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 .
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 21- 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,469,974. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the only difference is that the processing in the instant application is between a person and a software program while the processing in the patent is between a first person and a second person. The voice, whether it is of the software program or the voice the first person, is changed into a binaural sound with the use of Head-Related transfer functions (HRTFs). The sending of the binaural sound once created to a person or device or program would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 21- 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,602,295. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the only difference is that the processing in the instant application is between a person and a software program while the processing in the patent is between a first person and a Digital Signal Processing (DSP) of a Wearable Electronic Device (WED). The voice, whether it is of the DSP of the WED worn by the first person or the voice the first person, is changed into a binaural sound with the use of Head-Related transfer functions (HRTFs). The sending of the binaural sound once created to a person or device or program would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 21- 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,869,150 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as in the above the voice of the first user is changed into a binaural sound with the use of Head-Related transfer functions (HRTFs). It is in material and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to send the binaural sound, once created, to a second person, a software program or a device (PED or WED or the like).
.
Claims 21- 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,736,885. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as in the above the voice of the first user is changed into a binaural sound with the use of Head-Related transfer functions (HRTFs). It is in material and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to send the binaural sound, once created, to a second person, a software program or a device (PED or WED or the like).
Claims 21- 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,381,926. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as in the above the voice of the first user is changed into a binaural sound with the use of Head-Related transfer functions (HRTFs). It is in material and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to send the binaural sound, once created, to a second person, a software program or a device (PED or WED or the like).
Claims 21- 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No.12,047.763. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as in the above the voice of the first user is changed into a binaural sound with the use of Head-Related transfer functions (HRTFs). It is in material and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to send the binaural sound, once created, to a second person, a software program or a device (PED or WED or the like).
Claims 21 -40 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2013/0041648 (Osman and U.S. Patent Application No. 2014/0328505 (Heinemann et al.). However, the prior art does not teach or disclose alone or in combination at least the highlighted portions below.
21. (new) A method that improves an electronic communication between a software program and a person, the method comprising:
processing, with a server during the electronic communication between the software program and the person and before a voice of the software program is transmitted to the person, the voice of the software program into binaural sound with customized head-related transfer functions (HRTFs) of the person;
receiving, during the electronic communication and at a portable electronic device (PED) with the person, the voice of the software program in the binaural sound processed by the server with the customized HRTFs of the person; and
playing, with the PED to the person and during the electronic communication, the voice of the software program in the binaural sound processed by the server with the customized HRTFs such that the voice externally localizes to the person outside a head of the person.
28. (new) A method that improves an electronic communication between a software program and a person, the method comprising:
processing, with one or more servers and during the electronic communication between the software program and the person, a voice of the software program into binaural sound with customized head-related transfer functions (HRTFs) of the person;
transmitting, to a wearable electronic device (WED) of the person and during the electronic communication between the software program and the person, the voice of the software program in the binaural sound that was processed by the one or more servers with the customized HRTFs of the person; and
playing, during the electronic communication and through speakers of the WED of the person, the voice of the software program in the binaural sound that was processed by the one or more servers with the customized HRTFs of the person,
wherein the software program includes a machine learning agent, an intelligent user agent, or an intelligent personal assistant.
35. (new) An electronic system that improves an electronic communication between a person and a software program, the electronic system comprising:
one or more servers that process, during the electronic communication, a voice of the software program with customized head-related transfer functions (HRTFs) of the person into binaural sound and transmit the voice of the software program processed with the customized HRTFs to the person; and
a portable electronic device (PED) of the person that includes a receiver that receives the voice of the software program in the binaural sound processed with the customized HRTFs of the person by the one or more servers and one or more speakers that play the voice of the software program in the binaural sound that externally localizes outside a head of the person,
wherein the software program includes a machine learning agent, an intelligent user agent, or an intelligent personal assistant.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William Deane whose telephone number is 571 -272- 7484. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - FRIDAY from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ahmad Matar, can be reached on 571 -272-7488.
The official fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. However, unofficial faxes can be direct to the examiner's computer at 571 273 - 7484.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://palr-direct.uspto.gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
24Jan2026
/WILLIAM J DEANE JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693