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 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12218643 B2 as mapped in the Table below. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are an obvious broader version of the patented claim language. It is obvious that the claimed original impulse responses of U.S. Patent No. 12218643 B2 correspond to an original filter as provided in the present application.
Application 18/965763
US Pat No. 12218643
Claim 1
See Claim 1
Claim 2
See Claim 1
Claim 3
See Claim 1
Claim 4
See Claim 2
Claim 5
See Claim 3
Claim 6
See Claim 4
Claim 7
See Claim 5
Claim 8
See Claim 6
Claim 9
See Claim 7
Claim 10
See Claim 8
Claim 11
See Claim 9
Claim 12
See Claim 11
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claims 1 and 12, the closest prior art such as Strauss et al (US 20110103620 A1) teaches the general concept of a method of audio processing, the method comprising: generating a plurality of modified impulse responses from a plurality of original impulse responses, wherein the plurality of original impulse responses respectively correspond to a plurality of frequencies, wherein generating the plurality of modified impulse responses includes performing a fade operation and a time reverse operation on at least one of the plurality of original impulse responses; filtering an input signal with the plurality of modified impulse responses to generate an output signal (Par.[0051-0054][0062-0063][0070-0071][0080]).
However, none of the closest prior art of record, alone or in combination, teaches:
“wherein generating the plurality of modified impulse responses includes generating each modified impulse response for a corresponding original filter based on one or more of an impulse response of the corresponding original filter, a pre-ripple response of the corresponding original filter, and a post-ripple response of the corresponding original filter” in combination with the rest of the limitations as recited in independent claims 1 and 12.
Other prior art has been cited herein regarding reducing group delays in filter banks by modifying impulse responses of the filters, however the other prior art of record also fails to teach or provide suggestion to arrive the combination of the elements and steps presented in the independent claims, again when said elements or steps are collectively considered in regards to each claim. For at least the reasons listed above, dependent claims 2-11 are also allowed in view of their respective dependencies upon the independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Melanson et al (US 20200389727 A1) discloses a low-latency audio output with variable group delay.
Ekstrand (US 9449608 B2) discloses a low delay modulated filter bank.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON R KURR whose telephone number is (571)270-5981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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.
JASON R. KURR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2695
/JASON R KURR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights