CTNF 18/930,943 CTNF 64668 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements filed 12/17/25, 11/10/25, 10/16/25 and 9/25/25 have been considered. Drawings The drawings filed 10/29/24 are acceptable to the examiner. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 19 using the term “the plural microphones” which is not consistent with the language “at least one microphone” previously set forth in claim 18 . Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/930,917 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of each is directed to an apparatus including a speaker, first and second wireless radios, processing circuitry, mixing, splitting, playing and the use of the signals from a microphone to execute stereo echo cancellation on signals from the microphone. The limitations of claims 2-13 of the application are found in claims 2-13 of copending application N0. 18/930,917. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. It is noted that the claims in application 18/930,917 have been allowed however a patent number has not been issued for this application. When issued the provisional double patenting rejection will be replaced with a nonstatutory double patenting rejection. 08-35 Claim 15, 16, 17,18, 19 and 20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 6-8, 6/1, 1, 11 and 12/1 of copending Application No. 18/930,917 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because : other than minor obvious wording variations describing similar features each of claim 15 of the present application and claim 1 of reference application set forth an apparatus including a speaker, first and second wireless signals representing stereo audio, circuitry to mix, split and play low and high bands to a tweeter and a woofer of the speaker and to provide echo cancellation on signals from at least on microphone. The limitations of claim 16 are present in claims 6-8 of the reference application. The limitations of claim 17 are found in claim 6/1 of the reference application. The limitations of claim 18 are found in claim 1 of the reference application. The limitations of claim 19 are found in claim 11 of the reference application. The limitations of claim 20 are found in claim 12/1 of the reference application . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokota (US 2008/0292121 A1), cited by applicant in view of Ayrapetian et al. (US 9,918,163 B1), cited by applicant Re claim 14: Yokota teaches a method, comprising: wirelessly receiving (See discussion of radio transmission, paragraph [0154], at first and second speaker assemblies(within headrests (921, 911), signals representing left and right audio channels (see discussion in paragraphs [0147-0150] from each of first and second sources (8, 2); using the signals, simultaneously playing, on both speaker assemblies, at least two of: music, computer game audio, computer chat audio, and speech picked up by at least one speaker microphone (types of audio from a CD player and a DVD player), satisfying the alternatively worded limitation. Yokota however does not teach as alternatively set forth beamforming, and/or echo cancellation and/or noise reduction on signals from the at least one speaker microphone. Ayrapetian et al. teaches in a similar environment to implement echo cancellation circuitry into audio arrangement to provide a clearer desired signal free from echoes. See figure 1A satisfying the alternatively claimed language as set forth. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate the teaching of echo cancellation circuitry of Ayrapetian et al. into the arrangement of Yokota to predictably provide a way to achieve a clearer desired signal free from echoes. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-12 and 15-20 are allowed over the art of record however the double patenting rejections must be overcome. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Yokota considered art close to the claimed invention teaches providing audio from two audio sources ((8, 2) which is then processed by circuitry (4) o provide audio in channels to at least one speaker (provided in head rests (921, 911). This reference however does not teach or obviously suggest to mixing the first and second channels of each stereo audio from the first and second sources into a local channel and a remote channel; splitting the local channel into a high band and a low band; playing the high band on a tweeter of the first audio speaker; playing the low band on a woofer of the first audio speaker; and implementing, on signals from at least one microphone on the first speaker, one or more of A, B, C, wherein: A equals executing stereo echo cancelation on signals from the at least one microphone; B equals implement beamforming on signals from plural microphones on the first speaker; and C equals implement noise cancelation on the signals from the at least one microphone as set forth in claim 1 or to mixing the first and second channels of each stereo audio from the first and second sources into a local channel and a remote channel; splitting the local channel into a high band and a low band; playing the high band on a tweeter of the first audio speaker; playing the low band on a woofer of the first audio speaker; and implementing, on signals from at least one microphone on the first speaker, one or more of A, B, C, wherein: A equals executing stereo echo cancelation on signals from the at least one microphone; B equals implement beamforming on signals from plural microphones on the first speaker; and C equals implement noise cancelation on the signals from the at least one microphone as set forth in claim 15. The limitations of claims 2-13 and 16-20 depend upon those features of claims1 and 15 respectively . Conclusion Examiner has reviewed related publications 2026/0120703, and 2026/122419 having the same assignee as the present application and containing similar subject matter as set forth in the present application. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM EST. 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 571-272-7488. 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. /ANDREW SNIEZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 /A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 6/15/26 Application/Control Number: 18/930,943 Page 2 Art Unit: 2693 Application/Control Number: 18/930,943 Page 3 Art Unit: 2693 Application/Control Number: 18/930,943 Page 4 Art Unit: 2693 Application/Control Number: 18/930,943 Page 5 Art Unit: 2693 Application/Control Number: 18/930,943 Page 6 Art Unit: 2693 Application/Control Number: 18/930,943 Page 7 Art Unit: 2693 Application/Control Number: 18/930,943 Page 8 Art Unit: 2693 Application/Control Number: 18/930,943 Page 9 Art Unit: 2693
Prosecution Insights