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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement(s) filed on 6/27/2025 have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 form or PTO/SB/08A and 08B forms).
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 line 1 has the “a” before “second transmitter” crossed out, but this appears to be a typographical error, and the “a” should be included. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "a first amplifier stage" in line 2, but it is unclear whether this refers to the “first amplifier stage” in claim 1, line 5, since the same term is used in both claims, but appear to refer to different features. It is suggested to applicant to differentiate the term in claim 7 using a modifier such as “secondary.”
Claim 7, lines 5-7, also rectie terms “a hysteresis stage,” “a current source,” and “a second amplifier” that duplicate the terminology of features in the first receiver of claim 1. It is also suggested to applicant to amend these terms in claim 7 using “secondary” to distinguish these limitations from those of claim 1.
Claim 7 is unclear and indefinite.
Claims 8-9 are dependent on claim 7, and are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marsh et al. (US 2005/0246125).
Regarding claim 1, Marsh et al. discloses a Universal Serial Bus (USB) repeater, comprising:
a first channel including a first receiver and a first transmitter having differential outputs (differential driver circuit to transmit a differential output signal and a differential receiver circuit to receive said differential output circuit, see claim 1 of Marsh et al. ), the first receiver having:
differential inputs (inherent in differential receiver is coupled to differential output node and receives differential output signal (see claim 1 of Marsh et al.);
a first amplifier stage, having first and second inputs coupled to the differential inputs, and having first and second outputs coupled to first and second load devices (differential receiver circuit comprises a differential amplifier coupled to said differential output node and adapted to receive said differential output signal; and also coupled to both built-in offset voltage comparator and output stage, see claim 11 of Marsh et al.); and
a hysteresis stage (said differential receiver further comprises a second built-in offset voltage comparator circuit, and first and second comparator circuits form a hysteresis comparator, i.e. “hysteresis stage”, see claim 12 of Marsh et al.).
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 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,563,462. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims disclose all of the claimed subject matter of the present application.
Claims 1-5, 7-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10-14 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,984,941. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims disclose all of the claimed subject matter of the present application.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,375,127. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patented claims disclose all of the claimed subject matter of the present application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kumar et al. (US 2004/0155689) discloses differential input receivers with hysteresis to achieve higher immunity to noise.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID S HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., 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, Hannah Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/David S Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631 9/19/2026
Prosecution Insights