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 .
Authorization for Internet Communication
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner recommends filing a written authorization for Internet communication. Doing so would permit the USPTO to communicate using Internet e-mail to schedule interviews or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to Internet e-mail correspondence. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03. Authorizations in an Internet e-mail do not have the same effect as filing the form in the record.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20210200615 (Aune).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 14, Aune teaches or suggests a serial communication apparatus, comprising: a transmitter to transmit data by outputting an output signal (¶ 27); and
a detection circuitry operatively coupled to the transmitter to receive the output signal; wherein the detection circuitry is to receive an input signal from an input buffer, compare the input signal and output signal, and provide an indication signal in response to a difference between the output signal and the input signal (¶¶ 31, 33).
Aune does not expressly call its circuitry or indication “collision detection” but teaches or suggests collision detection (¶ 53). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to employ Aune to detect collisions because "[c]ombining two embodiments disclosed adjacent to each other in a prior art patent does not require a leap of inventiveness." Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 991 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Regarding claims 2, 8, and 15, Aune teaches or suggests the output signal of the transmitter is operatively coupled to a transmit pad through an output buffer (¶ 27).
Regarding claims 3, 9, and 16, Aune teaches or suggests a port peripheral register to receive the input signal; wherein the input buffer is associated with a transmit pad and the input signal is received through the input buffer operatively coupled to the port peripheral register (¶¶ 28, 30, 38).
Regarding claims 4, 10, and 17, Aune teaches or suggests the port peripheral register is to access the input signal through the input buffer (¶¶ 28, 30, 38).
Regarding claims 5, 11, and 18, Aune teaches or suggests the port peripheral register is to access the input signal through the input buffer (¶¶ 21, 27).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 19, Aune teaches or suggests the collision detection circuitry is operable in a full-duplex mode. (¶ 38).
Regarding claim 12, Aune teaches or suggests the triggering the comparison of the output signal and the input signal upon initiation of data transmission (¶¶ 33, 47).
Other Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the instant disclosure. For example, EP 0246666 allows multiple microprocessors to easily communicate with each other over a common pair of wires.
Conclusion
Any response to this Office action containing amended or newly presented claims should specifically point out support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 (“Applicant should specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.”).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lance Leonard Barry whose telephone number is (571) 272-5856. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730-1630.
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 email the Examiner.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ario Etienne can be reached on 571-272-4001. 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.
/LANCE LEONARD BARRY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
Prosecution Insights