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 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 26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 and of U.S. Patent No.12,301246. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the sets of claims recites the same subject matter with colorable differences. For instance,
Claim 26 of the patent recites:
A method for performing audio amplification, the method comprising: providing a digital audio path configured to support a digital signal; receiving the digital signal and generating an output signal for driving a speaker, the generating including providing the output signal as a feedback signal to adjust operation of amplification based on the feedback signal, the generating further including converting the digital signal to a corresponding analog signal as a reference signal with a plurality of bit cells each configured to receive a voltage, the generating further including calibrating including providing the voltage to each of the bit cells and generating a first output voltage based on a first reference voltage, and comparing the first output voltage and a second reference voltage, the calibrating further including adjusting of voltage provided to each bit cell based on the comparison of the first output voltage and the second reference voltage such that the voltage provided to each of the bit cell is compensated for a change in the first reference voltage. This claim is identical to claim 18 of the 12,301246 except for the digital audio path to perform audio amplification which is typical in audio amplifier system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burger et al. (US 6,275,090).
With regard to claim 13 Burger discloses:
A calibration circuit comprising: a first circuit configured to generate a first output voltage based on a first reference voltage (Iref Fig. 3 or VR Fig. 1); a second circuit configured to compare (110 Fig. 1) the first output voltage (Iref Fig. 3) and a second reference voltage (Vbg); and a calibration block (301 Fig. 3) configured to provide an adjustment to the first circuit based on the comparison of the first output voltage and the second reference voltage, the adjustment configured to compensate for a change in the first reference voltage (col. 4 lines 1-5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 33 is allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PEGUY JEAN PIERRE whose telephone number is (571) 272-1803. The examiner can normally be reached from 8:00-6:30 PM Monday-Thursday. The examiner’s fax phone number is (571) 273-1803. The Examiner email address is peguy.jeanpierre@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the Examiner are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor Dameon E. Levi can be reached at (571) 272-2105.
/PEGUY JEAN PIERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights