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 .
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.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being independent claim drafted under dependent format. Therefore, dependent claim 22 is needed to be written in independent format to clearly define the machine readable medium format of using the method of independent claim 16. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 22 appear to be a computer program not using phrase “Non-transistory computer readable medium”. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of co-pending Application No. 18/527,444 (US 2025/0183904). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim 10 of the co-pending application 18/527,444 discloses similar limitations and functions as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: a main DAC including a plurality of DAC cells, wherein each DAC cell is configured to generate an output signal for the main DAC based on input data for each DAC cell; cell error determination circuit configured to determine an amplitude error and/or a skew error of each of the plurality of DAC cells and generate error data of the DAC based on the input data to the DAC cells; a correction DAC configured to generate an error signal based on the error data; and a combiner configured to combine the error signal with an output of the main DAC.
Claim 16 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of co-pending Application No. 18/527,444 (US 2025/0183904). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim 19 of the co-pending application 18/527,444 discloses similar limitations and functions as claimed in the claim of the instant application such as: generating, by a plurality of DAC cells of a main DAC, output signals based on input data to each of the plurality of DAC cells; determining an amplitude error and/or a skew error of each of the plurality of DAC cells and generating error data of the main DAC based on the input data to the plurality of DAC cells; generating an error signal based on the error data; and combining the error signal with an output of the main DAC.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fail to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the cell error determination circuit is configured to multiply a pre-determined coefficient to the input data for each DAC cell to determine the amplitude error of each DAC cell.
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fail to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the correction DAC is configured to generate the error signal for the amplitude error in-phase with an output of the main DAC.
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fail to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the cell error determination circuit is a digital finite impulse response (FIR) filter or a digital infinite impulse response (IIR) filter.
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fail to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the amplitude error and/or the skew error of each of the plurality of DAC cells is determined using a look-up table (LUT).
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fail to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the cell error determination circuit is configured to multiply a pre-determined time skew of each DAC cell to a difference of a current input data and a previous input data for each DAC cell to determine the skew error of each DAC cell.
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fail to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the correction DAC is configured to generate the error signal for the skew error out-of-phase with an output of the main DAC.
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fail to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the correction DAC is configured to generate the error signal for the skew error in-phase with an output of the main DAC.
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fail to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the correction DAC is configured to generate the error signal for the skew error spread over a clock cycle of the main DAC.
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fail to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the main DAC is a segmented DAC including two or more segments, wherein each segment includes a plurality of DAC cells.
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fail to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the error determination circuit is configured to determine the amplitude error and/or the skew error for a subset of the two or more segments.
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fail to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the error determination circuit is configured to determine the amplitude error and/or the skew error for a most-significant bit (MSB) segment only.
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fail to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the error determination circuit is configured to determine the amplitude error and/or the skew error for a most-significant bit (MSB) segment and an intermediate-significant bit (ISB) segment only.
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fail to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the correction DAC is reconfigurable to apply the correction signal either in-phase or out-of-phase with the main DAC.
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fail to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the cell error determination circuit includes a first cell error determination circuit configured to determine an amplitude error of each of the plurality of DAC cells and a second cell error determination circuit configured to determine a skew error of each of the plurality of DAC cells, wherein the correction DAC includes a first correction DAC configured to generate an error signal for the amplitude error and a second correction DAC configured to generate an error signal for the skew error.
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fail to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein a pre-determined coefficient is multiplied to the input data for each DAC cell to determine the amplitude error of each DAC cell.
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fail to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein a pre-determined time skew of each DAC cell is multiplied to a difference of a current input data and a previous input data for each DAC cell to determine the skew error of each DAC cell.
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fail to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the error signal for the skew error is combined out-of-phase with an output of the main DAC.
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fail to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the error signal for the skew error is spread over a clock cycle of the main DAC.
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but it would be considered for allowable if it is rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fail to fairly teach or suggest objected features, which is: wherein the main DAC is a segmented DAC including two or more segments, and the amplitude error and/or the skew error is determined for a subset of the two or more segments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM T MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-1807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-2pm eastern time.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at 571 272-2105. 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.
/LAM T MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845