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
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, 4, 5, 6, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 19 respectively of U.S. Patent No.12120210 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because said instant claims are merely a broader version od said patented claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 6335949 B1), hereinafter, Kim, in view of Schenk (US 20050169362 A1) hereinafter, Schenk.
Regarding claim 1:
Kim discloses a method for tracking a sampling phase in a receiver device, the method comprising:
receiving an input signal at the receiver device (Fig. 1, receiver input r(t) is received at ADC 100; Column 2, lines 21-28);
sampling, by the receiver device, the input signal to generate a sampled input signal, the input signal sampled at a current sampling phase corresponding to a sampling clock (Column 1, lines 50-58; Column 2, lines 21-28; input signal is sampled by ADC 100 according to sampling timing phases i.e. at a current sampling phase corresponding to a sampling clock as claimed );
equalizing, by the receiver device, the sampled input signal to generate an equalized input signal (Column 2, lines 20-37);
determining, by the receiver device based at least in part on the equalized input signal, phase gradient information indicative of a phase offset of the current sampling phase from an optimal sampling phase for the input signal (Column 2, lines 28-38, the modeling portion 106 uses the equalizer input and circuit 108 determines the phase gradient which is used to correct phase sampling -timing phase (i.e. indicative of claimed phase offset)and based on the output of modeling portion (claimed optimal sampling phase)); and
applying, by the receiver device, the phase gradient information to reduce the phase offset for a subsequent sampling operation (Column 2, lines 28-38, sampling timing phase is corrected using the phase gradient, i.e. to reduce the phase offset for a subsequent sampling operation).
Kim discloses all the limitations above, but fails to explicitly disclose optimal sampling phase corresponding to an estimated peak of the input signal.
However, Schenk discloses a receiver (Fig. 1) with a sampler (Fig. 1, A/D) and an equalizer (Fig. 1, equalizer EQ) with optimal sampling phase corresponding to an estimated peak of the signal (Paragraph [0103], optimal sampling phase is at the maximum signal to noise ratio, i.e. corresponding to an estimated peak of the signal )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that Kim’s optimal sampling phase of the input signal corresponding to an estimated peak of the signal as disclosed by Schenk, thereby resulting in claimed invention. It would have been obvious because the peak implies lowest noise.
Regarding claim 2:
Kim and Schenk disclose all limitations of claim 1 above. Kim further discloses wherein applying the phase gradient information to reduce the phase offset for a subsequent sampling operation includes adjusting one or more parameters of the receiver device based on the phase gradient information (Column 4, lines 18-65; equation 14).
Regarding claim 3:
Kim and Schenk disclose all limitations of claim 2 above. Kim further discloses the method wherein adjusting a parameter among the one or more parameters includes performing, based on the phase gradient information, one of i) increasing a current value of the parameter by an adjustment step or ii) decreasing the current value of the parameter by the adjustment step (Column 4, lines 18-65; equation 14, step sizes are claimed adjustment step).
Regarding claim 4:
Kim and Schenk disclose all limitations of claim 1 above. Kim further discloses the method wherein determining the phase gradient information includes: determining a current channel response estimate based on the input signal sampled at the current sampling phase; determining one or more skewed channel response estimates corresponding to the input signal sampled at one or more sampling phases skewed relative to the current sampling phase; and determining the phase gradient information based on the current channel response estimates and the one or more skewed channel response estimates (Column 4, lines 9-65; channel characteristics of Fig. 3A are claimed current channel response and channel characteristics with phase delays of Fig. 3B are channel response estimates corresponding to the input signal sampled at one or more sampling phases skewed relative to the current sampling phase).
Claims 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yang (US 7948703 B1), hereinafter Yang, and Schenk.
Regarding claim 11:
Kim disclose a receiver device (Fig. 1), comprising:
a sampler device (Fig. 1, ADC 100) configured to sample the input signal at a current sampling phase to generate a sampled input signal (Fig. 1, receiver input r(t) is received at ADC 100 (claimed sampler device) . See Column 1, lines 50-58; Column 2, lines 21-28; input signal is sampled according to sampling timing phases i.e. at a current sampling phase as claimed );
an equalizer (Fig. 1, equalizer 102) configured to equalize the sampled input signal to generate an equalized input signal (Column 2, lines 20-37); and
a controller (Fig. 1, units 106 and 108 together are claimed controller) configured to:
determine, based at least in part on the equalized input signal, phase gradient information indicative of a phase offset of the current sampling phase from an optimal sampling phase for the input signal (Column 2, lines 28-38, the modeling portion 106 uses the equalizer input and circuit 108 determines the phase gradient which is used to correct phase sampling -timing phase (i.e. indicative of claimed phase offset)and based on the output of modeling portion (claimed optimal sampling phase)), and
apply the phase gradient information to reduce the phase offset for a subsequent sampling operation (Column 2, lines 28-38, sampling timing phase is corrected using the phase gradient, i.e. to reduce the phase offset for a subsequent sampling operation).
Kim discloses all the limitations above, but fails to explicitly disclose the receiver device comprising front end circuitry configured to receive an input signal, an adaptive equalizer and the optimal sampling phase corresponding to an estimated peak of the input signal.
However, Yang discloses a receiver device (Fig. 3A) comprising front end circuitry (Fig. 3A, front end circuitry 302) configured to receive an input signal (Fig. 3A, readback signal) and an adaptive equalizer (Fig. 3A, adaptive equalizer 323) (Column 8, lines 37-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that Kim’s receiver device would comprise front end circuitry configured to receive an input signal, an adaptive equalizer as disclosed by Yang. It would have been obvious because it allows for preprocessing of the input signal and improve performance and reliability (Column 8, lines 37-49; Column 10, lines 49-56).
Further, Schenk discloses a receiver (Fig. 1) with a sampler (Fig. 1, A/D) and an equalizer (Fig. 1, equalizer EQ) with optimal sampling phase corresponding to an estimated peak of the signal (Paragraph [0103], optimal sampling phase is at the maximum signal to noise ratio, i.e. corresponding to an estimated peak of the signal )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that Kim’s receiver as modified by Yang to have optimal sampling phase of the input signal corresponding to an estimated peak of the signal as disclosed by Schenk, thereby resulting in claimed invention. It would have been obvious because the peak implies lowest noise.
Regarding claim 12:
Kim, Yang and Schenk disclose all limitations of claim 11 above. Kim further discloses the receiver device wherein the controller is configured to adjust one or more parameters of the receiver device based on the phase gradient information (Column 4, lines 18-65; equation 14).
Regarding claim 13:
Kim, Yang and Schenk disclose all limitations of claim 12 above. Kim further discloses the receiver device wherein the controller is configured to adjust a parameter among the one or more parameters by performing, based on the phase gradient information, one of i) increasing a current value of the parameter by an adjustment step or ii) decreasing the current value of the parameter by the adjustment step (Column 4, lines 18-65; equation 14, step sizes are claimed adjustment step).
Regarding claim 14:
Kim, Yang and Schenk disclose all limitations of claim 11 above. Kim further discloses the receiver device wherein the controller is configured to:
determine a current channel response estimate based on the input signal sampled at the current sampling phase; determine one or more skewed channel response estimates corresponding to the input signal sampled at one or more sampling phases skewed relative to the current sampling phase; and determine the phase gradient information as a function of the current channel response estimates and the one or more skewed channel response estimates (Column 4, lines 9-65; channel characteristics of Fig. 3A are claimed current channel response and channel characteristics with phase delays of Fig. 3B are channel response estimates corresponding to the input signal sampled at one or more sampling phases skewed relative to the current sampling phase).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 18 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINEETA S PANWALKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5pm.
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, David C. Payne can be reached at 571-272-3024. 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.
/VINEETA S PANWALKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635