DETAILED ACTION
Claims 16-28 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1-15 are original claims to patent US 10,522,168 B2 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘168) and claims 16-28 are newly added claims.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Reissue Applications
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.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 10,522,168 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS)s submitted on 08/08/2024, 11/26/2024, and 02/15/2025 are considered by the examiner in accordance with 37 CFR 1.97, 37 CFR 1.98, MPEP 609, and MPEP 1406, to the fullest extent of the items presented including any concise explanation. Documents not meeting particular criteria are lined through and not considered. Several documents were not found in the record and therefore lined through as they could not be considered.
ADS Objections
The ADS filed 08/08/2024 is objected to because of the following informalities in the Domestic Benefit section: (1) the applicant information section should indicate “Assignee”, as the patent to be reissued (Nagel ‘168) is already assigned.
The corrected ADS should comply with 37 CFR 1.76(c)(2), which requires that any changes to an ADS be identified with markings (see Reissue Application Filing Guide at http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/forms/uspto_reissue_ads_guide_Sept2014.pdf for more information). Applicant can also use the Corrected Web-based ADS. See the Quick Start Guide for Corrected Web-based ADS at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Corrected-WebADS-QSG.pdf.
Consent of Assignee
This application is objected to under 37 CFR 1.172(a) as lacking the written consent of all assignees owning an undivided interest in the patent. The consent of the assignee must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.172. See MPEP § 1410.01.
Specifically, in accordance with MPEP 1410.02 and MPEP 325, the consent of assignee must be signed by a party authorized to act on behalf of the assignee. A person having a title that does not clearly set forth that person as an officer of the assignee is not presumed to have authority to sign the submission on behalf of the assignee. In this application, the consent of assignee has been signed by “TITLE: Authorized Signatory”.
Specifically, MPEP 1410.02 states that “The consent of assignee must be signed by a party authorized to act on behalf of the assignee. For applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, the consent may be signed by the assignee or a patent practitioner of record. Where the assignee is a juristic entity, the consent may be signed by a person in the organization having apparent authority to sign on behalf of the organization, or a person who makes a statement of authorization to act on behalf of the assignee. For a discussion of parties authorized to act on behalf of the assignee, see MPEP § 325 (for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012).”
MPEP 325 specifically states that, “The submission may be signed by a person in the organization having apparent authority to sign on behalf of the organization. 37 CFR 3.73(d)(2). An officer (chief executive officer, president, vice-president, secretary, or treasurer) is presumed to have authority to sign on behalf of the organization…A person having a title (administrator, general counsel) that does not clearly set forth that person as an officer of the assignee is not presumed to have authority to sign the submission on behalf of the assignee.
In this application, the consent of assignee has been signed by “Team Leader Patents” which does not meet the requirement of 37 CFR 3.73(d)(2). See MPEP 325 for a list of persons in an organization having the authority to sign on behalf of the organization. A proper assent of the assignee in compliance with 37 CFR 1.172 and 3.73 is required in reply to this Office action.
Oath/Declaration Objections
The reissue oath/declaration filed 10/14/2024 for this application is defective (see 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414) and objected to because it fails: (1) it is not properly signed by the assignee of the entire interest (37 CFR 1.175(c)), the declaration is signed by the same person lacking apparent authority to sign on behalf of the organization as found in the Consent of Assignee (see above discussion objecting to the Consent of Assignee).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 251
Claims 16-28 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 and MPEP 1414. The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action (see Oath/Declaration Objections): (1) it is not properly signed by the assignee of the entire interest (37 CFR 1.175(c)).
Specification Objections
The amendment to the Specification of 08/08/2024 is defective because of the following: (1) the cross-referenced continuation reissue applications are not properly identified by application number (see 37 CFR 1.177(a)). Additionally, the attorney docket number is not necessary for identifying the cross-referenced continuation reissue applications.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities in the amendment of 08/04/2024: (1) by list claim 25 twice, the amendment does not number the claims consecutively as required by 37 CFR 1.75(f), and therefore the amendment does not properly make changes relative to the patent as required by 37 CFR 1.173(g). The first instance of claim 25 will be treated as being numbered claim 24. 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.
The 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. 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 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.
Claims 27-28 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.
Claims 27 and 28 recite the limitation "the method" in preamble. Neither claim provides sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Related Patents
8,386,268
Claims 16-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 8,386,268 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘268) in view of US 6,680,972 B1 to Liljeryd et al. (herein Liljeryd ‘972).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims read upon the claimed features of the reference patent/application as follows: instant claim 16 is found in at least claim 1 of Nagel ‘268 (compare: the claimed “patch generator” to the “patch generator” of Nagel ‘268; the claimed “spectral converter” to the “first converter” of Nagel ‘268; the claimed “signal processor” to the “manipulator” of Nagel ‘268; and the claimed “combiner” to the “combiner” of Nagel ‘268). Additionally, Liljeryd ‘972 shows transposing/patching implemented using time-domain transposers (Liljeryd ‘972: column 12, lines 1-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to implement the spectral domain patching of Nagel ‘268 as time domain patching with filterbank for adjusting the envelope as suggested by the teachings of Liljeryd ‘972. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: Liljeryd ‘972 “presents the opportunity to adjust the envelope of the created spectrum while maintaining the simplicity and low computational cost of a time domain transposer” (Liljeryd ‘972: column 12, lines 1-8); and both references are analogously directed to spectral bandwidth replication patching.
Further, Nagel ‘268 shows the claimed “in which the patch generator is adapted so that the at least two different patching algorithms comprise a spectrally-spreading patching algorithm” (Nagel ‘268: claim 1, “wherein … patch generator … performing at least two different spectral domain patching algorithms from a group … comprising …” at least a patching algorithm described as spectrally-spreading; figures 3-6; column 9, lines 7-14), consistently with the description of the instant claims (10,522,168: figure 4; column 11, lines 19-28).
The remaining instant claims 17-28 are similarly not patentably distinct from the claims 1-9 of Nagel ‘268 in view of Liljeryd ‘972.
9,076,433
Claims 16-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,076,433 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘433) in view of US 6,680,972 B1 to Liljeryd et al. (herein Liljeryd ‘972).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims read upon the claimed features of the reference patent/application as follows: instant claim 16 is found in at least claim 1 of Nagel ‘433 (compare: the claimed “patch generator” to the “patch generator” of Nagel ‘433; the claimed “spectral converter” to the “first converter” of Nagel ‘433; the claimed “signal processor” to the “manipulator” of Nagel ‘433; and the claimed “combiner” to the “combiner” of Nagel ‘433). Additionally, Liljeryd ‘972 shows transposing/patching implemented using time-domain transposers (Liljeryd ‘972: column 12, lines 1-12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to implement the spectral domain patching of Nagel ‘433 as time domain patching with filterbank for adjusting the envelope as suggested by the teachings of Liljeryd ‘972. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: Liljeryd ‘972 “presents the opportunity to adjust the envelope of the created spectrum while maintaining the simplicity and low computational cost of a time domain transposer” (Liljeryd ‘972: column 12, lines 1-8); and both references are analogously directed to spectral bandwidth replication patching.
Further, Nagel ‘433 shows the claimed “in which the patch generator is adapted so that the at least two different patching algorithms comprise a spectrally-spreading patching algorithm” (Nagel ‘433: claim 1, “wherein … patch generator … performing at least two different spectral domain patching algorithms from a group … comprising …” at least a patching algorithm described as spectrally-spreading; figures 3-6; column 9, lines 11-16), consistently with the description of the instant claims (10,522,168: figure 4; column 11, lines 19-28).
The remaining instant claims 17-28 are similarly not patentably distinct from the claims 1-9 of Nagel ‘433 in view of Liljeryd ‘972.
RE50,601; RE50,676; RE50,692; RE50,693; RE50,710; RE50,767; RE50,780
Claims 16-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-18 of U.S. Patent No. RE50,601 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘601) in view of US 6,680,972 B1 to Liljeryd et al. (herein Liljeryd ‘972). Nagel ‘601 is a reissue of Nagel ‘433 and has corresponding limitations, therefore this rejection is made for similar reasons as above under Nagel ‘433.
Claims 16-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-18 of U.S. Patent No. RE50,676 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘676) in view of US 6,680,972 B1 to Liljeryd et al. (herein Liljeryd ‘972). Nagel ‘676 is a reissue of Nagel ‘433 and has corresponding limitations, therefore this rejection is made for similar reasons as above under Nagel ‘676.
Claims 16-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. RE50,692 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘692) in view of US 6,680,972 B1 to Liljeryd et al. (herein Liljeryd ‘972). Nagel ‘692 is a reissue of Nagel ‘433 and has corresponding limitations, therefore this rejection is made for similar reasons as above under Nagel ‘433.
Claims 16-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-21 of U.S. Patent No. RE50,693 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘693) in view of US 6,680,972 B1 to Liljeryd et al. (herein Liljeryd ‘972). Nagel ‘693 is a reissue of Nagel ‘433 and has corresponding limitations, therefore this rejection is made for similar reasons as above under Nagel ‘433.
Claims 16-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-17 of U.S. Patent No. RE50,710 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘710) in view of US 6,680,972 B1 to Liljeryd et al. (herein Liljeryd ‘972). Nagel ‘710 is a reissue of Nagel ‘433 and has corresponding limitations, therefore this rejection is made for similar reasons as above under Nagel ‘433.
Claims 16-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-18 of U.S. Patent No. RE50,767 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘767) in view of US 6,680,972 B1 to Liljeryd et al. (herein Liljeryd ‘972). Nagel ‘767 is a reissue of Nagel ‘433 and has corresponding limitations, therefore this rejection is made for similar reasons as above under Nagel ‘433.
Claims 16-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13-17 of U.S. Patent No. RE50,780 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘780) in view of US 6,680,972 B1 to Liljeryd et al. (herein Liljeryd ‘972). Nagel ‘780 is a reissue of Nagel ‘433 and has corresponding limitations, therefore this rejection is made for similar reasons as above under Nagel ‘433.
Family Patents/Applications
8,731,948
Claims 16-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 8,731,948 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘948) in view of claims 1-9 of US 8,386,268 B2 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘268).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims read upon the claimed features of the reference patent/application as follows: instant claim 16 is found in at least claim 1 of Nagel ‘948 (compare: the claimed “patch generator” to the “patch generator” of Nagel ‘948; the claimed “spectral converter” to the “spectral converter” of Nagel ‘948; the claimed “signal processor” to the “signal processor” of Nagel ‘948; and the claimed “combiner” to the “combiner” of Nagel ‘948). Additionally, Nagel ‘268 shows the claimed “in which the patch generator is adapted so that the at least two different patching algorithms comprise a spectrally-spreading patching algorithm” (Nagel ‘268: claim 1, “wherein … patch generator … performing at least two different spectral domain patching algorithms from a group … comprising …” at least a patching algorithm described as spectrally-spreading; figures 3-6; column 9, lines 7-14), consistently with the description of the instant claims (10,522,168: figure 4; column 11, lines 19-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to implement the patching algorithms of Nagel ‘948 such that the two different patching algorithms comprise a spectrally-spreading patching algorithm as suggested by the teachings of Nagel ‘268. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: the analogous Nagel ‘268 (with at least one common inventor) claims patching algorithms similar to those claimed by Nagel ‘948, Nagel ‘268 further claims specific patching algorithms, and Nagel ‘268 describes at least one of those algorithms as spectrally-spreading; and as such, the implementation of is a substitution and application of one known element and technique for another yielding a predictable result using an acceptable piece of prior art.
The remaining instant claims 17-28 are similarly not patentably distinct from the claims 1-10 of Nagel ‘948 in view of claims 1-9 of Nagel ‘268.
10,014,000
First, claims 22-24, 26, and 28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,014,000 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘000). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims read upon the claimed features of the reference patent/application as follows: instant claim 22 is found in at least claim 1 of Nagel ‘000. The remaining claims are not patentably distinct for the same reasons.
Second, claims 16-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 8,731,948 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘948) in view of claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,014,000 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘000).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims read upon the claimed features of the reference patent/application as follows: instant claim 16 is found in at least claim 1 of Nagel ‘948 (compare: the claimed “patch generator” to the “patch generator” of Nagel ‘948; the claimed “spectral converter” to the “spectral converter” of Nagel ‘948; the claimed “signal processor” to the “signal processor” of Nagel ‘948; and the claimed “combiner” to the “combiner” of Nagel ‘948). Additionally, Nagel ‘000 shows the claimed “in which the patch generator is adapted so that the at least two different patching algorithms comprise a spectrally-spreading patching algorithm” (Nagel ‘000: claim 8 at least one algorithm described as spectrally-spreading, column 11, lines 22-31), consistently with the description of the instant claims (10,522,168: figure 4; column 11, lines 19-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to implement the patching algorithms of Nagel ‘948 such that the two different patching algorithms comprise a spectrally-spreading patching algorithm as suggested by the teachings of Nagel ‘000. This implementation would have been obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would have found: the analogous Nagel ‘000 (same inventors) claims patching algorithms similar to those claimed by Nagel ‘948, Nagel ‘000 further claims specific patching algorithms, and Nagel ‘000 describes at least one of those algorithms as spectrally-spreading; and as such, the implementation of is a substitution and application of one known element and technique for another yielding a predictable result using an acceptable piece of prior art.
The remaining instant claims 17-28 are similarly not patentably distinct from the claims 1-10 of Nagel ‘948 in view of claims 1-8 of Nagel ‘000.
18/798,057
Claims 16-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-22 of co-pending U.S. Patent Application 18/798,057 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘057) in view of claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,014,000 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘000).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims read upon the claimed features of the reference patent/application as follows: instant claim 16 is found in at least claim 16 of Nagel ‘057 in view of claim 8 of Nagel ‘000 (with analysis similar to that found above for “10,014,000”).
The remaining instant claims 17-28 are similarly not patentably distinct from the claims 16-22 of Nagel ‘057 in view of claims 1-8 of Nagel ‘000.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
18/798,128
Claims 16-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-20 of co-pending U.S. Patent Application 18/798,128 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘128) in view of claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,014,000 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘000).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims read upon the claimed features of the reference patent/application as follows: instant claim 16 is found in at least claim 16 of Nagel ‘128 in view of claim 8 of Nagel ‘000 (with analysis similar to that found above for “10,014,000”).
The remaining instant claims 17-28 are similarly not patentably distinct from the claims 16-20 of Nagel ‘128 in view of claims 1-8 of Nagel ‘000.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
18/798,194
Claims 16-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-22 of co-pending U.S. Patent Application 18/798,194 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘194) in view of claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,014,000 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘000).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims read upon the claimed features of the reference patent/application as follows: instant claim 16 is found in at least claim 16 of Nagel ‘194 in view of claim 8 of Nagel ‘000 (with analysis similar to that found above for “10,014,000”).
The remaining instant claims 17-28 are similarly not patentably distinct from the claims 16-22 of Nagel ‘194 in view of claims 1-8 of Nagel ‘000.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
18/798,242
Claims 16-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-22 of co-pending U.S. Patent Application 18/798,242 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘242) in view of claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,014,000 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘000).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims read upon the claimed features of the reference patent/application as follows: instant claim 16 is found in at least claim 16 of Nagel ‘242 in view of claim 8 of Nagel ‘000 (with analysis similar to that found above for “10,014,000”).
The remaining instant claims 17-28 are similarly not patentably distinct from the claims 16-22 of Nagel ‘242 in view of claims 1-8 of Nagel ‘000.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
18/798,399
Claims 16-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-22 of co-pending U.S. Patent Application 18/798,399 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘399) in view of claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,014,000 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘000).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims read upon the claimed features of the reference patent/application as follows: instant claim 16 is found in at least claim 16 of Nagel ‘399 in view of claim 8 of Nagel ‘000 (with analysis similar to that found above for “10,014,000”).
The remaining instant claims 17-28 are similarly not patentably distinct from the claims 16-22 of Nagel ‘399 in view of claims 1-8 of Nagel ‘000.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
18/798,479
Claims 16-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-22 of co-pending U.S. Patent Application 18/798,479 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘479) in view claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,014,000 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘000).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims read upon the claimed features of the reference patent/application as follows: instant claim 16 is found in at least claim 16 of Nagel ‘479 in view of claim 8 of Nagel ‘000 (with analysis similar to that found above for “10,014,000”).
The remaining instant claims 17-28 are similarly not patentably distinct from the claims 16-22 of Nagel ‘479 in view of claims 1-8 of Nagel ‘000.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
18/798,516
Claims 16-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-21 of co-pending U.S. Patent Application 18/798,516 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘516) in view of claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,014,000 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘000).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims read upon the claimed features of the reference patent/application as follows: instant claim 16 is found in at least claim 16 of Nagel ‘516 in view of claim 8 of Nagel ‘000 (with analysis similar to that found above for “10,014,000”).
The remaining instant claims 17-28 are similarly not patentably distinct from the claims 16-21 of Nagel ‘516 in view of claims 1-8 of Nagel ‘000.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
18/798,555
Claims 16-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-22 of co-pending U.S. Patent Application 18/798,555 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘555) in view of claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 10,014,000 to Nagel et al. (herein Nagel ‘000).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims read upon the claimed features of the reference patent/application as follows: instant claim 16 is found in at least claim 16 of Nagel ‘555 in view of claim 8 of Nagel ‘000 (with analysis similar to that found above for “10,014,000”).
The remaining instant claims 17-28 are similarly not patentably distinct from the claims 16-22 of Nagel ‘555 in view of claims 1-8 of Nagel ‘000.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach or reasonably suggest the combined limitations of the independent claims.
For example, the prior art of record does not show the combined limitations of claim 16 to an audio signal synthesizer for generating a synthesis audio signal comprising a first frequency band and a second synthesized frequency band derived from the first frequency band, comprising: a patch generator for performing at least two different patching algorithms, wherein each patching algorithm generates a raw signal comprising signal components in the second synthesized frequency band using an audio signal comprising signal components in the first frequency band, and wherein the patch generator is adapted to select one of the at least two different patching algorithms in response to a control information for a first time portion and another of the at least two different patching algorithms in response to the control information for a second time portion different from the first time portion to acquire the raw signal for the first and the second time portion; a spectral converter for converting the raw signal into a raw signal spectral representation; a raw signal processor for processing the raw signal spectral representation in response to spectral domain spectral band replication parameters to acquire an adjusted raw signal spectral representation; and a combiner for combining the audio signal comprising signal components in the first band or a signal derived from the audio signal with the adjusted raw signal spectral representation or with a further signal derived from the adjusted raw signal spectral representation to acquire the synthesis audio signal, in which the patch generator is adapted so that the at least two different patching algorithms comprise a spectrally-spreading patching algorithm.
Further, the prior art of record does not show the combined limitations of claim 26 to a method for generating a data stream comprising components of an audio signal in a first frequency band, control information and spectral band replication parameters, comprising: frequency selective filtering the audio signal to generate the components of the audio signal in the first frequency band; generating the spectral band replication parameter from the components of the audio signal in a second frequency band; generating the control information identifying a patching algorithm from a first or a second different patching algorithm, wherein each patching algorithm generates a raw signal comprising signal components in the second replicated frequency band using the components of the audio signal in the first frequency band.
The remaining claims have allowable subject matter for similar reasons as to claims 16 and 26.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM H WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-3736. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, Alexander Kosowski can be reached at (571)272-3744. 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.
/William H. Wood/
Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/RACHNA S DESAI/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
/ALEXANDER J KOSOWSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights