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 .
1. This office action, in response to the request for continued examination (RCE) and amendment filed 12/10/2025, is a first action final office action.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
3. The amendment and request for continued examination (RCE) was received on 12/10/2025. A certificate of transmission dated 12/9/2025 is provided on page 1 of the response. MPEP 512 III. B states if, however, the paper was received in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office after the end of the period for reply, the paper should be inspected to determine if a Certificate of Mailing or of Transmission has been included. Where no such Certificate is found, the paper is untimely since applicant did not reply within the period for reply. This may result in abandonment of the application or other loss of rights.
4. The amendment to the claims includes the limitation of determine a timestamp offset time between the peak and the trigger time indicative of a beginning of a symbol; and synchronize a device clock based on the timestamp offset time in claims 1 and 14. Hedley (US 2015/0094086) discloses the apparatus and method stated in the previous office action. Headley does not disclose determining a timestamp offset time as stated in the claims and synchronizing the device clock based on this timestamp offset time. Therefore, the amendment to the claims has overcome the previous rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103. These previous rejections are withdrawn.
5. The previous final office action included the double patenting rejections of the claims as being patentable over claims 1-16 of US Patent No. 11,856,081. The reference disclosed the features of claims 1 and 14. The reference also includes the limitation of “determine a timestamp offset time between the peak in the channel impulse response and a trigger time indicative of a beginning of a symbol in the signal” and synchronize a device clock based on the timestamp offset time” in claims 1 and 22.
6. All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b).
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.
7. Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,856,081. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference discloses numerous limitations that are not recited in instant claim 1. The more specific anticipates the broader.
Regarding claim 1, the reference discloses the control apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to execute operations comprising the obtaining, transforming, identifying, determining and synchronizing steps as recited in claim 1. Claim 2 of the reference discloses the peak in the channel impulse response is indicative of a direct path within the multi-path. The direct path is the fastest path. The timestamp is based on the channel impulse response.
Regarding claim 2, the reference discloses the limitation in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the reference discloses the limitation in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, the reference discloses the limitation in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, the reference discloses the limitation in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the reference discloses the limitation in claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, the reference discloses the limitation in claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, the reference discloses the limitation in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, the reference discloses the limitation in claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, the reference discloses the limitation in claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, the reference discloses the limitation in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, the reference discloses the limitation in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the reference discloses the limitation in claim 13.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the reference discloses the limitation in claim 1 and claim 22. Claims 1 and 22 of the reference disclose the obtaining, transforming, identifying, determining and synchronizing steps. Claim 2 of the reference discloses the peak in the channel impulse response is indicative of a direct path within the multi-path. The direct path is the fastest path. Though the reference discloses an apparatus, the apparatus of the reference configured to execute the operations of the method of claim 14.
Regarding claim 16, the reference discloses the limitation in claim 12.
Regarding claim 18, the reference discloses the limitation in claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, the reference discloses the limitation in claim 16.
Regarding claim 20, the reference discloses the limitation in claim 13.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 KEVIN M. BURD whose telephone number is (571)272-3008. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 5:00.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/KEVIN M BURD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632 1/13/2026