CTNF 19/252,719 CTNF 83033 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 08-33 AIA 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. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 381, 752 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim . 08-34 AIA Claim s 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 381, 752 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim . 08-34 AIA Claim s 3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 381, 752 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim . 08-34 AIA Claim s 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4, 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 381, 752 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim . 08-34 AIA Claim s 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 381, 752 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim . 08-34 AIA Claim s 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 381, 752 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim . 08-34 AIA Claim s 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 381, 752 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim . 08-34 AIA Claim s 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 381, 752 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim . 08-34 AIA Claim s 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 381, 752 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim . 08-34 AIA Claim s 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 381, 752 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim . 08-34 AIA Claim s 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 381, 752 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim . 08-34 AIA Claim s 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 381, 752 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim . 08-34 AIA Claim s 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 381, 752 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim . 08-34 AIA Claim s 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 381, 752 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim . 08-34 AIA Claim s 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 381, 752 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim . 08-34 AIA Claim s 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 381, 752 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim . 08-34 AIA Claim s 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 381, 752 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim . 08-34 AIA Claim s 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 381, 752 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim . 08-34 AIA Claim s 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12, 381, 752 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader than the parent patent claim . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 6-8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh (US 2022/0272547) in view of Wolcott (US 2015/0029869) in view of Su (US 2022/0159743) . Regarding claim 1, Noh discloses a method comprising: receiving, by a device, an input signal comprising data for amplification and retransmission, and interference from one or more additional devices ([0286]) Noh does not specifically disclose modifying, by the device, the input signal by applying attenuation to each of one or more frequency subbands, the attenuation based on a comparison of an amount of energy of the input signal to an amount of energy of a reference signal for the corresponding frequency. However, Wolcott discloses modifying, by the device, the input signal by applying attenuation to each of one or more frequency subbands, the attenuation based on a comparison of an amount of energy of the input signal to an amount of energy of a reference signal for the corresponding frequency ([0094, 0106, 0251], fig. 7 Attenuation depends on component function, structure, properties, frequency, direction or other signal properties. Noise attenuation is determined in step 860 and an attenuation factor may be calculated for a given CPE ). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Wolcott into the system of Noh in order to enable attenuation to control signal strength and prevent distortion. Noh in view of Wolcott does not specifically disclose retransmitting, by the device, the input signal as a modified input signal. However, Su discloses retransmitting, by the device, the input signal as a modified input signal ([0090]). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Su into the system of Noh in view of Wolcott in order to provide the attenuated and modified signal. Regarding claim 6, Wolcott discloses wherein applying the attenuation to the input signal is performed in response to the amount of energy of the input signal for one or more frequency subbands exceeding a corresponding threshold ([0102]). Regarding claim 7, Wolcott discloses determining by the device, each subband energy threshold for the one or more frequency subbands based on the reference signal ([0102]). Regarding claim 8, Wolcott discloses receiving by the device the reference signal; and measuring by the device, the amount of energy of the reference signal for each of the one or more frequency subbands ([0006]). Regarding claim 10, Wolcott discloses wherein the device is capable of simultaneous upstream and downstream transmissions within a range of frequencies, and wherein the one or more additional devices comprise cable modems, fiber nodes, or converged cable access platform devices ([0050, 0054]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh (US 2022/0272547) in view of Wolcott (US 2015/0029869) in view of Su (US 2022/0159743) in view of Eyuboglu (US 11,375,527) . Regarding claim 2, Wolcott discloses wherein the one or more additional devices comprise one or more downstream devices ([0009]). However, Noh in view of Wolcott in view of Su does not disclose wherein the interference comprises interference from upstream retransmissions by the device of data from the one or more downstream devices. Eyu discloses wherein the interference comprises interference from upstream retransmissions by the device of data from the one or more downstream devices (col. 16 lines 1-11). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Eyu into the system of Noh in view of Wolcott in view of Su in order to prevent interference . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh (US 2022/0272547) in view of Wolcott (US 2015/0029869) in view of Su (US 2022/0159743) in view of Young (US 2022/0069969) . Regarding claim 3, Wolcott discloses wherein the one or more additional devices comprise one or more upstream devices ([0050]). Noh in view of Wolcott in view of Su does not disclose wherein the interference comprises leakage from upstream transmissions of the one or more upstream devices into a downstream signal. However, Young discloses wherein the interference comprises leakage from upstream transmissions of the one or more upstream devices into a downstream signal ([0005]). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Young into the system of Noh in view of Wolcott in view of Su in order to minimize interference from leakage . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh (US 2022/0272547) in view of Wolcott (US 2015/0029869) in view of Su (US 2022/0159743) in view of Mishra (US 2016/0261433) in view of Kim (US 2010/0119079) . Regarding claim 4, Noh in view of Wolcott in view of Su does not specifically disclose wherein applying the attenuation to the input signal further comprises converting the input signal from a time domain signal to a frequency domain signal, converting the frequency domain signal to another time domain signal. Mishra discloses wherein applying the attenuation to the input signal further comprises converting the input signal from a time domain signal to a frequency domain signal, converting the frequency domain signal to another time domain signal ([0029]). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Mishra into the system of Noh in view of Wolcott in view of Su in order to convert to a frequency domain signal. Noh in view of Wolcott in view of Mishra does not specifically disclose multiplying each subband of the frequency domain signal by a weight. However, Kim discloses multiplying each subband of the frequency domain signal by a weight ([0011]). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kim into the system of Noh in view of Wolcott in view of Su in view of Mishra in order to modify specific frequency ranges. Regarding claim 5, Wolcott discloses calculating the weight for each of the one or more frequency subbands proportional to a difference between the amount of energy of the input signal and the amount of energy of the reference signal for the corresponding frequency subband ([0076]) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noh (US 2022/0272547) in view of Wolcott (US 2015/0029869) in view of Su (US 2022/0159743) in view of TOchino (US 2023/0261744) . Regarding claim 9, Noh in view of Wolcott in view of Su does not specifically disclose wherein receiving the reference signal further comprises receiving the reference signal during a period in which the one or more additional devices are not transmitting. Tochino discloses wherein receiving the reference signal further comprises receiving the reference signal during a period in which the one or more additional devices are not transmitting ([0006]). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Tochino into the system of Noh in view of Wolcott in view of Su in order to determine when a reference signal is not being transmitted. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL HYUN HONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1553. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30. 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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at (571)272-4195. 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. /MICHAEL H HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/252,719 Page 2 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/252,719 Page 3 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/252,719 Page 4 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/252,719 Page 5 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/252,719 Page 6 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/252,719 Page 7 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/252,719 Page 8 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/252,719 Page 9 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/252,719 Page 10 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/252,719 Page 11 Art Unit: 2426 Application/Control Number: 19/252,719 Page 12 Art Unit: 2426
Prosecution Insights