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 14, 16, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10482868. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 10 and 2 of US 10482868 include and anticipate all recited limitations in claims 14, 16, and 18 of the instant application.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 10891932. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 2 and 11 of US 10891932 include and anticipate all recited limitations in claims 1 and 18 of the instant application.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11538451. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of US 11538451 includes and anticipates all recited limitations in claims 1 and 3 of the instant application.
Claims 1, 3, 14, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 12, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 11817076. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 3, 12, and 18 of US 11817076 include and anticipate all recited limitations in claims 1, 3, 14, and 18 of the instant application.
Claims 1, 3, 14, 16, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 11, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12236932. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 3, 11, and 17 of US 12236932 include and anticipate all recited limitations in claims 1, 3, 14, 16, and 18 of the instant application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 18: the recited prior art of record individually and any combination fails to teach a specific method carried out by a playback device including: determining a reference signal from the received source audio content that comprises a set of signal components; receiving, via one or more microphones, captured audio content comprising a first portion corresponding to the first channel of the source audio content output by the one or more first transducers, a second portion corresponding to the second channel of the source audio content output by the one or more second transducers, and a third portion corresponding to voice input; and based on the set of signal components, configuring a filter for an acoustic echo cancellation to be applied to the captured audio content.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 14: these claims recite the corresponding playback device and non-transitory computer-readable medium that performing the method of claim 18 and are allowed under the same reasons that applied to claim 18.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID L TON whose telephone number is (571)270-7839. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM (EST).
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.
/DAVID L TON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights