Attorney’s Docket Number: 122174-10139
Inventor: Burnett
Examiner: Marcos D. Pizarro
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action responds to the preliminary amendment filed on 12/20/2023.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the pre-AIA provisions. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to pre-AIA is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis, i.e., changing from pre-AIA to AIA , for a 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.
Amendment Status
The preliminary amendment filed on 12/20/2023 has been entered. The present Office action is made with all the suggested amendments being fully considered. Accordingly, pending in this Office action are claims 2-21.
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 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-10, 16-23, 32 and 33 of Burnett (US 11,818,534).
Regarding claims 2-21, although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as set forth below.
Regarding claim 2, Burnett anticipates the limitations recited in the claim including a device comprising:
A first virtual microphone comprising a first combination of first and second microphone signals (claim 2/ll.1-3)
A second virtual microphone comprising a second combination of the first and second signals (claim 2/ll.8-10), and
A signal processor coupled to the virtual microphones (claim 2/ll.19-23)
wherein:
The first signal is generated by a first physical microphone (claim 2/ll.4-5)
The second signal is generated by a second physical microphone (claim 2/ll.5-7)
The second combination is different from the first combination (claim 2/ll.10-11)
The first and second virtual microphones are distinct virtual directional microphones with similar responses to noise and dissimilar responses to speech (claim 2/ll.11-14)
The ratio of the speech responses of the first and second virtual microphones is 10 decibels or greater (claim 2/ll.15-17)
The processor is operative to combine signals from the virtual microphones to generate an output signal having noise content attenuated with respect to speech content (claim 2/ll.19-25)
Regarding claim 3, Burnett (claim 3) anticipates the limitations recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Burnett (claim 4) anticipates the limitations recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, Burnett (claim 5) anticipates the limitations recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 6, Burnett (claim 6) anticipates the limitations recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, Burnett (claim 16) anticipates the limitations recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, Burnett (claim 17) anticipates the limitations recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, Burnett (claim 7) anticipates the limitations recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, Burnett (claim 8) anticipates the limitations recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, Burnett (claim 9) anticipates the limitations recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, Burnett (claim 10) anticipates the limitations recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, Burnett (claim 18) anticipates the limitations recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 14, Burnett (claim 19) anticipates the limitations recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 15, Burnett (claim 20) anticipates the limitations recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 16, Burnett (claim 21) anticipates the limitations recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 17, Burnett (claim 22) anticipates the limitations recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 18, Burnett (claim 23) anticipates the limitations recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 19, Burnett (claim 32) anticipates the limitations recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 20, Burnett (claim 33) anticipates the limitations recited in the claim.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites a method of forming first and second virtual microphones and combining the signals from the microphones to generate an output signal. Claim 2 of Burnett recites a device comprising first and second virtual microphones and a signal processor operative to combine the signals from the microphones to generate an output signal. The claimed method merely recites steps corresponding to the creation and operation of the device in Burnett. The skilled artisan would necessarily have to perform the recited method steps when making or using the device of the patent. Accordingly, claim 21 of the instant application and claim 2 of Burnett are not patentably distinct.
Conclusion
Papers related to this application may be submitted directly to Art Unit 2814 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Art Unit 2814 via the Art Unit 2814 Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notice published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (15 November 1989). The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center number is (571) 273-8300. The Art Unit 2814 Fax Center is to be used only for papers related to Art Unit 2814 applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Marcos D. Pizarro at (571) 272-1716 and between the hours of 9:00 AM to 7:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time) Monday through Thursday or by e-mail via Marcos.Pizarro@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Wael Fahmy, can be reached on (571) 272-1705.
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.
/Marcos D. Pizarro/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
MDP/mdp
March 6, 2026