached at (571) 272-3819. 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.
Justin R. Knapp
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2112
/JUSTIN R KNAPP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights