Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/951,069

Power Amplifier Linearizer

Non-Final OA §112§DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Nov 18, 2024
Priority
Feb 02, 2021 — continuation of 11/606,068 +2 more
Examiner
NGUYEN, KHIEM D
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Murata Manufacturing Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
5m
Est. Remaining
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allowance Rate
1928 granted / 2248 resolved
+25.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
60 currently pending
Career history
2283
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
46.4%
+6.4% vs TC avg
§102
28.8%
-11.2% vs TC avg
§112
16.0%
-24.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 2248 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §DOUBLEPATENT
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/23/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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 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 1-3, 5-10 & 14-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 13-14,16 & 20-23 of U.S. Patent No. US 11,606,068 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are not patentably distinct from each other and because they are substantially similar in scope and they use same limitations. Accordingly, application claims 1-3, 5-10 & 14-18 are not patentably distinct from patent claims 1-6, 13-14,16 & 20-23 under an “anticipate" analysis. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 4, 6 & 10-14 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. In Claim 4, the recitation of “the same inductor” is not clear because the first load inductor and second load inductor do not appear the same load inductor. It is noted that inductor load Lc and inductor LD as shown in Fig. 1B appear different from each other. And “the same inductor” lack of antecedent basis. Further clarification is needed. In Claims 6 & 13, the recitation of “the other device” is not clear because it lacks antecedent basis. Claim 12 is rejected in the same manner as discussed in Claim 6. Claim 19 is rejected in the same manner as discussed in Claim 4. In Claims 10-14, the recitation of “The circuit” is not clear which circuit is the applicant referring to since it lacks antecedent basis. it is suggested to change to read as ---The Linearizer circuit---. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 1-20 would be allowable if properly filed terminal disclaimer is used to overcome the obvious-type double patenting rejected presented above and if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 KHIEM D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3941. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST. 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, Jessica Han can be reached at (571) 272-2078. 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. /KHIEM D NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2843
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 18, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112, §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12750012
FULLY INTEGRATED CMOS MULTIPLE MOSFET-STACKED DOUBLE PUSH-PULL RF POWER AMPLIFIER
3y 7m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12750022
DIFFERENTIAL AMPLIFIER CIRCUIT
3y 2m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12751043
THREE-DIMENSIONAL (3D) TRENCHED METAL-OXIDE-SEMICONDUCTOR FIELD-EFFECT TRANSISTOR (MOSFET) DEVICE AND METHOD FOR FABRICATING THE SAME
2y 11m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12751126
DISPLAY PANEL AND METHOD FOR REPAIRING THEREOF, AND DISPLAY DEVICE COMPRISING THE SAME
2y 3m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12745674
SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE
3y 10m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+12.5%)
2y 4m (~5m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 2248 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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