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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12154577. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application and patent claim 1 claim the same system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Bayer (US 20180322884 A1).
As per claim 1, Bayer discloses a method for encoding an audio signal, the method comprising:
obtaining a signal-to-noise ratio of a current frame (para 22, the snr characteristic);
determining whether the signal-to-noise ratio meets one of a plurality of preset conditions (whether it exceeds the variable threshold per para 22);
adjusting, in response to determining that the signal-to-noise ratio meets one of the preset conditions (determining the ITD which is used to adjust the encoder, based on determining the SNR per para 22 meeting the variable threshold/peak being greater than threshold per para 21),
adjusting a frame count to obtain an adjusted frame count (the determined time lag between the detected peak crossing the variable threshold, as read by a digital processor is a set of frames and or clock cycles by which the processor recognizes the cited lag) ;
determining, based on the adjusted frame count, whether to use a previous inter-channel time difference (ITD) value of a previous frame of the current frame as a current ITD value of the current frame (the new ITD is not determined until the lag/adjusted frame count is determined, as such the previous ITD remains the current ITD until a new current ITD is determined) ;
encoding, in response to determining that to use the previous ITD value as the current ITD value, encoding the current frame based on the previous ITD value to obtain a bitstream (the previous/current ITD is used to encode the current frame per fig. 1);
and storing or transmitting the bitstream (the output 50 is either stored or transmitted).
As per claim 2, the clocks or cycles/means to communicate the cited lag time within the digital processor are incremented frame counts, where the previous ITD is used until the new ITD is determined, after the lag time. Detecting a lag time by the processor comprises comparing clock cycles/incremented counts to a maximum/final count until it reaches the designated quantity indicating the lag time, the maximum quantity based on the detected peaks, where the processor must count via clock cycles to determine the lag time as cited above).
As per claim 3, The method of claim 2,further comprises: wherein determining whether to use the previous ITD value as the current ITD value further comprises
determining whether to use the previous ITD value as the current ITD value when the signal-to-noise ratio satisfies a preset signal-to-noise ratio condition; and
the current frame count value is not greater than the maximum quantity . (per the claim 1 and 2 rejections).
As per claim 4, it is rejected per the process per the claim 1 and 2 rejections, noting the digital system of claim 1 requires the memory and software to be implemented as cited above.
As per claim 5, it is rejected as per the claim 2 rejection.
As per claim 6, The encoder of claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the at least one processor configured to execute the programming instructions to cause the encoder further to: determineto further determine to use the previous ITD value as the current ITD value whether when the signal-to-noise ratio satisfies a preset signal-to-noise ratio condition; and the current frame count value is not greater than the maximum quantity.(as per claim 3 rejection).
As per claim 7, it is rejected per the claim 1 and 2 rejections.
As per claim 8, rejected per the claim 2 rejection.
As per claim 9, rejected per the claim 2 rejection.
As per claims 10-13,16-19, the system can operate in narrowband/subband per para 115, which comprises determining the processing steps cited above for each subband/segmental, where each subband additionally requires a modification/filtering into the frequency/subband/segmental domain for each subband which then repeats an analogous process to that described in the claim 1 and 2 rejections.
As per claim 14, the computer program product of claim 7, wherein the signal-to-noise ratio comprises a full-band signal-to-noise ratio (per para 115 via the broadband processing described).
As per claim 15, The computer program product of claim 7, wherein the signal-to-noise ratio comprises a modified full-band signal-to-noise ratio (the SNR cited per the claim 1 rejection is modified per the processing cited above, noting it must be modified via clock synchronization per each processing step in order to function within a digital processor).
As per claim 20, obtaining a multi-channel signal of the current frame, wherein the multi-channel signal includes a first-channel signal and a second-channel signal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER KRZYSTAN whose telephone number is 571-272-7498, and whose email address is alexander.krzystan@uspto.gov
The examiner can usually be reached on m-f 7:30-4:00 est.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fan Tsang can be reached on (571) 272-7547.
The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-8300 for After Final communications.
/ALEXANDER KRZYSTAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2653
Examiner Alexander Krzystan
June 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights