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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 9/3/2026 are considered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer does not comply with 37 CFR 1.321 because: The person who has signed the disclaimer has not stated the extent of the applicant’s or assignee’s interest in the application/patent. See 37 CFR 1.321(b)(3). The terminal disclaimers filed on 9/18/2026 are disapproved. A request under 37 CFR 1.46(c) to change the applicant needs to be filed, which is (1) a request, signed by a 1.33(b) party, (2) a corrected ADS (37 CFR 1.76(c)) that identifies the "new" applicant in the applicant information, and is underlined since it is new, and (3) a 3.73(c) statement showing chain of title to the new applicant. Along with the § 1.46(c) request, please resubmit the Terminal Disclaimers.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,068,850. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims contain the same scope as of the patented claims and are anticipated by the patented claims.
Application claims
Patented claims
Correspondence
1
1
Anticipated by patented claim
2
2
Anticipated by patented claim
3
3
Anticipated by patented claim
4
4
Anticipated by patented claim
5
5
Anticipated by patented claim
6
6
Anticipated by patented claim
7
7
Anticipated by patented claim
8
8
Anticipated by patented claim
9
9
Anticipated by patented claim
10
10
Anticipated by patented claim
11
11
Anticipated by patented claim
12
12
Anticipated by patented claim
13
13
Anticipated by patented claim
14
14
Anticipated by patented claim
15
15
Anticipated by patented claim
16
16
Anticipated by patented claim
17
17
Anticipated by patented claim
18
19
Anticipated by patented claim
19
20
Anticipated by patented claim
20
18
Anticipated by patented claim
Claims 1-4, 7-14, 16-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,387,937. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims contain the same scope as of the patented claims and are anticipated by the patented claims or are only different in claim language arrangement.
Pending claims
Patented claims
Correspondence
1
1
Identical scope with different claim language arrangement
2
2
Anticipated by patented claim
3
3
Anticipated by patented claim
4
4
Anticipated by patented claim
7
5
Identical scope with different claim language arrangement
8
6
Anticipated by patented claim
9
7
Anticipated by patented claim
10
8
Anticipated by patented claim
11
1
Identical scope with different claim language arrangement for receiving end
12
2
Anticipated by patented claim
13
3
Anticipated by patented claim
14
4
Anticipated by patented claim
16
5
Identical scope with different claim language arrangement for receiving end
17
6
Anticipated by patented claim
18
7
Anticipated by patented claim
19
8
Anticipated by patented claim
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,949,506. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims contain the same scope as of the patented claims and are anticipated by the patented claims or are only different in claim language arrangement.
Application claims
Patented claims
Correspondence
1
1
Identical scope and obvious correspondence for signal generating end in relation to receiving end
2
2
Identical scope
3
3
Identical scope
4
4
Identical scope
5
6-8
Identical scope with different claim language arrangement
6
5
Anticipated by patented claim
7
9
Identical scope and obvious correspondence for signal generating end in relation to receiving end
8
10
Identical scope
9
11
Identical scope
10
4
Identical scope of corresponding claim in different claim tree
11
1
Same scope and anticipated by patented claim
12
2
Anticipated by patented claim
13
3
Anticipated by patented claim
14
4
Anticipated by patented claim
15
5
Anticipated by patented claim
16
9
Same scope and anticipated by patented claim
17
10
Anticipated by patented claim
18
11
Anticipated by patented claim
19
12
Anticipated by patented claim
20
5
Identical scope of corresponding claim in different claim tree
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
September 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights