DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 12/26/2024:
Claims 1-16 are pending
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 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-28 of U.S. Patent No. 10236008. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example:
Regarding claim 1, 10236008 teaches decoder for decoding an encoded audio signal (claim 1, Audio decoder for decoding an encoded audio signal), the decoder comprising:
an adaptive spectrum-time converter for converting successive blocks of spectral values into successive blocks of time values (claim 1, an adaptive spectrum-time converter for converting successive blocks of spectral values into successive blocks of time values); and
an overlap-add-processor for overlapping and adding the successive blocks of time values to acquire decoded audio values (claim 1, an overlap-add-processor for overlapping and adding successive blocks of time values to acquire decoded audio values),
wherein the adaptive spectrum-time converter is configured to receive a control information and to change, in response to the control information, between transform kernels (claim 1, wherein the adaptive spectrum-time converter is configured to receive a control information and to switch, in response to the control information), wherein
an inverse MDCT-IV transform kernel is followed by an inverse MDCT-IV transform kernel, or
an inverse MDCT-IV transform kernel is followed by an inverse MDST-II transform kernel, or
an inverse MDST-IV transform kernel is followed by an inverse MDST-IV transform kernel, or
an inverse MDST-IV transform kernel is followed by an inverse MDCT-II transform kernel, or
an inverse MDCT-II transform kernel is followed by an inverse MDCT-IV transform kernel, or
an inverse MDCT-II transform kernel is followed by an inverse MDST-II transform kernel, or
an inverse MDST-II transform kernel is followed by an inverse MDST-IV transform kernel, or
an inverse MDST-II transform kernel is followed by an inverse MDCT-II transform kernel (claim 1, between transform kernels of a first group of transform kernels comprising one or more transform kernels comprising different symmetries at sides of a kernel, and a second group of transform kernels comprising one or more transform kernels comprising the same symmetries at sides of a transform kernel; claim 3, wherein the first group of transform kernels comprises an inverse MDCT-IV transform kernel or an inverse MDST-IV transform kernel, and wherein the second group of transform kernels comprises an inverse MDCT-II transform kernel or an inverse MDST-II transform kernel).
The remaining independent and/or dependent claims are similarly rejected using one or more claims of the patent (whether alone or in combination).
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-32 of U.S. Patent No. 10706864. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. See above as an example rejection.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent No. 11335354. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. See above as an example rejection.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 11854559. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. See above as an example rejection.
Claims 1-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12230286. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. See above as an example rejection.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowable upon overcoming the above rejection(s).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: regarding claims 1 and 15-16, the prior art or combination thereof fails to disclose and make obvious the invention as a whole. An expanded reasons for allowance can be found in parent application 15/696,934 and therefore will not be copied here.
The respective dependent claims are also allowable as they depend upon an allowable parent claim.
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. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIN ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1304. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri: 7:30AM-5:00PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen can be reached on (571)272-7503. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QIN ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights