DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, and 10-14 were pending in this application for reissue of US Patent 10,580,415 (hereinafter “the '415 patent”) issued from application no. 15/978,342 (“the ‘342 application”). In response to the Office Action issued on September 18, 2025, (“the Response”) Applicant cancelled claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-14, cancelling all original claims, and added new claims 17-27. Claims 17-27 are pending.
Prior or Concurrent Proceedings
2. 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 the ‘415 patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Information Material to Patentability
3. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise 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.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
4. The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendments
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C 251
5. A substitute declaration has been filed. However, the newly filed declaration is defective as discussed below. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
6. All original claims have been cancelled and new claims have been presented. Accordingly, the rejection based on duplicate original claim numbers in reissue applications is withdrawn.
Double Patenting
7. Nonstatutory double patenting rejections are withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer filed with the Response.
Rejections Under 35 U.S.C 102
8. Claim 17 has been amended. Corresponding rejection is withdrawn.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 251 - Declararion
9. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §251 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
10. Claims 17-27 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251. See 37 CFR 1.175. The nature of the defect(s) in the October 27, 2017 Declaration is set forth below.
The reissue oath/declaration filed with this application is defective because it fails to properly identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414. MPEP 1414 II.(B) states in part: “In identifying the error, it is sufficient that the reissue oath/declaration identify a single word, phrase, or expression in the specification or in an original patent claim, and how it renders the original patent wholly or partly inoperative or invalid.” The statement of error in the oath/declaration fails to specifically identify an error. "Any error in the claims must be identified by reference to the specific claim(s) and the specific claim language wherein lies the error." See MPEP 1414 II. (C). While the statement of error “Independent claim 1 is believe to be too broad in view of the prior art” identifies the claim, it does not identify “the specific claim language wherein lies the error.” Adding that claim 1 is too broad because it fails to recite the limitation “wherein the patch generator is configured for performing the harmonic patching algorithm using overlap add between overlap add processing between the timely preceding bandwidth limited time block …” to the statement, for example, would be sufficient to overcome this rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 17-27 would be allowable if the rejection for defective declaration is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: When considered in combination with all of the other limitations of claim 17, prior art of record does not teach the limitation “wherein the patch generator is configured for performing the harmonic patching algorithm using an overlap add processing between the timely preceding bandwidth limited time block comprising the at least one associated timely preceding spectral band replication parameter and a timely preceding core frequency band and the current bandwidth limited time block comprising the at least one associated current spectral band replication parameter and the current core frequency band.”
Conclusion
12. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Woo H Choi whose telephone number is (571) 272-4179. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays between 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Hetul Patel can be reached on 571-272-4184. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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://pair-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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Woo H. Choi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/Cameron Saadat/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights