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, wherein the multiplexer receives inputs from a plurality of flip-flops as claimed in claims 27 and 35, and using a multiplexer to choose between outputs of a plurality of flip-flops as claimed in claim 40 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 § 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.
Claims 27, 28, 30, 35, 37 and 40 are 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.
a) regarding claims 27 and 35:
The limitation, “wherein the multiplexer receives inputs from a plurality of flip-flops, each corresponding to a different slip signal duration,” fails to comply with the written description requirement. The only multiplexer described is 1620 in Figure 16 which receives a logic 0 input and an input from a single flip-flop 1616. There is no description in the specification of a multiplexer receiving inputs from a plurality of flip-flops as claimed.
b) regarding claims 28 and 37:
The limitation, “wherein the multiplexer is further configured to dynamically adjust the number of clock periods the slip signal remains active based on a synchronization error magnitude,” fails to comply with the written description requirement. The only multiplexer described is 1620 in Figure 16 which is controlled by signal slip_2. Paragraph [0075] describes slip_2 as having a value of either high or low. There is no description in the specification of controlling the signal slip_2 based on a synchronization error magnitude or how a synchronization error magnitude would even be determined. Thus there is no description in the specification of controlling a multiplexer based on a synchronization error magnitude as claimed.
c) regarding claim 30:
The limitation, “wherein the multiplexer is further controlled by a synchronization controller that determines the required slip duration based on phase comparison between output clock signals,” fails to comply with the written description requirement. The only multiplexer described is 1620 in Figure 16 which is controlled by signal slip_2. Paragraph [0075] describes slip_2 as having a value of either high or low. There is no description in the specification of controlling the signal slip_2 based on a phase comparison between output clock signals. Thus there is no description in the specification of controlling a multiplexer with a synchronization controller that determines the required slip duration based on a phase comparison between output clock signals as claimed.
d) regarding claim 40:
The limitation, “wherein the synchronization controller is further configured to select the duration that the slip signal remains active by using a multiplexer to choose between outputs of a plurality of flip-flops, each corresponding to a different slip signal duration,” fails to comply with the written description requirement. The only multiplexer described is 1620 in Figure 16 which receives a logic 0 input and an input from a single flip-flop 1616. There is no description in the specification of a multiplexer connected to the outputs of a plurality of flip-flops as claimed.
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 24, 25 and 36 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.
a) regarding claim 24:
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the output clock signal" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "a second output clock signal" in line 2. It is unclear and therefore indefinite if this is the same or different from “a second output clock signal” recited in lines 11-12 in claim 21.
b) regarding claim 25:
The claim is rejected based on its dependence on claim 24.
b) regarding claim 36:
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the slip divider" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 31, 34 and 38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,326,752 (hereinafter ‘752 patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are a broader recitation of the ‘752 patent It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use the teachings of claims 1, 7 and 15 of the '752 patent as general teachings of synchronization of multiple clock dividers as claimed in the present application. The instant claims obviously encompass the claimed invention in the '752 patent and differ only in terminology.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-23, 26 and 29 are allowed.
Claims 32, 33 and 39 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious a system comprising: a multiplexer configured to receive a slip signal and determine a duration for which the slip signal is to be active; and an OR gate configured to output the slip signal based at least on an input received from the multiplexer; and wherein the circuitry is configured to apply the slip signal to a second output clock of the plurality of output clock signals to synchronize the second output clock signal with a first output clock signal of the plurality of input clock signals; and wherein the slip signal is configured to maintain a high state for a number of periods of a clock signal to allow for synchronization of timing between the first output clock signal and the second output clock signal, along with all the other limitations as required by claim 21.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious a circuitry comprising: wherein the synchronization controller further comprises a slip divider including a logic gate to receive the slip signal and a feedback of the second output clock signal, and a flip-flop to toggle the second output clock signal in dependence on the slip signal and a high-frequency clock associated with the second output clock signal, along with all the other limitations as required by claim 32.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious a circuitry or device comprising: wherein the synchronization controller includes a multiplexer and an OR gate configured to control a duration that the slip signal remains active for a programmable number of clock periods, along with all the other limitations as required by claims 33 and 39.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Patrick O'Neill whose telephone number is (571)270-1677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Taelor Kim can be reached at (571)270-7166. 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.
/PATRICK O NEILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2836
Prosecution Insights