DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the communications filed on 6/23/2025.
Currently, claims 1-20 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-8 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Where independent claims 1 and 18 state (as addressed below with emphasis added):
1. An electronic circuit, comprising:
a digital filter, configured to receive a first signal and generate a second signal by filtering the first signal; and
a parameter generator, configured to receive the second signal and generate a first parameter and a second parameter according to the second signal, wherein the parameter generator is configured to provide a first feature and a second feature associated with the second signal.
18. A method for operating an electronic circuit, comprising:
receiving a first signal by a digital filter;
generating a second signal through filtering the first signal by the digital filter; and
receiving the second signal, by a parameter generator, to generate a first parameter and a second parameter, wherein the operation of generating the first parameter and the second parameter further comprises:
providing, by the parameter generator, a first feature and a second feature associated with the second signal.
Where the cited and emphasized limitations of independent claims 1 and 18 introduces both the ‘first and second parameters’ as well as the ‘first and second features’, however the ‘first and second features’ are not explicitly, logically, or functionally connected to the “first parameter” and/or the “second parameter” and/or the “digital filter”. Additionally but not exclusively, the “first parameter” and the “second parameter” are not explicitly, logically, or functionally connected to the “digital filter” (in the instant claim language).
With regards to the detailed specification of the instant application, the technical/engineering meaning of the “first feature” and the “second feature” would be both considered types of jitter ‘metrics/measurements’, and the “first parameter” and the “second parameter” are each variable control values (within the feedback loop) calculated (and adaptively updated) by the parameter generator (i.e. jitter optimization device 120 of figure 1). Where the calculated (and adaptively updated) ‘first and second parameters’ are output from the parameter generator (to the digital filter) and are then implemented by the ‘digital filter’ (for future filter iterations/operations) to improve the filtering functions/steps of the digital filter (e.g. by reducing the RMS amplitude jitter and/or period/cycle jitter of later ‘second signals’ of later/subsequent digital filtering operations by the digital filter device).
However, in view of instant detailed specification of the instant application (as addressed above), raises quite a few issues, where the meaning of the words of the current claim language seems to contradict the scope of detailed specification (with respect to the technical/engineering merits). For example, the first and second features (which are jitter metrics) are not ‘provided’ (i.e. are not output) by the ‘parameter generator’ but instead are merely calculated and used by/within the ‘parameter generator’. However, the calculated/updated ‘first and second parameters’ are ‘provided’ (i.e. output) to the digital filter for updating the digital filter operations (however this important feature is not represented in independent claim 1 and/or independent claim 18).
Where the cited limitations of claims 1 and 18 (as addressed above), each fail to meet the threshold requirements for clarity and precision (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02.II) for defining clear “boundaries of the subject matter for which protection is sought” (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.01) as well as “clearly and precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed invention” (as pursuant to MPEP 2173.02) in regards to the knowledge and abilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; and thus the independent claims 1 and 18 each have indefinite claim scope with regards to the knowledge and abilities of a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Where dependent claims 2-8 and 19-20 each fail to mitigate the indefinite scope of the corresponding independent/parent claim 1 and claim 18 (as applicable), and thus are also rejected using similar rationale (as addressed above).
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over respective claims 1-20 of Parent U.S. Patent No. 12,368,543 (hereinafter: Patent ‘543). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Patented claims 1-20 anticipate the limitations of instant claims 1-20, respectively. For example, see below:
Instant Claim 1:
1. An electronic circuit, comprising:
a digital filter, configured to receive a first signal and generate a second signal by filtering the first signal; and
a parameter generator, configured to receive the second signal and generate a first parameter and a second parameter according to the second signal,
wherein the parameter generator is configured to provide a first feature and a second feature associated with the second signal.
Patented Claim 1:
1. An electronic circuit, comprising:
a digital filter, configured to receive a first signal and generate a second signal by filtering the first signal; and
a parameter generator, configured to receive the second signal and generate a first parameter and a second parameter according to the second signal,
wherein the parameter generator is configured to provide a first feature and a second feature associated with the second signal, and the first parameter and the second parameter are generated in response to the first feature or the second feature.
Instant Claim 9:
9. A electronic circuit, comprising:
a digital filter, configured to receive a first signal and filter the first signal to generate a second signal; and
a parameter generator, configured to receive the second signal and generate a first parameter and a second parameter by continuously processing the second signal,
wherein the digital filter is configured to reduce a phase jitter of the electronic circuit based on the first parameter and the second parameter.
Patented Claim 9:
9. A electronic circuit, comprising:
a digital filter, configured to receive a first signal and filter the first signal to generate a second signal; and
a parameter generator, configured to receive the second signal and generate a first parameter and a second parameter by continuously processing the second signal,
wherein the digital filter is configured to receive the first parameter and the second parameter and to reduce a phase jitter of the electronic circuit based on the first parameter and the second parameter.
Instant Claim 18:
18. A method for operating an electronic circuit, comprising:
receiving a first signal by a digital filter;
generating a second signal through filtering the first signal by the digital filter; and
receiving the second signal, by a parameter generator, to generate a first parameter and a second parameter,
wherein the operation of generating the first parameter and the second parameter further comprises:
providing, by the parameter generator, a first feature and a second feature associated with the second signal.
Patented Claim 18:
18. A method for operating an electronic circuit, comprising:
receiving a first signal by a digital filter;
generating a second signal through filtering the first signal by the digital filter; and
receiving the second signal, by a parameter generator, to generate a first parameter and a second parameter,
wherein the operation of generating the first parameter and the second parameter further comprises:
providing, by the parameter generator, a first feature and a second feature associated with the second signal; and
generating the first parameter and the second parameter in response to the first feature or the second feature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and are cited in the attached PTO-892 form.
Where the closest prior art of record is Kuan (USPN 9,831,880).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M. Perez, telephone number (571)270-3231. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 10am to 6pm EST.
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, David C. Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
/JAMES M PEREZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635 9/17/2026
Prosecution Insights