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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 8-14 of prior U.S. Patent No. (US 12,089,160 B2) This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Independent claim 1 is allowable in view of any of the references search below considered to be closest to the applicant subject matter and does not teach at least one of the following similar limitations of claim 1 nor the combination thereof and consideration of previous parent claims of application 17/708017 have been taken into consideration.
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ravi (US 2021/0067182 A1)
Ravi teaches about multiple receivers composed of different electronic components and functionalities. The different electronic components in the receivers are also described individually in the application. But the electronic component and functionality in the claim receiver are combined in different circuit than they are combined in the receivers described in Ravi. The individual electronic components in Ravi are similar in the application and some of them performed the same function but they are combined in different ways that create different type of receiver. Therefore in the claim examination cannot piece meal the receiver to meet the application receiver.
Therefore, claims 1-9 are considered novel and non-obvious and are therefore
allowed
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY LAFONTANT whose telephone number is (571)272-3037. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM -6:00PM.
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, Jeanette Parker can be reached at 571-2703647. 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.
/GARY LAFONTANT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights