Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to an amendment filed on 06/18/2026.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 11-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,546,586. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,546,586 contain every element of claims 11-30 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the issued patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
More specifically, the subject matter in claims 3, 10, and 17 of U.S. Patent Number 11,546,586 discloses all the elements and steps of independent claims 11, 18, and 25 of the instant application and, as such, anticipate each and every feature of the aforementioned independent claims of the instant application.
Claims 11-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,160,572. The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,160,572 contain every element of claims 11-30 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. The claims of the instant application therefore are not patently distinct from the issued patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting.
More specifically, the subject matter in claims 1, 8, and 15 of U.S. Patent Number 12,160,572 discloses all the elements and steps of independent claims 11, 18, and 25 of the instant application and, as such, anticipate each and every feature of the aforementioned independent claims of the instant application.
Allowable Subject Matter
In view of the arguments stated in applicant’s remarks filed on 06/18/2026, the closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to teach or reasonably suggest all the claimed features of claims 11, 18, and 25, structurally and functionally interconnected with other limitations in the manner as cited in the claims and dependent claims.
The independent claims are interpreted particularly based on FIGs. 9, 10, and 11 of applicant’s drawings and [0021], [0028], and [0047]-[0056] of U.S. Patent Publication 2025/0055988 describing the structural properties of the data stream and their association to time points being used to derive the claimed synchronization signal.
Claims 31 and 32 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed regarding the double patenting have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner points out that based on [0021], [0028], and [0047] of U.S. Patent Publication 2025/0055988, structural properties of the data stream clearly include prediction/predictive structures. As such, Examiner maintains the above double patenting rejections.
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 ZHIHAN ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7284. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays 8:30am-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, Christopher Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/ZHIHAN ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights