CTNF 19/029,672 CTNF 72497 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 07-29 AIA 2. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph [0001] of the originally filed specification, reference to parent case 17/749,081 should be updated so as to reflect the fact that this application has now issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,225,394 . Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting 08-34 AIA 3. Claim s 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,225,394 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of claims 1-20 of the present application are either anticipated by or would have been obvious from the limitations of claims 1-20 of applicant's prior patent, for the reasons set forth below . As to claim 1 of the present application, note that the limitations recited on the first two lines of this claim are anticipated by what is recited on the first three lines of independent claim 1 of the '394 patent; the limitation recited on line 3 of claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by what is recited on lines 6-7 of claim 1 of the '394 patent; the limitations recited on lines 4-5 of claim 1 of the present application would have been obvious from what is recited on lines 7-10 of claim 1 of the '394 patent, i.e., the data signals recited in claim 1 of the '394 patent can obviously be tracked by the first RAN component; the limitations recited on lines 6-7 of claim 1 of the present application would have been obvious from what is recited on lines 2-3 of claim 10 of the '394 patent, i.e., the combination of data signals recited in claim 10 of the '394 patent will inherently be determined; the limitations recited on lines 8-9 of claim 1 of the present application would have been obvious from what is recited on lines 4-10 of claim 10 of the '394 patent, i.e., the updated set of instructions can obviously include the combination of data signals recited on lines 2-3 of claim 10 of the '394 patent, and the claimed combination of data signals obviously can be associated with the new event recited in claim 10 of the '394 patent; the limitations recited on lines 10-12 of the present application are anticipated by what is recited on lines 11-15 of claim 1 of the '394 patent; and the limitations recited on the last two lines of claim 1 of the present application are anticipated by what is recited on lines 20-21 of claim 1 of the '394 patent. As to claim 2 of the present application, note that the limitations of this claim are anticipated by what is recited in claim 2 of the '394 patent. As to claim 3 of the present application, note that the limitations of this claim are anticipated by what is recited in claim 3 of the '394 patent. As to claim 4 of the present application, note that the limitations of this claim are anticipated by what is recited in claim 4 of the '394 patent. As to claim 5 of the present application, note that the limitations of this claim are anticipated by what is recited in claim 5 of the '394 patent. As to claim 6 of the present application, note that the limitations of this claim are anticipated by what is recited in claim 6 of the '394 patent. As to claim 7 of the present application, note that the limitations of this claim are anticipated by what is recited in claim 7 of the '394 patent. As to claim 8 of the present application, note that the limitations of this claim are anticipated by what is recited in claim 8 of the '394 patent. As to claim 9 of the present application, note that the limitations of this claim are anticipated by what is recited in claim 11 of the '394 patent. As to claim 10 of the present application, note that the limitations of this claim are anticipated by what is recited on lines 16-21 of claim 1 of the '394 patent. As to claim 11 of the present application, note that the limitations of this claim are either anticipated by or would have been obvious from the limitations of claims 12, 16 and 17 of the '394 patent, using the same analysis as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. As to claims 12 and 13 of the present application, note that the limitations of these two claims are anticipated by what is recited in claim 13 of the '394 patent. As to claim 14 of the present application, note that the limitations of this claim are anticipated by what is recited in claim 13 of the '394 patent. As to claim 15 of the present application, note that the limitations of this claim are anticipated by what is recited in claim 14 of the '394 patent. As to claim 16 of the present application, note that the limitations of this claim are anticipated by what is recited in claim 15 of the '394 patent. As to claim 17 of the present application, note that the limitations of this claim are anticipated by what is recited in claim 7 of the '394 patent. As to claim 18 of the present application, note that the limitations of this claim are anticipated by what is recited in claim 8 of the '394 patent. As to claim 19 of the present application, the limitations of this claim are either anticipated by or would have been obvious from what is recited in claims 16-18 of the '394 patent, using the same analysis as set forth above in the rejection of claim 1. As to claim 20 of the present application, the limitations of this claim are anticipated by what is recited in claim '20 of the ‘394 patent . 08-33 AIA The non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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 non-statutory 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. Allowable Subject Matter 4. Claims 1-20 would be allowable upon the filing of the above-noted terminal disclaimer. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: independent claim 1 of the present application would be allowable in view of the limitations recited on lines 6-9 thereof, independent claim 11 of the present application would be allowable in view of the limitations recited on lines 10-13 thereof, and independent claim 19 would be allowable in view of the limitations recited on lines 6-9 thereof . Conclusion 5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 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, REGIS BETSCH , can be reached at (571)270-7101. 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. /KENNETH B WELLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842 June 12, 2026 Application/Control Number: 19/029,672 Page 2 Art Unit: 2842 Application/Control Number: 19/029,672 Page 3 Art Unit: 2842 Application/Control Number: 19/029,672 Page 4 Art Unit: 2842 Application/Control Number: 19/029,672 Page 5 Art Unit: 2842 Application/Control Number: 19/029,672 Page 6 Art Unit: 2842 Application/Control Number: 19/029,672 Page 7 Art Unit: 2842 Application/Control Number: 19/029,672 Page 8 Art Unit: 2842
Prosecution Insights