DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the filing of a Preliminary Amendment in the Continuation (CON) of Application 16/772866 which is now United States Patent 12,346,754; hereinafter referred to as Patent (‘754). Claims 16-35, as presently amended, are pending and have been considered as follows.
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 16-35 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-3, 5, 6 and 9-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,346,754; hereinafter referred to as Patent (‘754). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 16 of the instant application mirrors Claim 1 of Patent (‘754) with the exception of the following: The steps of receiving multiple votes from the participants in the conference; identifying the source terminal, from the received multiple votes, by determining that the source terminal received at least a number of votes from among the participants where the at least the number of votes exceeds a predetermined threshold; and based on identifying the source terminal, automatically initiating an action to mute the source terminal recited the instant application is recited as receiving votes from at least some of the participants in the conference; identifying the source terminal, from the received votes, by determining that the source terminal received highest number of votes from among the plurality of terminals; determining whether a number of the received votes associated with the source terminal exceeds a predetermined threshold; based on the determination that the number of the received votes associated with the source terminal exceeds the predetermined threshold, automatically initiating an action to mute the source terminal in Claim 1 of Patent (‘754).
Claim 17 of the instant application mirrors Claim 2 of Patent (’754).
Claim 18 of the instant application mirrors Claim 3 of Patent (’754).
Claim 19 of the instant application mirrors Claim 5 of Patent (’754).
Claim 20 of the instant application mirrors Claim 6 of Patent (’754).
Claim 21 of the instant application mirrors Claim 9 of Patent (’754).
Claim 22 of the instant application mirrors Claim 10 of Patent (’754).
Claim 23 of the instant application mirrors Claim 11 of Patent (’754).
Claim 24 of the instant application mirrors Claim 12 of Patent (’754).
Claim 25 of the instant application mirrors Claim 13 of Patent (’754).
Claim 26 of the instant application is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions for reducing noise in a workspace according to the method of Claim 16. Although Patent (‘754) does not recite a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions the storage of the method on a non-transitory computer readable medium is found to not be patentably distinct.
Claims 27-35 of the instant application mirrors Claims 17-25 of the instant application except Claims 27-35 are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions; and Claims 17-25 are directed to the method which is stored on the non-transitory computer readable medium recited in Claim 26.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-35 are found to contain allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hepworth et al (2010/0080374 A1), Chitre et al (2019/0068389 A1), Yoo et al (2019/0013955 A1), SKOGLUND et al (2015/0279386 A1), Bentley et al (2013/0329863 A1), Ouyang et al (2016/0142451 A1), BASTIDE et al (2019/0104280 A1), Guilfoyle (8,675,853 B1) and Tinsman (2018/0048767 A1). Each of these describes systems and methods of implementing noise cancellation within a conference call environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHARYE POPE whose telephone number is (571)270-5587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM - 4PM.
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.
KHARYE POPE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2693
/KHARYE POPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights