DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 11/20/2024:
Claims 1-3 are pending
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 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 9818413. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example:
Regarding claim 1, 9818413 teaches a method of decoding a compressed Higher Order Ambisonics (HOA) representation of a sound or a soundfield (claim 1, a method of decoding a compressed Higher Order Ambisonics (HOA) representation of a sound or soundfield), the method comprising:
receiving a bitstream containing the compressed HOA representation (claim 1, receiving a bit stream containing the compressed HOA representation); and
determining whether there are multiple layers relating to the compressed HOA representation (claim 1, determining whether there are multiple layers relating to the compressed HOA representation);
decoding, based on a determination that there are multiple layers, the compressed HOA representation from the bitstream to obtain a sequence of decoded HOA representations (claim 1, decoding, based on a determination that there are multiple layers, the compressed HOA representation from the bitstream to obtain a sequence of decoded HOA representations),
wherein a first subset of the sequence of decoded HOA representations corresponds to a first set of indices and a second subset of the sequence of decoded HOA representations corresponds to a second set of indices (claim 1, wherein a first subset of the sequence of the sequence of decoded HOA representations corresponds to a first set of indices and a second subset of the sequence of decoded HOA representations corresponds to a second set of indices),
wherein the second subset of the sequence is determined based on an addition of a corresponding ambient sound component and a corresponding predominant sound component (claim 1, wherein the second set of indices is determined based on at least one of the multiple layers; claim 5, determining, for a frame k, a single layer decoded HOA representation based on an addition of a corresponding predominant HOA sound component (ĈPS(k−1)) and a corresponding ambient HOA component ({tilde over (Ĉ)}AMB(k−1))).
The remaining independent and/or dependent claims are similarly rejected using or more claims of the patent (whether alone or in combination).
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 10192559. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. See above as an example.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 10388292. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. See above as an example.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 10629212. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. See above as an example.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11462222. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. See above as an example.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 10679634. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. See above as an example.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 10127914. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. See above as an example.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 9930464. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. See above as an example.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12069465. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. See above as an example.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1-2 are missing a punctuation (e.g. “.”/period) at the end of the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pax et al (EP2469741, hereinafter "Pax").
Regarding claim 1, Pax teaches A method of decoding a compressed Higher Order Ambisonics (HOA) representation of a sound or a soundfield (¶1, method of decoding HOA), the method comprising:
receiving a bitstream containing the compressed HOA representation (¶30, fig. 8, receiving a compressed HOA representation); and
determining whether there are multiple layers relating to the compressed HOA representation (¶35, demultiplexing (DEMUX) a received multiplexed (MUX) signal);
decoding, based on a determination that there are multiple layers, the compressed HOA representation from the bitstream to obtain a sequence of decoded HOA representations (¶35, demultiplexing (DEMUX) a received multiplexed (MUX) signal),
wherein a first subset of the sequence of decoded HOA representations corresponds to a first set of indices and a second subset of the sequence of decoded HOA representations corresponds to a second set of indices (¶40-44, Fig. 8, plurality of frames of audio content is encoded and decoded wherein index n=0…n is used for 3D applications),
wherein the second subset of the sequence is determined based on an addition of a corresponding ambient sound component and a corresponding predominant sound component (¶25, Fig. 5, decoded signal may comprise of separate signal components including a primary sound component and ambient sound component).
Regarding claim 2, it is rejected similarly as claim 1. The apparatus can be found in Jax (¶1, apparatus).
Regarding claim 3, it is rejected similarly as claim 1. The medium can be found in Jax (¶1, 3, apparatus for audio processing would involve the use of a computer that requires memory to store instructions for performing a method).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIN ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-4PM 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, Duc Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-7503. 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.
/QIN ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691