DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the application filed on 30 December 2024 and Preliminary amendment received on 22 May 2025.
Claim 1 is cancelled.
Claims 2-21 are presented for examination.
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 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
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 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of (US application No. 18/240,375) U.S. Patent No. 12,184,392 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim recitations are merely reworded to recite the same limitation in different language and some of the limitations have been grouped in a slightly different manner but still overall set forth the same limitations. All the recited elements and limitations are found over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,184,392 B2.
Claims 2-21 in the instant application are much broader than claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,184,392 B2 as shown below.
Instant appl. 19/004,881 patent # 12,184,392 B2
system claims 2-16 ≈ system claims 17-19
method claims 17-19 ≈ method claims 1-16
system claims 8,16;method 19 ≈ NTCSM claim 20
The instant claimed elements of “performance information”, “an impairment of the one or more communications’’ in claim 2 ≈ the claimed element of “historical performance information”, “a first condition of a plurality of communication conditions, wherein the first condition corresponding to at least one of transmission through the first communication channel or the second communication channel” respectively in claim 14 in US patent No. 12/184,392 B2.
the instant dependent claims 8,16,19 have similar technical limitations of the system claim 17, of the method claim 1, of the NTCSM claim 20 in US patent No. 12,184,392 B2;
wherein the instant claimed elements of “wherein the communication channel includes a channel impairment that affects transmission of RF signals” in instant claims 8,16,19 ≈ the claimed element of “wherein the first RF signal represents a second RF signal having been transmitted through a second communication channel different from the first communication channel and altered by at least one of transmission through the first communication channel or the second communication channel” of claims 17,1,20 in US patent No. 12,184,392 B2; and
the instant claimed element of “reconstructed information”, “starting information” ≈ the claimed element of “first information”, “second information” respectively in US patent No. 12,184,392 B2.
wherein the instant method claims 17,18,19 correspond to the instant system claims 2, (3+4+5+6), (7+8) respectively.
wherein the instant Non-Transitory Computer Storage Media (NTCSM) claims 20,21 correspond to the instant system claims 2,3 respectively.
wherein the system claims 17,18,19 correspond to the method claims 1,2,11 respectively in US patent No.12,184,392 B2.
wherein the non-transitory computer storage media (NTCSM) claim 20 corresponds to the system claim 17, the method claim 1 in US patent No. 12,184,392 B2.
----------------------------
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of (US application No. 17/582,575) U.S. Patent No. 11,831,394 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim recitations are merely reworded to recite the same limitation in different language and some of the limitations have been grouped in a slightly different manner but still overall set forth the same limitations. All the recited elements and limitations are found over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,831,394 B2.
Claims 2-21 in the instant application are much broader than claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,831,394 B2 as shown below.
Instant app19/004,881 patent # 11,831,394 B2
system claims 2-16 ≈ system claims 21-22
method claims 17-19 ≈ method claims 1-13
NTCRSM claims 20, 21 ≈ NTCRSM claims 14-20
The instant claimed elements of “determining performance information indicating one or more communications affected by an impartment of one or more communication channels; selecting, from the stored weights, a set of one or more communications affected by an impairment of one or more communications” in instant claims 2,17,20 ≈ the claimed element of “a first condition of the plurality of communication conditions for communicating through the one or more communication channels; selecting from the weights, one or more weights corresponding to the first condition” respectively in claims 21,1,14 in US patent No. 11/831,394 B2 respectively.
the instant claimed element of “reconstructed information”, “starting information” in instant claims 8,16,19 ≈ the claimed element of “first information”, “second information” in US patent No. 11/831,394 B2, respectively.
wherein the instant method claims 17,18,19 correspond to the instant system claims 2, (3+4+5+6), (7+8) respectively.
wherein the instant Non-Transitory Computer Storage Media (NTCSM) claims 20,21 correspond to the instant system claims 2,3 respectively.
wherein the Non-Transitory Computer Storage Medium (NTCSM) claims 14-20 correspond to the method claims 1-7 in US patent No. 11/831,394 B2.
wherein the system claims 21-22 correspond to the method claims 1-2 in US patent No. 11/831,394 B2.
---------------------------------------
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of (US application No. 16/994,741) U.S. Patent No. 11,233,561 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim recitations are merely reworded to recite the same limitation in different language and some of the limitations have been grouped in a slightly different manner but still overall set forth the same limitations. All the recited elements and limitations are found over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,233,561 B1.
Claims 2-21 in the instant application are much broader than claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11,233,561 B1 as shown below.
Instant app19/004,881 patent # 11,233,561 B1
system claims 2-16 ≈ method claims 1-17
method claims 17-19 ≈ method claims 18-20
NTCRSM claims 20-21 ≈ NTCRSM claims 21-23
The instant claimed elements of “determining performance information indicating one or more communications affected by an impartment of one or more communication channels; selecting, from the stored weights, a set of one or more weights corresponding to the performance information” in instant claims 2,17,20 ≈ the claimed element of “determining a first condition of the plurality of communication conditions for communicating through the one or more communication channels; selecting one or more learned weights corresponding to the first condition” respectively in claim 7 in US patent No. 11/233,561 B2 respectively.
the instant claimed element of “reconstructed information”, “starting information” in instant claims 8,16,19 ≈ the claimed element of “first information”, “second information” in US patent No. 11/233,561 B2, respectively..
wherein the instant method claims 17,18,19 correspond to the instant system claims 2, (3+4+5+6), (7+8) respectively
wherein the instant Non-Transitory Computer Storage Media (NTCSM) claim 20,21 correspond to the instant system claims 2,3 respectively.
wherein the method claims 18-20 correspond to the method claims 1-2 in US patent No. 11,233,561 B2..
wherein the Non-Transitory Computer Storage Media (NTCSM) claims 21-23 corresponds to the method claims 18-20 in US patent No. 11,233,561 B2.
------------------------------------------------
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of (US application No. 15/999,025) U.S. Patent No. 10,749,594 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim recitations are merely reworded to recite the same limitation in different language and some of the limitations have been grouped in a slightly different manner but still overall set forth the same limitations. All the recited elements and limitations are found over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,749,594 B1.
Claims 2-21 in the instant application are much broader than claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,749,594 B1 as shown below.
Instant app19/004,881 patent # 10,749,594 B1
system claims 2-16 ≈ system claims 19-20
method claims 17-19 ≈ method claims 1-15
NTCRSM claims 20-21 ≈ NTCRSM claims 16-18
The instant claimed elements of “determining performance information indicating one or more communications affected by an impartment of one or more communication channels; selecting, from the stored weights, a set of one or more weights corresponding to the performance information” in instant claims 2,17,20 ≈ the claimed element of “determining a first condition of the plurality of communication conditions for communicating through the one or more communication channels; selecting one or more learned weights corresponding to the first condition” respectively in claims 6,18,20 in US patent No. 10/749,594 B2 respectively.
wherein the instant method claims 17,18,19 correspond to the instant system claims 2, 3+4+5+6, 7+8 respectively.
wherein the instant non-transitory computer storage media (NTCSM) claims 20, 21 corresponds to the instant system claims 2, 3 respectively.
wherein the non-transitory computer storage medium claims 16-18 correspond to the method claims 1, 3, 6 in US patent No. 10,749,594 B1.
wherein the system claims 19, 20 correspond to the method claims 1, 3+6 in US patent No. 10,749,594 B1.
----------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAI V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00AM -3:30PM.
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, Kevin Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
/HAI V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights