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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/24/2026 is acknowledged. Regarding the Office action mailed 11/24/2025. All claim objections and rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims. The rejections under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s statement of common ownership for the Parnaby reference.
A new ground of rejection caused by Applicant’s amendment to claim 18 is set forth below. In addition, a new claim objection to claim 13 is set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “base caller” is duplicated. 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.
Claim 18 is 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.
Claim 18 was amended to change dependency from claim 16 to claim 17, in an attempt to provide antecedent basis for “the production context” in claim 18. However, it would appear that claims 17 and 18 were directed to two different embodiments: one where the equalizer was trained in a “training context”, where the updated set of coefficients were exported for use in an equalizer [a different equalizer?] in a “production context” (claim 17), and another in which the equalizer was trained directly in a “production context” (claim 18). The amendment to claim 18 conflates these two scenarios and raises two issues. One is the incompatibility of claim 18 with claim 17, from which claim 18 now depends: if the equalizer is trained in a “training context” as required by claim 17, it cannot be trained in a “production context” as recited in claim 18. The second issue is that claim 17 recites two apparently separate equalizers: one which is trained in a training context, and one which is used in a production context and uses an updated set of coefficients. Therefore, in claim 18, it is unclear whether “the equalizer” refers to the first or second equalizer mentioned in claim 17.
Conclusion
Claims 1-12, 14-17, and 19-25 are allowed. Claim 13 is objected to. Claim 18 is rejected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL C WOOLWINE whose telephone number is (571)272-1144. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5:30pm.
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, GARY BENZION can be reached at 571-272-0782. 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.
/SAMUEL C WOOLWINE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1681
Prosecution Insights