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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 6/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remark, applicant argued (1) the amendment clarified the distances of the first third duration and the second third duration.
Examiner traverse the argument:
As to point (1), applicant did not address all the questions raised by the examiner in the last office action. Especially the question of “how can the start location of the third duration be started after at least two second durations and a third duration in between them if the in between third duration has already started and completed before this defined start location of the third duration?” This question still applies even with the newly amended language of “a start location of the third duration is a time domain location whose distance from a reference time domain location is N second durations plus one third duration…” In short, how can the start location of the third duration be after the occurrence of a third duration itself (in addition to two second durations)? It is logically impossible to define a start location of the duration after the duration has lapsed. Therefore, the claims fail to comply with the enablement requirement. Furthermore, applicant directed to Figure 5C attempting to show the distances of the first third duration and the second third duration (stated in the remark page 12: the amendments to the independent claims clarify the distances of the first third duration and the third duration as shown in Fig. 5C). Examiner disagrees. The claim language failed to specifically define a first third duration nor a second third duration. The claim language broadly defined “a start location of the third duration…” and did not distinctly define this “third duration” to be first nor second. Therefore, it is uncertain which of the duration of figure 5C the claimed “third duration” is referenced to. The corresponding paragraphs in the specification for figure 5C used the same language as of the claims and does not further explain the distinction of a first third duration nor a second third duration. It is clear that the specification lacks description to support the applicant’s statement of the amendments to the independent claims clarify the distances of the first third duration and the third duration as shown in Fig. 5C in the remark. In short, the applicant’s statement in the remark is not supported by the specification, therefore, it cannot be used as the reasonable basis of the enablement requirement for a person skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention.
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 1-20 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The independent claims define “a start location of the third duration is a time domain location whose distance from a reference time domain location is N second durations plus one third duration, there is an interval of one third duration between every two second durations”. This circular definition fails to enable the claim invention. How can the start location of the third duration be started after at least two second durations plus a third duration in between them if the third duration has already started and completed before this defined start location of the third duration? It is logically impossible to define a start location of the third duration after the third duration has lapsed. The claim language also fails to define the distinction between a first third duration, second third duration…etc. Rather, the claim language in the independent claims only defined one third duration.
Conclusion
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 KENNY S LIN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3968.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
KENNY S. LIN
Examiner
Art Unit 2416
/Kenny S Lin/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416
June 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights