DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-2, 4-5 of U.S. Patent No. (11,792, 591) and Scholte (US 9,520,120). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application as presented which mention “in decoding, wherein an inverse spatial transform is applied in order to determined the decoded ambient HOA” is merely an obvious variation of the patented claim(s) and thus said instant applicant as stand currently would have been rejected over prior art.
Although, the specific regarding of inverse spatial transform was not cited, but such aspect is clearly mention in Scholte et al. herein (col.3 line 20-35 & col.6 line 30-45). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such aspect related to a system wherein an inverse spatial transform is applied to the signal so as to obtain the reconstructed acoustic data in spatial domain.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 4 of U.S. Patent No. (11,234, 091) and Scholte (US 9,520,120). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application as presented which mention “in decoding, wherein an inverse spatial transform is applied in order to determined the decoded ambient HOA” is merely an obvious variation of the patented claim(s) and thus said instant applicant as stand currently would have been rejected over prior art.
Although, the specific regarding of inverse spatial transform was not cited, but such aspect is clearly mention in Scholte et al. herein (col.3 line 20-35 & col.6 line 30-45). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such aspect related to a system wherein an inverse spatial transform is applied to the signal so as to obtain the reconstructed acoustic data in spatial domain.
In addition, although the specific “appending signal with zero value sample” is not mentioned during extension, but the examiner takes official notice the concept of implementing ““appending signal with zero value sample” is commonly known in the art. thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted concept related to appending signal with zero value sample so to make signal the proper length for processing.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 4 of U.S. Patent No. (10,390, 164) and Scholte (US 9,520,120). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application as presented which mention “in decoding, wherein an inverse spatial transform is applied in order to determined the decoded ambient HOA” is merely an obvious variation of the patented claim(s) and thus said instant applicant as stand currently would have been rejected over prior art.
Although, the specific regarding of inverse spatial transform was not cited, but such aspect is clearly mention in Scholte et al. herein (col.3 line 20-35 & col.6 line 30-45). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such aspect related to a system wherein an inverse spatial transform is applied to the signal so as to obtain the reconstructed acoustic data in spatial domain.
In addition, although the specific “appending signal with zero value sample” is not mentioned during extension, but the examiner takes official notice the concept of implementing ““appending signal with zero value sample” is commonly known in the art. thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted concept related to appending signal with zero value sample so to make signal the proper length for processing.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 4 of U.S. Patent No. (9,980, 073) and Scholte (US 9,520,120). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application as presented which mention “in decoding, wherein an inverse spatial transform is applied in order to determined the decoded ambient HOA” is merely an obvious variation of the patented claim(s) and thus said instant applicant as stand currently would have been rejected over prior art.
Although, the specific regarding of inverse spatial transform was not cited, but such aspect is clearly mention in Scholte et al. herein (col.3 line 20-35 & col.6 line 30-45). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such aspect related to a system wherein an inverse spatial transform is applied to the signal so as to obtain the reconstructed acoustic data in spatial domain.
In addition, although the specific “appending signal with zero value sample” is not mentioned during extension, but the examiner takes official notice the concept of implementing ““appending signal with zero value sample” is commonly known in the art. thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted concept related to appending signal with zero value sample so to make signal the proper length for processing.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 5 of U.S. Patent No. (12,245, 012) and Scholte (US 9,520,120). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application as presented which mention “in decoding, wherein an inverse spatial transform is applied in order to determine the decoded ambient HOA” is merely an obvious variation of the patented claim(s) and thus said instant applicant as stand currently would have been rejected over prior art.
Although, the specific regarding of inverse spatial transform was not cited, but such aspect is clearly mention in Scholte et al. herein (col.3 line 20-35 & col.6 line 30-45). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such aspect related to a system wherein an inverse spatial transform is applied to the signal so as to obtain the reconstructed acoustic data in spatial domain.
In addition, although the specific “appending signal with zero value sample” is not mentioned during extension, but the examiner takes official notice the concept of implementing ““appending signal with zero value sample” is commonly known in the art. thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted concept related to appending signal with zero value sample so to make signal the proper length for processing.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 7, 14, 21 of U.S. Patent No. (9,454, 971). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application as presented is merely a broader version of said patented claim(ss) , although, the patent lacked the specific “appending signal with zero value sample” is not mentioned during extension, but the examiner takes official notice the concept of implementing ““appending signal with zero value sample” is commonly known in the art. thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted concept related to appending signal with zero value sample so to make signal the proper length for processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DISLER PAUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 M-F.
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, Chin, Vivian 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.
/DISLER PAUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights