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 .
Drawings
2. 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 transmission during a fourth time interval of a second set of samples of a second channel stream generated during the first and second time intervals as recited in the claims must be shown in the figures, or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Figure 8 instead appears to show the transmission in the fourth interval of channel portions generated in the second and third time intervals. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (a)
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-20 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 recites “during a third time interval and a fourth time interval, (i) transmit the first set of audio samples of the first audio stream generated during the first time interval and the second time interval, and (ii) transmit the second set of audio samples of the second audio stream generated during the first time interval and the second time interval” in lines 12-15 of the claim. The specification and drawings do not appear to sufficiently enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention, as it does not appear to teach the limitations as claimed. Specifically, the specification appears to teach first and second portions of some channel streams transmitted in the third interval (e.g. S10 and S11, see figure 8) and second and third portions of some channel streams transmitted in the fourth interval (e.g. RL1 and RL2, see figure 8). The specification does not appear to sufficiently describe first and second sets of audio samples generated in the first and second intervals (e.g. S10 and S11 or RL0 and RL1) as being transmitted in the third and fourth intervals.
Independent claims 12 and 20 recite similar limitations and are therefore also considered indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1. Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 are dependent on respective claims 1 and 12, and are therefore further considered indefinite for the same reasons as parent claims 1 and 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 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 1 recites “during a first time interval and a second time interval, generate a plurality of channel streams comprising a first channel stream and a second channel stream” in lines 7-8 of the claim, and “during a third time interval and a fourth time interval, (i) transmit the first set of audio samples of the first audio stream generated during the first time interval and the second time interval, and (ii) transmit the second set of audio samples of the second audio stream generated during the first time interval and the second time interval” in lines 12-15 of the claim. These limitations are indefinite, as it is not clear if the first and second channel streams are both generated in the first and second time intervals, or if the first channel stream is generated in the first time interval and the second channel stream is generated in the second time interval. Similarly, it is not clear if the audio samples in first and second channel streams are both transmitted in the third and fourth time intervals, or if the first channel stream is transmitted in the third interval and the second channel stream is transmitted in the fourth interval.
Independent claims 12 and 20 recite similar limitations and are therefore also considered indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1. Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 are dependent on respective claims 1 and 12, and are therefore further considered indefinite for the same reasons as parent claims 1 and 12.
7. Claims 2 and 13 further limit the first set of audio samples of the first audio stream as being transmitted during the third interval, and the second set of audio samples of the second audio stream being transmitted during the fourth interval, which clarifies at least some aspects of the claimed invention, however the claims remain indefinite regarding the generation of the first and second channel streams, as recited above.
8. Claims 1-20 are considered to be indefinite, as there is significant uncertainty on the proper interpretation of the limitations in the claims. A prior art rejection is therefore not considered proper at this time, as such a rejection would have to be based on mere assumptions and considerable speculation about the scope of the claims. See MPEP 2173.06.
Double Patenting
9. 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.
10. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11765507 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both drawn to devices for generating and transmitting channel stream portions at time intervals.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 of the present application recite a computing device with one or more processors, and one or more interfaces configured for communication with a LAN, as well as a system, and a non-transitory computer-readable media comprising instructions for a computing device, wherein the computing device is configured to generate first and second sets of audio samples of respective first and second channel streams during first and second time intervals, and transmit the first and second sets of audio samples of respective first and second channel streams during third and fourth time intervals.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 of the present application and patented claims 1 and 11 are both generally directed to the staggered generation and transmission of first and second channel stream portions, with the present application further reciting the number of audio samples in the first set being different than the number of audio samples in the second set. The claims of the present application are therefore considered obvious variations of the patented claims, as the patented claims recite generating first and second portions of the first channel stream in the first and second intervals, and generating a first portion of the second channel stream in the second interval. In addition, the limitations in dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 of the present application parallel, or would be obvious variations of, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 of the patent.
11. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11140485 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both drawn to devices for generating and transmitting channel stream portions at time intervals.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 of the present application recite a computing device with one or more processors, and one or more interfaces configured for communication with a LAN, as well as a system, and a non-transitory computer-readable media comprising instructions for a computing device, wherein the computing device is configured to generate first and second sets of audio samples of respective first and second channel streams during first and second time intervals, and transmit the first and second sets of audio samples of respective first and second channel streams during third and fourth time intervals.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 of the present application and patented claims 1 and 11 are both generally directed to the staggered generation and transmission of first and second channel stream portions, with the present application further reciting the number of audio samples in the first set being different than the number of audio samples in the second set. The claims of the present application are therefore considered obvious variations of the patented claims. In addition, the limitations in dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 of the present application parallel, or would be obvious variations of, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 of the patent.
12. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10681463 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are both drawn to devices for generating and transmitting channel stream portions at time intervals.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 of the present application recite a computing device with one or more processors, and one or more interfaces configured for communication with a LAN, as well as a system, and a non-transitory computer-readable media comprising instructions for a computing device, wherein the computing device is configured to generate first and second sets of audio samples of respective first and second channel streams during first and second time intervals, and transmit the first and second sets of audio samples of respective first and second channel streams during third and fourth time intervals.
Claims 1, 12 and 20 of the present application and patented claims 1 and 11 are both generally directed to the staggered generation and transmission of first and second channel stream portions, with the present application further reciting the number of audio samples in the first set being different than the number of audio samples in the second set. The claims of the present application are therefore considered obvious variations of the patented claims. In addition, the limitations in dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 of the present application parallel, or would be obvious variations of, dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 of the patent.
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABRINA DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 5712727488. 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.
/SABRINA DIAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/AHMAD F. MATAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2693