CTNF 18/906,046 CTNF 88844 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-fti AIA The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment dated 10/3/2024, claims 1-8 are currently pending in the application. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-36 AIA Claim s 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12112768 in view of Pang et al. (WO 2007004828 A2) hereinafter Pang (reference is made to page numbers and paragraphs based on the attached PDF version) . Regarding claim 1, claim 1 of the patent teaches all the limitations of the claim except for the limitations wherein the apparatus further comprises analyze the downmixed audio signal to determine a raw dynamic range control (DRC) gain, wherein the raw DRC gain depends on a level of the downmixed audio signal, control a dynamic range of the downmixed audio signal by applying the current smoothed DRC gain to the downmixed audio signal however, Since it is known in the art as evidenced by Pang for an apparatus to further comprise analyze the downmixed audio signal to determine a raw dynamic range control (DRC) gain (“the downmix gain applying unit 1606 applies a downmix gain to a downmix signal 1604. The downmix gain may be uniformly applied to the overall range of the downmix signal 1604. Also, the application of the downmix gain may be executed during a procedure for downmixing a multi-channel audio signal 1601 in the downmixing unit 1602, and thus, generating a downmix signal 1604” in paragraph 2, page12), wherein the raw DRC gain depends on a level of the downmixed audio signal, control a dynamic range of the downmixed audio signal by applying the current smoothed DRC gain to the downmixed audio signal in (“In accordance with the application of the ADG, the waveform of the ADG-applied downmix signal may have an effect similar to an effect exhibited when dynamic range control (DRC) is applied” in paragraph 2, page 12), An ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to modify claim 1 of the patent with the teachings of Pang for the benefit of reducing construction resources, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify claim 1 of the patent with Pang. Regarding claims 2-6, claims 2-6 of the patent as modified by Pang teaches all the limitations of the claims. Regarding claim 7, claim is rejected for being the program storage device comprising at least the same elements and performing at least the same functions performed by the apparatus of rejected claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Regarding claim 8, claim is rejected for being the method comprising at least the same elements and performing at least the same functions performed by the apparatus of rejected claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-8 would be allowed if the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is overcome. Most relevant prior art of record is Eatwell (US 5768473) hereinafter Eatwell in view of Pang et al. (WO 2007004828 A2) hereinafter Pang. Regarding claim 1, Eatwell teaches An audio processing apparatus (“Referred to as “adaptive spectral estimator” in ¶[Abstract] and Fig. 2), comprising: at least one processor ("The method is particularly suited to implementation on a digital signal processor" in Col. 1, Lines 8-9); and at least one memory storing a computer program ("this table requires a large amount of expensive processor memory" in Col. 2, Lines 48-49); Eatwell does not specifically disclose the apparatus further comprising in which the at least one memory with the computer program is configured with the at least one processor to cause the audio processing apparatus to at least: receive a plurality of audio signals ; downmix the plurality of audio signals to generate a downmixed audio signal; analyze the downmixed audio signal to determine a raw dynamic range control (DRC) gain, wherein the raw DRC gain depends on a level of the downmixed audio signal; select a raw DRC gain smoothing factor from a plurality of raw DRC gain smoothing factors in response to a comparison of the raw DRC gain to a previous smoothed DRC gain, wherein the plurality of raw DRC gain smoothing factors corresponds to a plurality of raw DRC gain smoothing time durations; determine a current smoothed DRC gain from the raw DRC gain, the previous smoothed DRC gain, and the selected raw DRC gain smoothing factor; and control a dynamic range of the downmixed audio signal by applying the current smoothed DRC gain to the downmixed audio signal however, Since it is known in the art as evidenced by Pang for an apparatus to further comprise in which the at least one memory with the computer program is configured with the at least one processor to cause the audio processing apparatus to at least: receive a plurality of audio signals; downmix the plurality of audio signals to generate a downmixed audio signal; (“the downmix gain applying unit 1606 applies a downmix gain to a downmix signal 1604. The downmix gain may be uniformly applied to the overall range of the downmix signal 1604. Also, the application of the downmix gain may be executed during a procedure for downmixing a multi-channel audio signal 1601 in the downmixing unit 1602, and thus, generating a downmix signal 1604” in paragraph 2, page12), Eatwell as modified by Pang dope snot specifically disclose the apparatus further comprising analyze the downmixed audio signal to determine a raw dynamic range control (DRC) gain, wherein the raw DRC gain depends on a level of the downmixed audio signal; select a raw DRC gain smoothing factor from a plurality of raw DRC gain smoothing factors in response to a comparison of the raw DRC gain to a previous smoothed DRC gain, wherein the plurality of raw DRC gain smoothing factors corresponds to a plurality of raw DRC gain smoothing time durations; determine a current smoothed DRC gain from the raw DRC gain, the previous smoothed DRC gain, and the selected raw DRC gain smoothing factor; and control a dynamic range of the downmixed audio signal by applying the current smoothed DRC gain to the downmixed audio signal. The following is the reason for would be allowance of claim 1 if the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is overcome: Eatwell alone or in combination with any other prior art of record does not specifically disclose, suggest nor render obvious the limitations wherein the apparatus further comprises analyze the downmixed audio signal to determine a raw dynamic range control (DRC) gain, wherein the raw DRC gain depends on a level of the downmixed audio signal; select a raw DRC gain smoothing factor from a plurality of raw DRC gain smoothing factors in response to a comparison of the raw DRC gain to a previous smoothed DRC gain, wherein the plurality of raw DRC gain smoothing factors corresponds to a plurality of raw DRC gain smoothing time durations; determine a current smoothed DRC gain from the raw DRC gain, the previous smoothed DRC gain, and the selected raw DRC gain smoothing factor; and control a dynamic range of the downmixed audio signal by applying the current smoothed DRC gain to the downmixed audio signal, therefore the claim is allowed for the limitations above in combination with all the other limitations of the claim. Regarding claims 2-6, claims would be allowed for their dependency on would be allowed claim 1 if the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is overcome. Regarding claim 7, claim would be allowed if the nonstatutory double patenting is overcome for being the program storage device comprising at least the same elements and performing at least the same functions performed by the apparatus of would be allowed claim 1 (see reasons for would be allowance of claim 1 above). Regarding claim 8, claim would be allowed if the nonstatutory double patenting is overcome for being the method comprising at least the same elements and performing at least the same functions performed by the apparatus of would be allowed claim 1 (see reasons for would be allowance of claim 1 above). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMMAR T HAMID whose telephone number is (571)272-1953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5, Eastern time. 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, Vivian Chin 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. AMMAR T. HAMID Primary Examiner Art Unit 2695 /AMMAR T HAMID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695 Application/Control Number: 18/906,046 Page 2 Art Unit: 2695 Application/Control Number: 18/906,046 Page 3 Art Unit: 2695 Application/Control Number: 18/906,046 Page 4 Art Unit: 2695 Application/Control Number: 18/906,046 Page 5 Art Unit: 2695 Application/Control Number: 18/906,046 Page 6 Art Unit: 2695 Application/Control Number: 18/906,046 Page 7 Art Unit: 2695
Prosecution Insights