Detailed Final Action
Introduction
1. For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
2. This Office Action addresses U.S. Application No. 18/609,374 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘374 or the instant application), filed May March 19, 2024 which is a reissue application of U.S. Patent No. 8,116,459 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘459 or the original patent), issued February 14, 2012 on U.S. Non-Provisional Patent Application No. 11/384,000 (hereinafter also referred to as ‘000 or the parent application), entitled “ENHANCED METHOD FOR SIGNAL SHAPING IN MULTI-CHANNEL AUDIO RECONSTRUCTION”, filed May 18, 2006.1 The ‘000 application claims benefit to U.S. Provisional application No. 60/787,096 filed on March 28, 2006.
3. With regard to litigation involving ‘459, see Litigation Search Report of record. Also based upon the Examiner’s independent review of ‘459 itself and the prosecution history, the Examiner cannot locate any other previous reexaminations, supplemental examinations, or certificates of correction.
4. The ‘459 patent issued with claims 1-30 (hereinafter also referred to as the patent claims). A preliminary amendment filed concurrently with the application on March 19, 2024 was entered and considered. This preliminary filing cancelled claims 1-30 and added claims 31-45 of which claims 31 and 43-45 are independent, and amended the specification. A second preliminary amendment was filed February 2, 2025 in which claims 31-45 and the specification were again amended. A consent and declaration were filed on June 20, 2024.
A response was filed July 2, 2026 which presented amendments to the claims, i.e. 31-34, 36-38 and 42-45, the drawings and the specification. A new oath, a terminal disclaimer and power of attorney were also filed.
5. As of the date of this Office Action, the status of the claims is:
Claims 31-45 are pending.
Claims 31-45 are examined.
Claims 31-45 are objected to and/or rejected as set forth infra.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
6. Because the effective filing date of claims of the instant application is before March 16, 2013, see prior paragraph 2, the Pre-AIA First Inventor to Invent (“Pre-AIA ) provisions apply thereto. See also paragraph 1, supra.
Reissue
ADS
7. The Application Data Sheet (ADS) filed March 19, 2024 is objected to because: on page 3, "Domestic Benefit/National Stage Information", "reissued" should be -- reissue--.
Note any corrected ADS must identify the information being changed with underlining for insertions and strike-though or brackets for text removed as required by 37 CFR 1.76(c)(2). See MPEP 2920.02 and Quick Start Guide for Corrected Web-based ADS at:
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Corected-WebADS-QSCG.pdf.
Additionally, the corrected ADS should be filed with a request for a corrected filing receipt. See MPEP 601.05(a) (II).
Amendment
8. The amendment filed July 2, 2026 does not comply with 37 CFR 1.173 (b)(1), i.e. Specification, (b)(2), i.e. Claims, (b)(3), Drawings, (c), i.e. Status of claims and support for claim changes, and (d), Changes shown by markings. Appropriate correction is required. See also MPEP § 1453.
Specifically, beginning with the amendments to the specification, neither the annotated/substitute specification nor the individual line amendments to the specification (other than that to col. 1, lines 5-10) complies with (b)(1) and (d), See MPEP 1453, V., A. All amendments submitted under 37 CFR 1.173(b)(1)(i), which include any deletions or additions, must be made by submission of the entire text of each added or rewritten/amended paragraph with markings (single brackets and underlining), except that an entire paragraph of specification text may be deleted by a statement deleting the paragraph without presentation of the text of the paragraph. The precise point where any added or rewritten paragraph is located must be identified. All bracketing and underlining is made in comparison to the original patent, not in comparison to any prior amendment in the reissue application. Thus, all paragraphs which are newly added to the specification of the original patent must be submitted as completely underlined each time they are re-submitted in the reissue application.
Turning to the claims, even with added claims, once changed by the amendment paper, a parenthetical expression "amended," "twice amended," etc., should also follow the claim number, e.g. “(New, amended)”. See MPEP 1453, D., V.
With regard to the drawings, amended figures must be identified as "Amended,". Also, all changes to the drawing(s) shall be explained, in detail, beginning on a separate sheet accompanying the papers including the amendment to the drawings.
Furthermore, whenever there is an amendment to the claims pursuant to paragraph (b) of section 37 CFR 1.173, there must also be supplied, on pages separate from the pages containing the changes, the status, as of the date of the amendment, of all patent claims and of all added claims and an explanation of the support in the disclosure of the patent for the changes made to the patent claims as well as the newly added claims. For example, the newly added claims 31-45 track to claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 10-11, 19-23 and 28-30 of the original patent claims, respectively. Independent claims 31 and 43-45 and dependent claims 32-34, 36-38 and 42 include changes to the claims themselves. All of the dependent claims 32-42 include changes due to their dependency from the amended independent claims, i.e. recite new combinations. While providing citations to, e.g., column, line and/or original patent claims broadly, an explanation of how the specifics of such cited portions provide support for each such amendment/claimed combination(s) has not been provided. Merely citing columns/lines in the specification and/or original claims is insufficient to explain the changes to the claims.
Any further response failing to provide an explanation of support in the disclosure of the patent for the claims will be held non-compliant and a Notice of Non-Compliance requiring a supplemental paper correctly amending the reissue application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.1739 (c) will be issued.
Declaration
9. The reissue oath/declaration filed July 2, 2026 with this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) because of the following:
The 7/2/26 declaration form continues to refer to an attached “STATEMENT OF STATUS AND SUPPORT OF CLAIMS PURSUANT TO 37 CFR SECTION 1.173(c)”. See pages 19-42 of the July 2, 2026 response. However, see also the “STATEMENT OF ERROR-35 USC § 251. At the very least, the declaration is confusing as to what should be referenced with respect to the error.
With regard to such “STATEMENT OF ERROR”, an explanation of which patent limitation is being narrowed, i.e. the “parameter representation”, should be set forth.
10. Claims 31-45 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
35 U.S.C. 251
11. Claims 31-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. The added material which is not supported by the prior patent is as follows:
See discussion in paragraph 19 below.
Drawings
12. The drawings were received on July 2, 2026. These drawings are not acceptable. See paragraph 8 above.
13. The drawings are objected to because: See paragraph 12. Accordingly, the prior objections are still pending. In other words:
In Fig. 1, the numeral 10 should denote the original signal (see 7:21-22). In Fig. 3, the numeral 69 should denote the direct signal modifier (see 10:46) and the numeral 68 should denote the downmix signal (see 10:48).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the parameter representation including information on a temporal structure of an original channel and a channel level difference parameter and an inter-channel coherence parameter as claimed in claims 31-45 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Additionally, the direct signal component (extraction, calculation and application) as now claimed in claims 31-45 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
No new matter should be entered.2
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.173 and 1.84 are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
14. Neither the substitute/annotated specification nor the specific line amendments are not accepted. See paragraph 8 above.
15. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: See paragraph 14 above. Accordingly, the prior objections are still pending. In other words:
The cross-reference to related applications section, first paragraph, filed February 2, 2025 describes numerous other reissue applications as “continuation reissues of Patent No. 8,116,459”. However, since the ‘459 patent is not a reissue application, none of those reissue applications are continuation reissues.
In col. 1, line 43, “ILD” should be --ICLD--. In col. 5, line 48, “One” should be --On--. In col. 9, line 31, after “modifier”, --34-- should be inserted. In col. 9, lines 41-42, “receives as well the direct signal component 42” should be --receives the direct signal component 42 as well--. In col. 15, lines 54-55, “is having” should be --has--. In col. 16, line 5, before “in”, --and-- should be inserted.
The independent claims 31 and 43-45 now include “a parameter representation” which not only includes information on a temporal structure of the original channel but also “an inter-channel level difference parameter and an inter-channel coherence parameter”. The claims also set forth that a direct signal component and a diffuse signal component for a reconstructed output channel are generated by a generator device, based on a downmix channel and the inter-channel level difference parameter and the inter-channel coherence parameter, i.e. of the “parametric representation” as now claimed. The claims further claim only the direct signal being modified by the direct signal modifier using the information on the temporal structure of an original channel included in the parameter representation to obtain a modified direct signal component including calculating a gain curve therefrom. The inter-channel level difference parameter, i.e. also known as ICLD, and inter-channel coherence parameter, i.e. also known as ICC, are described as spatial parameters.
The specification, however, e.g., shows in Fig. 1 (“PRIOR ART), “side info processing” as ICLD, ICTD, and ICC. See also 7:22-25 (“side information 14 indicating the spatial distribution of the various channels of the original multi-channel signals with respect to one another”) and 7:39-41 (“Sample parameters describing the spatial distribution of the original channels are, as for example indicated in FIG. 1, the previously introduced parameters ICLD and ICC.”). In Fig. 2, it shows “a parameter representation” 40 labelled “parameters having information on temporal structure” connected to both a generator 32 (which itself is labelled “generator e.g. only using the downmix channel or using additional parametric information” (emphasis added)) and direct signal modifier 34. See also 9:30-48 (“FIG. 2 shows … a downmix channel 38 downmixed from a plurality of original channels and a parameter representation 40 including information on a temporal structure of an original channel… The direct signal modifier 34 receives as well [sic] the direct signal component 42 as the diffuse signal component 44 and in addition the parameter representation 40 having the information on a temporal structure of the original channel. According to the present invention, the direct signal modifier modifies only the direct signal component 42 using the parameter representation.” (emphasis added)). In Figure 3, a spatial side information 70 is shown connected to a generator 62 and envelope side information 72 is shown connected to a direct signal modifier. See also 10: 25-45 (“As will be discussed in more detail in the description of FIG. 3, … For reshaping, parametric broad band envelope side information contained in the bit stream of the parameter representation is used. This side information consists, according to one embodiment of the present invention, of ratios (envRatio) relating the transmitted downmix signal's envelope to the original input channel signal's envelope. In the decoder, gain factors are derived from these ratios to be applied to the direct signal on each time slot in a frame of a given output channel. The diffuse sound portion of each channel is not altered according to the inventive concept….The multi-channel reconstructor 60 comprises a generator 62 for generating a direct signal component 64 and a diffuse signal component 66 using a downmix channel 68 derived by downmixing a plurality of original channels and a parameter representation 70 having information on spatial properties of original channels of the multi-channel signal, as used within MPEG coding.” (emphasis added)). In Figures 5 and 6, “parameters” are shown connected to both a generator/generator step and direct signal modifier/scaling step. See also 15:48-62 (“FIG. 5 shows an example of an inventive multi-channel audio decoder 100, receiving a downmix channel 102 derived by downmixing a plurality of channels of one original multi-channel signal and a parameter representation 104 including information on a temporal structure of the original channels (left front, right front, left rear and right rear) of the original multi-channel signal. (emphasis added)), and 16:1-18 (“FIG. 6 shows … In a generation step 110, a direct signal component and a diffuse signal component is derived from the downmix channel [sic] in [sic] a modification step 112 the direct signal component is modified using parameters of the parameter representation having information on a temporal structure of an original channel….” (emphasis added)). With regard to the terminology “additional parametric information”, see also original patent claims 8-9.
Accordingly, the claim terminology “parameter representation” as used in the claims is not clearly/consistently described, e.g. the terminology is used to both to describe only temporal information for application only to the direct signal by a direct signal modifier and to describe only information on spatial properties of original channels of the multi-channel signal applied to both direct and diffuse signals by the generator. This lack of clarity/inconsistency is exacerbated by the use of multiplicity of other terms, e.g. “side information”, “parametric information”, “parameters”, “additional parametric information” relative to such spatial and temporal parameters. A clear consistent description of the “parametric representation” should be set forth, i.e., how many parametric representations are there? what does/do it/they include? how is/are it/they implemented? how do multiplicity of other terms, e.g. “side information”, “parametric information”, “parameters”, “additional parametric information” relate thereto?
Additionally, in light of the 7/2/26 Statement of Support, pages 22 and 31, at the very least, the description in col. 11, lines 14-20 is incomplete, i.e. where is a “M” described as a ”mixing matrix [which is] derived from ICLD/ICC”?
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
16. Claims 31-45 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 31, line 9, “interchannel level” should be --inter-channel level--. Claim 33, line 2, “direct signal modifier is operative to use” should be deleted. On line 3, “indicating” should be --indicates--. Claim 34, line 2, “direct signal modifier is operative to use the” should be deleted. On line 3, “indicating” should be --indicates--. In claim 36, line 2, “direct…the” should be deleted. On line 3, “that is relating” should be --represents a ratio between-- and “to” should be –and--. With respect to claim 37, line 3, “is having” should be –includes--. In claim 43, last line, “of” should be --for--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
T
he following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111. It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification, i.e., a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP §2111.01(11). Therefore, unless Applicant for patent has provided a lexicographic definition for the term, see MPEP §211l.0l(IV), or 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked, Examiners will interpret the limitations of the pending and examined claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation.
When the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function or a step-plus-function. See 35 U.S.C. §112(6th ¶) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prong test is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function or step-plus-function limitation in a claim:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
17. Claims 32, 35, 37 and 42 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 32 is inconsistent with claim 31, lines 7-10. With regard to claim 35, are the first and second downmix channels of this claim and the “at least one downmix channel” of claim 31 one and the same? Are the first and second reconstructed output channels of this claim and the reconstructed output channel of claim 31 one and the same? Claim 37 recites the limitation "the information on a temporal structure of the at least one downmix channel” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. With regard to claim 42, is the limitation "a temporal envelope of the original channel” and the “information on a temporal structure of an original channel” as claimed in claim 31 one and the same? Note, e.g., pages 21 and pages 25-26 of the response.
18. Claims 31-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without the employment of an envelope shaping process employing an envelope extraction operation on different signals prior to the modification of the direct signal component of claims 31 and 43-45 (via the direct signal modifier in claims 31 and 44) which is critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976).
See 11:33-38 (“The envelope shaping process employs an envelope extraction operation on different signals. The envelopes extraction process taking place within direct signal modifier 69 is described in further detail in the following paragraphs as this [extraction operation/process] is a mandatory step before application of the inventive modification to the direct signal component.) (emphasis added) and, e.g., claim 31, lines 11-21, claim 43, lines 9-19, claim 44, line 7, claim 45, line 2. Note also 10:25-45 set forth in paragraph 15 above.
The independent claims now further recite the direct signal modifier being configured to extract an envelope for the reconstructed output channel and an envelope for the at least one downmix channel, to calculate a gain curve from the envelope for the reconstructed output channel, the envelope for the at least one downmix channel and the information on a temporal structure of an original channel, and to apply the gain curve to the direct signal component to obtain the modified direct signal component. The response relied upon col. 13, lines 19-41 (p. 47 of the response). See also pages 23 (Feature 3) and 32-33 (Feature 2) of the response. While col. 13, lines 19-41 describe “the target envelope is obtained by estimating the envelope of the transmitted downmix [channel] EnvDmx, as described in the preceding section” (emphasis added) and “ for each output channel by estimating its envelope Envch”, the “mandatory” extraction operation/process, i.e. “as described in the preceding section”, is not set forth, the “actual shaping process” is set forth instead. See, e.g., priority document 60/787,096 page 5 (“Only the direct signal is further processed by the guided envelope shaping. The envelope shaping process employs an envelope extraction operation on different signals. Thus, the envelope extraction process is described in detail first and is subsequently referred to in the description of the actual shaping process:”), then see the following “extraction process”/”extraction operation", “Estimation of a normalized envelope:”, on pages 5-6 of ‘096 as well as col. 11, line 39-col. 12, line 52 of the instant specification and finally see “the actual shaping process”, “Envelop Shaping:”, on pages 6-7 of ‘096 as well as col. 13, line 5-col. 14, line 22 of the instant application. Note also the written content of element 34 in Fig. 2 and element 68 in Fig. 3 as filed.
19. Claims 31-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As discussed in paragraph 18, the added limitations describing the configuration of the direct signal modifier are related to envelope shaping. Furthermore, as also discussed above, the response relied upon col. 13, lines 19-41 for support. However, such portion of the specification refers to the shaping with respect to a 5-1-5 configuration which configuration is not claimed (note also claim 35 which depends from claim 31 and which describes a 5-2-5 configuration (col. 13, line col. 14, line 22)).3
Continuing, at col. 13, lines 5-13 (‘096, “Envelope Shaping” section) , the specification describes:
The envelope shaping process consists of a flattening of the direct sound envelope for each output channel followed by a reshaping towards a target envelope. This results in a gain curve being applied to the direct signal of each output channel if bsEnvShapeChannel=1 is signalled for this channel in the side information.
The processing is done for certain hybrid sub-subbands k only: k>7.
(Emphasis added.)
However, the envelope shaping process now claimed does not set forth the processing is only done for certain subbands k as described.
Allowable Subject Matter
20. The subject matter recited by claims 31-45 distinguishes over the art.
Response to Arguments
21. The remarks on pages 18-49 have been considered in their entirety.
With regard to the ADS, the USPTO form cannot be changed at the website. The changes must be applied to a copy, e.g. a pdf, of the originally filed ADS.
With regard to the remarks concerning the preliminary amendment on pages 19-42 of the response, see paragraph 8 above. Furthermore, the statement does not provide a complete statement of support, e.g. for Feature 3 of claim 31.
The remarks with regard to the declaration and Consent have been considered. Those directed to the authority to sign are deemed moot in that such has not been maintained. With regard to statement of error, see paragraph 9 above with regard to the July 2, 2026 declaration.
With regard to remarks directed to the drawings, specification and claim objections on pages 44-46, see paragraphs 8 and 12-16 above. It is further noted that, e.g. Fig. 3 as proposed did not show a “parameter representation” as claimed in claim 31 nor a generator/decoder a claimed in claim 32.
The remarks directed to double patenting on page 48 have been noted. The rejection has not been maintained in light of the terminal disclaimer of July 2, 2026.
The remarks directed to support under 35 USC 251 on page 43 and 35 USC 112 first and second paragraphs on pages 46-48 have been noted. While the rejection regarding support for the parameter representation including both information on a temporal structure of an original channel and ICLD parameter and ICC parameter have not been maintained, see paragraphs 17-19 above with regard to pending issues. It is further noted that page 47, lines 16-18 of the response appears to be incomplete, i.e. “column 35”?
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Amendments
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b). In addition, for reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, when any substantive amendment is filed in the reissue application, which amendment otherwise places the reissue application in condition for allowance, a supplemental oath/declaration will be required. See MPEP § 1414.01.
Prior or Concurrent Proceedings
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 8,116,459 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely appraise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Inquiries:
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karin M Reichle whose telephone number is (571)272-4936. The examiner can normally be reached on 6:00-6:00 M-Th.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hetul Patel can be reached on 571-272-4184. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-9900.
All correspondence relating to this proceeding may be submitted via:
Electronically: Registered users may submit via Patent Center
https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/.
By Mail to: Commissioner for Patents
United States Patent & Trademark Office
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
By FAX to: (571) 273-8300
Central Reexamination Unit
By hand: United States Patent and Trademark Office
Customer Service Window
Knox Building
501 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
For Patent Center transmissions, 37 CFR 1.8(a)(1)(i)(C) and (ii) states that correspondence (except for a request for reexamination and a corrected or replacement request for reexamination) will be considered timely filed if (a) it is transmitted via the Office's electronic filing system in accordance with 37 CFR 1.6(a)(4) , and (b) includes a certificate of transmission for each piece of correspondence stating the date of transmission, which is prior to the expiration of the set period of time in the Office action.
/Karin Reichle/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/Cameron Saadat/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 The term of the patent was extended or adjusted by 1274 days.
2 Note, however, the discussion in paragraphs 8 and 11 above and paragraphs 18-19 below.
3 See also col. 14, lines 37-40 (“The above example describes the calculation for 5-1-5 and 5-2-5 channel configurations. Naturally, the above outlined principle could be applied analogously for e.g. 7-2-7 and 7-5-7 channel configurations.”
Prosecution Insights