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 .
1. This is in response to CON application filed 11/21/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Double Patenting
3. 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).
Claims 1-20 of the instant application are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 in related patent 11,776,555 wherein the claims in the pending application are worded differently than what had been previously described in different detail in the claims of the one in the patented case, In re Van Ornum and Stang, 214 USPQT61. Thus, pending claims 1-20 of the instant application are rejected under obviousness type double patenting over previously patented claims 1-19 (PAT # 11,776,555). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention in the instant application is fully disclosed in patent number 11,776,555 and it just claimed differently than the claimed invention in the patent.
For example, independent claims 1, 6 and 14 in the instant application recite:
“a display;
a camera configured to capture images of a user interacting with the display;
and
a first microphone;
wherein the computing device is configured to:
detect a source of a target noise within a first audio signal relayed to the computing device from a second microphone of a smart speaker positioned external to and separate from the computing device;
receive a second audio signal produced by the first microphone, the second audio signal including a representation of the target noise within the first audio signal from the second microphone; and
modify the second audio signal to reduce the representation of the target noise in the second audio signal”.
On the other hand, independent claims 1, 8 and 14 in the patented application recite:
“a computing device including:
a processor;
a memory device; and
a first microphone;
an electronic device in wireless electronic communication with the computing device, positioned external to and separate from the computing device, and including a second microphone;
wherein the memory device includes electronic instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by the processor, cause the computing device to:
detect a source of a target noise within a first audio signal relayed to the computing device from the second microphone of the electronic device;
receive a second audio signal produced by the first microphone of the computing device, the second audio signal including a representation of the target noise within the first audio signal from the second microphone of the electronic device; and
modify the second audio signal to reduce the representation of the target noise in the second audio signal”.
Dependent 2-5, 7-13 and 15-20 claims of the instant application are rejected for the same reasons addressed in dependent claims 2-3, 5-7, 9-13, 15-20 of the patented case.
Again, claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,776,555. The conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention in the instant application is fully disclosed in patent numbers 11,776,555. No new invention or new improvement is being claimed in the instant application.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-20 are allowed.
Note that independent claims 1, 6 and 14 recite:
“a display;
a camera configured to capture images of a user interacting with the display;
and
a first microphone;
wherein the computing device is configured to:
detect a source of a target noise within a first audio signal relayed to the computing device from a second microphone of a smart speaker positioned external to and separate from the computing device;
receive a second audio signal produced by the first microphone, the second audio signal including a representation of the target noise within the first audio signal from the second microphone; and
modify the second audio signal to reduce the representation of the target noise in the second audio signal”.
The features in independent claims 1, 6 and 14 that recite “detect a source of a target noise within a first audio signal relayed to the computing device from a second microphone of a smart speaker positioned external to and separate from the computing device; receive a second audio signal produced by the first microphone, the second audio signal including a representation of the target noise within the first audio signal from the second microphone; and modify the second audio signal to reduce the representation of the target noise in the second audio signal” are neither taught or made fairly obvious or prior art or record as presented in parent case 17/222,717.
Note that the claimed allowed over prior arts of records (i.e., Yang et al. US PAT# 9,286,907 and Thyssen Pub.No.: 2014/0286497, that are submitted by Applicant in the instant application as part of IDS on 11/21/2024) and applicant’s remarks/amendment filed 02/22/2023 in parent application (PAT 11,776,555).
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rasha S. AL-Aubaidi whose telephone number is (571) 272-7481. The examiner
can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ahmad Matar, can be reached on (571) 272-7488.
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 (toll-free).
/RASHA S AL AUBAIDI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights