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 .
Double Patenting
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,615. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the USP 12,261,615 discloses similar functions and limitation as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: obtaining a digitized output of a radio frequency (RF) analog-to-digital converter (ADC) of a receiver; and applying a spur cancellation to the digitized output of the RF ADC to attenuate one or more continuous wave spurs from the digitized output of the RF ADC, wherein the spur cancellation is based on a frequency planning with coherent averaging, wherein a frequency error resulting from the frequency planning is compensated by a digital frequency conversion using a numerically controlled oscillator (NCO) frequency value for an NCO of the RF ADC.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,615. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the USP 12,261,615 discloses similar functions and limitation as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein the one or more continuous wave spurs become a periodic signal based on the frequency planning.
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,615. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the USP 12,261,615 discloses similar functions and limitation as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein a coherent averaging technique is used to measure a complex amplitude of the one or more continuous wave spurs and to apply a time- domain correction signal in counterphase to remove the one or more continuous wave spurs from the digitized output of the RF ADC.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,615. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the USP 12,261,615 discloses similar functions and limitation as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein a shift register of the receiver is loaded with a matrix of samples and processed in parallel using the coherent averaging.
Claim 5 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,615. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the USP 12,261,615 discloses similar functions and limitation as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein a coherent averaging block of the receiver includes a matrix of coherent average filters where each coherent average filter implements an average of L samples using an accumulator and the accumulator is reset every L output samples for time-domain correction information to be obtained.
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,615. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the USP 12,261,615 discloses similar functions and limitation as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein an update correction signal is asserted based on the time-domain correction information being available and the time-domain correction information is stored in a circular buffer of the receiver.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,615. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the USP 12,261,615 discloses similar functions and limitation as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein the spur cancellation is based on a coherent average filter.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,615. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the USP 12,261,615 discloses similar functions and limitation as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein the spur cancellation is based on intermediate accumulator results of an iteration.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,615. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the USP 12,261,615 discloses similar functions and limitation as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein the receiver is associated with a network test device.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,615. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the USP 12,261,615 discloses similar functions and limitation as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to: obtain, by one or more processors, a digitized output of a radio frequency (RF) analog-to-digital converter (ADC) of a receiver; and apply a spur cancellation to the digitized output of the RF ADC to attenuate one or more continuous wave spurs from the digitized output of the RF ADC, wherein the spur cancellation is based on a frequency planning with coherent averaging, wherein a frequency error resulting from the frequency planning is compensated by a digital frequency conversion using a numerically controlled oscillator (NCO) frequency value for an NCO of the RF ADC.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,615. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the USP 12,261,615 discloses similar functions and limitation as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein the one or more continuous wave spurs become a periodic signal based on the frequency planning.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,615. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the USP 12,261,615 discloses similar functions and limitation as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein a coherent averaging technique is used to measure a complex amplitude of the one or more continuous wave spurs and to apply a time- domain correction signal in counterphase to remove the one or more continuous wave spurs from the digitized output of the RF ADC.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,615. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the USP 12,261,615 discloses similar functions and limitation as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein a shift register of the receiver is loaded with a matrix of samples and processed in parallel using the coherent averaging.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,615. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the USP 12,261,615 discloses similar functions and limitation as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein a coherent averaging block of the receiver includes a matrix of coherent average filters where each coherent average filter
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,615. Claim 15 is similar to claim 1 in computer program format. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected as well as rejected in claim 1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the USP 12,261,615 discloses similar functions and limitation as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: obtain, by one or more processors, a digitized output of a radio frequency (RF) analog- to-digital converter (ADC) of a receiver; and apply a spur cancellation to the digitized output of the RF ADC to attenuate one or more continuous wave spurs from the digitized output of the RF ADC, wherein the spur cancellation is based on a frequency planning with coherent averaging, wherein a frequency error resulting from the frequency planning is compensated by a digital frequency conversion using a numerically controlled oscillator (NCO) frequency value for an NCO of the RF ADC.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 or 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,615. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the USP 12,261,615 discloses similar functions and limitation as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein the one or more continuous wave spurs become a periodic signal based on the frequency planning.
Claim 17 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 or 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,615. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the USP 12,261,615 discloses similar functions and limitation as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein a coherent averaging technique is used to measure a complex amplitude of the one or more continuous wave spurs and to apply a time-domain correction signal in counterphase to remove the one or more continuous wave spurs from the digitized output of the RF ADC.
Claim 18 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6 or 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,615. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the USP 12,261,615 discloses similar functions and limitation as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein the spur cancellation is based on a coherent average filter.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6 or 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,615. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the USP 12,261,615 discloses similar functions and limitation as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein the spur cancellation is based on intermediate accumulator results of an iteration.
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7 or 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,261,615. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim of the USP 12,261,615 discloses similar functions and limitation as claimed in the claim of the instant application, such as: wherein the receiver is associated with a network test device.
Cited References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cited references are related to instant application subject matters.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM T MAI whose telephone number is (571)272-1807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6am-2pm eastern time.
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, Dameon Levi can be reached at 571 272-2105. 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.
/LAM T MAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights