DETAILED ACTION
Summary
This office action for US Patent application 18/817451 is responsive to communications filed on August 28th, 2024. Currently, claim 1 are pending are presented for examination.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 24 of copending Application No 18/008992. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is merely in the terminology used in both sets of claims.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. Below is a list of limitations that perform the same function. However different terminology is used in both sets to describe the limitations.
Conflicting Co-pending Application 18/008992
Instant Application-18/817451-Note* bold means difference in the instant application
24. A method of decoding an input data signal representing successive data items, the method comprising: storing history data for decoded data items, the history data indicating one or more aspects of decoding the decoded data items; decoding a given data item by a first decoding technique, the first decoding technique comprising decoding a series of zero or more data sets, each data set representing a respective range of values of the data items and selecting the series of data sets from a plurality of candidate data sets in dependence upon (i) a number of previously decoded data sets; and (ii) the history data applicable to a given property of the given data item; and decoding, by circuitry, any remaining value of the given data item, the remaining value being an amount by which the given data item exceeds a maximum value which can be decoded by the first decoding technique, by a second decoding technique different to the first decoding technique.
1. A method of encoding successive data items, the method comprising: storing history data for encoded data items, the history data indicating one or more aspects of encoding the encoded data items; encoding a given data item by a first encoding technique, the first encoding technique comprising encoding a series of zero or more data sets, each data set representing a respective range of values of the data items and selecting the series of data sets from a plurality of candidate data sets in dependence upon (i) a number of previously encoded data sets; and (ii) the history data applicable to a given property of the given data item; and encoding any remaining value of the given data item, the remaining value being an amount by which the given data item exceeds a maximum value which can be encoded by the first encoding technique, by a second encoding technique different to the first encoding technique.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 is generic to all that is recited in claim 24 respectively of co-pending application. That is, claim 1 is/are anticipated by claim 24 respectively of co-pending application.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 24 respectively of copending Application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting. However, these claims would be allowable if the obvious-type double patenting is overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications form the examiner should be directed to Nam Pham, whose can be contacted by phone at (571)270-7352. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon—Thurs.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, CZEKAJ DAVID, can be reached on (571)272-7327.
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 (too 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.
/NAM D PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487