Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/645,579

CLOCK DATA RECOVERY CIRCUIT

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Apr 25, 2024
Examiner
NGUYEN, HAI L
Art Unit
2842
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Texas Instruments Incorporated
OA Round
2 (Final)
87%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 87% — above average
87%
Career Allow Rate
807 granted / 928 resolved
+19.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
940
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.0%
-38.0% vs TC avg
§103
19.8%
-20.2% vs TC avg
§102
30.3%
-9.7% vs TC avg
§112
35.6%
-4.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 928 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Examiner Notes Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Response to Amendment The amendment received on 03/04/2026 has been reviewed and considered with the following results: As to the objection to the drawings, Applicant’s amendment to the drawings has overcome the objection, as such; the objection has been withdrawn. As to the objection to the specification, Applicant’s amendment to the specification has overcome the prior objection, as such, the objection has been withdrawn. Specification The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the recited limitation such as “a first sequential logic circuit having a clock input and an output; and a second sequential logic circuit having a clock input, a data input, and an output,” (emphasis added), as recited in claims 1, 2 and 15; is not supported by the disclosure. There is nothing in the disclosure describing/supporting the above recited limitations. Correction and/or clarification is required. 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 1-3 and 5-14 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. The recitation such as “a first sequential logic circuit having a clock input and an output; and a second sequential logic circuit having a clock input, a data input, and an output,” (emphasis added), as recited in claims 1 and 2, is not described in the application as originally filed. Therefore, the above recitation in the claims is seen as new matter. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office action. Claims 15-18 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. The recitation such as “a first sequential logic circuit having a clock input and an output; and a second sequential logic circuit having a clock input, a data input, and an output,” (emphasis added), as recited in the base claim 15, is not described in the application as originally filed. Therefore, the above recitation in the claims is seen as new matter. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office action. 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 1-3 and 5-18 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the deglitch filter circuit" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, Claims 2, 3 and 5-14 are rendered indefinite by the deficiencies of the base Claim 1. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are the clear essential structural cooperative relationships between a resistor and a capacitor of the deglitch circuit, and between the resistor, capacitor and other elements of the apparatus. Furthermore, the recitation such as “a resistor and a capacitor that set the first duration threshold” is indefinite because there is no structural circuit for supporting to set the first duration threshold, and also is unclear the first duration threshold of what. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are the clear essential structural cooperative relationships between the elements such as a first resistor, a first capacitor, a second resistor, a second capacitor, and a latch circuit, and between these elements and other elements of the apparatus. Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first and second capacitor terminals" in lines 1-2. There are insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 15 recites the limitations "the output of the first flip-flop, and the output of the second flip flop coupled to the output of the timer circuit" (emphasis added) in lines 1-2. There are insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Claim 16 is indefinite because of the recitation “a deglitch circuit coupled between the output of the demodulator circuit” is unclear. It is unclear what is being claimed here, for example, the output of the demodulator circuit is just simply a node at the output of the demodulator circuit, thus it is unclear how a deglitch circuit can be coupled between the output of the demodulator circuit. 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 HAI L NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1747. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 09:00am to 06:00pm 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, Regis Betsch can be reached on 571-270-7101. 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. /HAI L NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2843 March 24, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 25, 2024
Application Filed
Nov 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Mar 04, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603585
RECTIFIER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12602068
SIGNAL PROCESSING DEVICE AND OPERATING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598099
PROGRAMMABLE EQUALIZER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592738
TRANSMITTER AND DRIVER ARCHITECTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592689
METHOD, SYSTEM, AND DEVICE FOR SLEEP MODE RECOVERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
87%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+9.5%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 928 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month