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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12170882 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they an obvious broader wording variation of the patented claim language, as mapped in the table below.
Application 18/981955
US Pat. No. 12170882 B2
Claim 1
See Claim: 1
Claim 2
See Claim: 12
Claim 3
See Claim: 17
Claim 4
See Claim: 17
Claim 5
See Claim: 17
Claim 6
See Claim: 18
Claim 7
See Claim: 1
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
signal decomposer in claim 1;
signal combiner in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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)(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) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grosche et al (US 20160249151 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Grosche discloses an apparatus for processing an input audio signal (fig.6 #602a,602b) comprising a multi-channel audio signal, the apparatus comprising:
a signal decomposer (fig.6 #601) for deriving, based on the input audio signal, a first signal component (fig.6 #606a) comprising a multi-channel audio signal that represents a focus portion of a spatial audio image conveyed by the input audio signal and a second signal component (fig.6 #606) comprising a multi-channel audio signal that represents a non-focus portion of the spatial audio image (Par.[0098] converter #601 derives a mid-signal #606a component related to a focus portion of the multi-channel signal and left and right side signals SL, SR #606 related to non-focus portion of the multi-channel signal);
a stereo widening processor (fig.6 #609) for processing the second signal component into a modified second signal component wherein the width of the spatial audio image is extended from that of the second signal component (Par.[0025-0026][0099-0101] crosstalk cancellation #609 provides a stereo widening of the surround signal SL,SR); and
a signal combiner (fig.6 #611,613) for combining the first signal component and the modified second signal component into an output audio signal comprising a multi-channel audio signal that represents partially extended spatial audio image (Par.[0098] signal combiners #611,613 combine the modified surround left and right signal with the mid signal to generate output right and left channel signals).
With respect to claim 2, Grosche discloses an apparatus for processing an input audio signal comprising a multi-channel audio signal, the apparatus comprising at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, which when executed by the at least one processor (Par.[0124]), causes the apparatus to:
derive, based on the input audio signal, a first signal component comprising a multi-channel audio signal that represents a focus portion of a spatial audio image conveyed by the input audio signal and a second signal component comprising a multi-channel audio signal that represents a non-focus portion of the spatial audio image (Par.[0098] converter #601 derives a mid-signal #606a component related to a focus portion of the multi-channel signal and left and right side signals SL, SR #606 related to non-focus portion of the multi-channel signal);
process the second signal component into a modified second signal component wherein the width of the spatial audio image is extended from that of the second signal component (Par.[0025-0026][0099-0101] crosstalk cancellation #609 provides a stereo widening of the surround signal SL,SR); and
combine the first signal component and the modified second signal component into an output audio signal comprising a multi-channel audio signal that represents partially extended spatial audio image (Par.[0098] signal combiners #611,613 combine the modified surround left and right signal with the mid signal to generate output right and left channel signals).
With respect to claim 3, Grosche discloses a method for processing an input audio signal comprising a multi-channel audio signal, the method comprising:
deriving, based on the input audio signal, a first signal component comprising a multi-channel audio signal that represents a focus portion of a spatial audio image conveyed by the input audio signal and a second signal component comprising a multi-channel audio signal that represents a non-focus portion of the spatial audio image (Par.[0098] converter #601 derives a mid-signal #606a component related to a focus portion of the multi-channel signal and left and right side signals SL, SR #606 related to non-focus portion of the multi-channel signal);
processing the second signal component into a modified second signal component wherein the width of the spatial audio image is extended from that of the second signal component (Par.[0025-0026][0099-0101] crosstalk cancellation #609 provides a stereo widening of the surround signal SL,SR); and
combining the first signal component and the modified second signal component into an output audio signal comprising a multi-channel audio signal that represents partially extended spatial audio image (Par.[0098] signal combiners #611,613 combine the modified surround left and right signal with the mid signal to generate output right and left channel signals).
With respect to claim 7, Grosche discloses a computer readable non-transitory medium having a computer program stored thereon that comprises computer readable program code configured to cause performing of the method of claim 3 when said program code is run on a computing apparatus (Par.[0124]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and upon filing a Terminal Disclaimer.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Potard (US 20110194712 A1) discloses stereophonic widening.
Warner et al (US 20190306626 A1) discloses a center protection dynamic range control.
Kim (US 20050271213 A1) discloses an apparatus for reproducing wide stereo sounds.
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