Double Patenting
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.
Claim (ss) 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over claim(s) 1-20 are of U.S. Patent No. (12, 101, 599), since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the “right to exclude” already granted in the patent.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows:
The instant claim(s) are merely a broader variation of the patented claim(s) language and thus as standing would have been anticipated by the prior patent as presented.
Furthermore, there is no apparent reason why applicant was prevented from presenting claims corresponding to those of the instant application during prosecution of the application which matured into a patent. See In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968). See also MPEP § 804.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3-7, 10, 13-17, 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and overcoming the double patent rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amengual Gari et al. (US 10,616, 706 B1) and Ryu et al. (US 11,557, 291 B2).
Claim 1, Amengual Gari et al. disclose of a computer-implemented method, the method comprising: generating, by a device having a first microphone and a second microphone, first audio data including a representation of an audible sound generated by a sound source (fig.1 (120); col.6 line 10-35); performing acoustic decomposition using the first audio data to determine complex amplitude data associated with a plurality of acoustic waves (col.6 line 65-col.7 line 15; col.10 line 15-40); determining, using the complex amplitude data, a first value indicating a first likelihood that a first acoustic wave, from among the plurality of acoustic waves, has a shortest time delay between the sound source and the device (col.10 line 50-65; col.14 line 20-35/the timing of the direct signal path among diffused and indirect signal and inherently the shortest time delay can be determined); determining, using the complex amplitude data, a second value indicating a second likelihood that the first acoustic wave has an energy value of the plurality of acoustic waves (col.14 line 20-35).
Nonetheless, the prior art never specify of determining the highest energy value of the acoustic wave. However, the art as in disclose of the similar parameter associated for determining the highest energy value of the acoustic wave (col.19 line 25-32). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such concept related determining the highest energy value of the acoustic wave. However, the art as in disclose of the similar parameter associated for determining the highest energy value of the acoustic wave so as to select the dominant signal and best quality signal among the various received signals.
Thus, as combined the prior art would have disclose of the concept of determining, using the first value and the second value, direction data associated with the sound source (Am-col.11 line 15-25 & col.14 line 20-35/the amplitude and timing associated with direct signal may be chosen for determining the direction).
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining acoustic characteristics data of the device (Am-col.6 line 65-col.7 lien 15; col.9 line 30-67); and determining a subset of the acoustic characteristics data that corresponds to a subset of the plurality of acoustic waves, wherein the acoustic decomposition uses the subset of the acoustic characteristics data (Am-col.12 line 10-40).
Claim 11, Amengual Gari et al. disclose of a system comprising: at least one processor; and memory including instructions operable to be executed by the at least one processor to cause the system to: generate, by a device having a first microphone and a second microphone, first audio data including a representation of an audible sound generated by a sound source (fig.1 (120); col.6 line 10-35); perform acoustic decomposition using the first audio data to determine complex amplitude data associated with a plurality of acoustic waves (col.6 line 65-col.7 line 15; col.10 line 15-40); determine, using the complex amplitude data, a first value indicating a first likelihood that a first acoustic wave, from among the plurality of acoustic waves, has a shortest time delay between the sound source and the device (col.10 line 50-65; col.14 line 20-35/the timing of the direct signal path among diffused and indirect signal and inherently the shortest time delay can be determined); determine, using the complex amplitude data, a second value indicating a second likelihood that the first acoustic wave has a general energy value of the plurality of acoustic waves (col.14 line 20-35),
Nonetheless, the prior art never specify of determining the highest energy value of the acoustic wave. However, the art as in disclose of the similar parameter associated for determining the highest energy value of the acoustic wave (col.19 line 25-32). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such concept related determining the highest energy value of the acoustic wave. However, the art as in disclose of the similar parameter associated for determining the highest energy value of the acoustic wave so as to select the dominant signal and best quality signal among the various received signals.
The prior art further mentioned such concept related a determine, using the first value and the second value, direction data associated with the sound source (Am-col.11 line 15-25 & col.14 line 20-35/the amplitude and timing associated with direct signal may be chosen for determining the direction).
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the memory further comprises instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the system to: determine acoustic characteristics data of the device; and determine a subset of the acoustic characteristics data that corresponds to a subset of the plurality of acoustic waves, wherein acoustic decomposition uses using the subset of the acoustic characteristics data (Am-col.12 line 10-40).
.
Claim(s) 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amengual Gari et al. (US 10,616, 706 B1) and Ryu et al. (US 11,557, 291 B2) and Stachura (US 12,010,487 B1).
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, although, the prior art never specify as further comprising: detecting an acoustic event represented in the first audio data; and determining a time duration associated with the acoustic event, wherein the direction data is determined using the time duration.
However, Stachura et al. disclose of a certain method as detecting an acoustic event represented in the first audio data; and determining a time duration associated with the acoustic event, wherein the direction data is determined using the time duration (col.18 line 40-25; col.22 line 40-60). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted aspect related to a detecting an acoustic event represented in the first audio data; and determining a time duration associated with the acoustic event, wherein the direction data is determined using the time duration so as to completely capture localize sound event for processing.
The claim(s) 18 which in substance disclose of the same feature as in claim(s) 8 has been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim(s) 9, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amengual Gari et al. (US 10,616, 706 B1) and Ryu et al. (US 11,557, 291 B2) and Schultz et al. (US 9,612,310 B2).
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, but the prior art never specify as wherein the direction data comprises a first azimuth value.
But, Schultz et al. disclose of the similar aspect related to the direction data comprises a first azimuth value (abstract; col.1 line 55-67). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such concept related to direction data comprises a first azimuth value for providing a spatialized sound associated with certain parameter of the received data.
The claim(s) 19 which in substance disclose of the similar feature as that to claim(s) 9 has been analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DISLER PAUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 M-F.
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, Chin, Vivian can be reached at (571) 272-7848. 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.
/DISLER PAUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights