Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This office action is in response to communication filed on 01/07/2025. Claims 1 – 18 are pending on this application.
Double Patenting
3. 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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,144. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,144 disclosed every limitation of applicant claimed invention.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,144. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,144 disclosed every limitation of applicant claimed invention.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,144. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,144 disclosed every limitation of applicant claimed invention.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,144. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,144 disclosed every limitation of applicant claimed invention.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,144. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,144 disclosed every limitation of applicant claimed invention.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,144. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,231,144 disclosed every limitation of applicant claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claim 3 is 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. Prior arts do not teach: a capacitor, configured to connect the first reference voltage ladder and the second reference voltage ladder; and wherein the second reference voltage ladder is configured to receive the noise component ∆V noise through the capacitor.
5. Claim 4 is 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. Prior arts do not teach: wherein the second reference voltage ladder comprises a virtual ground corresponding to the reference voltage Vref.
6. Claim 5 is 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. Prior arts do not teach: wherein a first end of the first reference voltage ladder is connected to a ground, and wherein a first end of the second reference voltage ladder is in a floating state.
7. Claim 6 is 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. Prior arts do not teach: wherein the first reference voltage ladder comprises: a first portion, which comprises a plurality of resistors, and is configured to convert digital signal values of a portion of bits of the SAR into analog signals; and a second portion, which comprises a plurality of capacitors, and is configured to convert digital signal values of remaining bits of the SAR into analog signals.
8. Claim 9 is 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. Prior arts do not teach a capacitor, configured to connect the first reference voltage ladder and the second reference voltage ladder; and wherein the second reference voltage ladder is configured to receive the noise component ∆V noise through the capacitor, and provide the received noise component ∆V noise to the first input terminal.
9. Claim 10 is 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. Prior arts do not teach: wherein the second reference voltage ladder comprises a virtual ground corresponding to the reference voltage Vref.
10. Claim 11 is 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. Prior arts do not teach: wherein the first reference voltage ladder and the second reference voltage ladder are configured to have a same structure with a same passive element, and wherein the passive element comprises at least one of a resistor or a capacitor.
11. Claim 12 is 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. Prior arts do not teach: a first portion, which comprises a plurality of resistors, and is configured to convert digital signal values of a portion of bits of the SAR into analog signals; and a second portion, which comprises a plurality of capacitors, and is configured to convert digital signal values of remaining bits of the SAR into analog signals, and wherein the first reference voltage ladder and the second reference voltage ladder are configured to have a same structure.
12. Claim 15 is 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. Prior arts do not teach: a capacitor, configured to connect the first reference voltage ladder and the second reference voltage ladder; and wherein the second reference voltage ladder is configured to receive the noise component AV noise through the capacitor, and provide the received noise component ∆V noise to the first input terminal.
13. Claim 16 is 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. Prior arts do not teach: wherein a first end of the first reference voltage ladder is connected to a ground, and wherein a first end of the second reference voltage ladder is in a floating state.
14. Claim 17 is 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. Prior arts do not teach: first reference voltage ladder, configured to provide the analog signal Vdac' comprising the noise component ∆V noise to the second input terminal, wherein the first reference voltage ladder and the second reference voltage ladder are configured to have a same structure with a same passive element, and wherein the passive element comprises at least one of a resistor or a capacitor.
15. Claim 18 is 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. Prior arts do not teach: a first reference voltage ladder, and wherein the first reference voltage ladder comprises: a first portion, which comprises a plurality of resistors, and is configured to convert digital signal values of a portion of bits of the SAR into analog signals; and a second portion, which comprises a plurality of capacitors, and is configured to convert digital signal values of remaining bits of the SAR into analog signals, and wherein the first reference voltage ladder and the second reference voltage ladder are configured to have a same structure.
Contact Information
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Linh Van Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-1810. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:30 – 5:00 Monday-Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mr. Dameon E. Levi can be reached at (571) 272-2105. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are (571-273-8300) for regular communications and (571-273-8300) for After Final communications.
07/28/2026
/LINH V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights