DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 2/20/2025:
Claim 1 is 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
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 1 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12238506. This is a statutory double patenting rejection. For example:
Patent 12238506
Application 19/058,155
Claim 1:
Claim 1:
A method for rendering an audio signal in a virtual reality rendering environment, the method comprising,
A method for rendering an audio signal in a virtual reality rendering environment, the method comprising,
determining an origin audio signal of an audio source from an origin source position on an origin unit sphere around an origin listening position of a listener;
determining an origin audio signal of an audio source from an origin source position on an origin unit sphere around an origin listening position of a listener;
receiving an indication of a movement of the listener from the origin listening position to a destination listening position;
receiving an indication of a movement of the listener from the origin listening position to a destination listening position;
determining a destination source position of the audio source on a destination unit sphere around the destination listening position based on the origin source position;
determining a destination source position of the audio source on a destination unit sphere around the destination listening position based on the origin source position;
determining a destination audio signal of the audio source based on the origin audio signal; and
determining a destination audio signal of the audio source based on the origin audio signal; and
rendering the destination audio signal of the audio source from the destination source position on the destination unit sphere around the destination listening position, wherein the origin source position is projected from the origin unit sphere onto the destination unit sphere based on a perspective projection with respect to the destination listening position.
rendering the destination audio signal of the audio source from the destination source position on the destination unit sphere around the destination listening position, wherein the origin source position is projected from the origin unit sphere onto the destination unit sphere based on a perspective projection with respect to the destination listening position.
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 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 11743672. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example:
Regarding claim 1, 11743672 teaches a method for rendering an audio signal in a virtual reality rendering environment (claim 1, a method for rendering an audio signal in a virtual reality rendering environment), the method comprising,
determining an origin audio signal of an audio source from an origin source position on an origin unit sphere around an origin listening position of a listener (claim 1, determining an origin audio signal of an audio source from an origin source position on an origin unit sphere around an origin listening position of a listener);
receiving an indication of a movement of the listener from the origin listening position to a destination listening position (claim 1, receiving an indication of a movement of the listener from the origin listening position to a destination listening position);
determining a destination source position of the audio source on a destination unit sphere around the destination listening position based on the origin source position (claim 1, determining a destination source position of the audio source on a destination unit sphere around the destination listening position based on the origin source position);
determining a destination audio signal of the audio source based on the origin audio signal (claim 1, determining a destination audio signal of the audio source based on the origin audio signal); and
rendering the destination audio signal of the audio source from the destination source position on the destination unit sphere around the destination listening position, wherein the origin source position is projected from the origin unit sphere onto the destination unit sphere based on a perspective projection with respect to the destination listening position (claim 1, rendering the destination audio signal of the audio source from the destination source position on the destination unit sphere around the destination listening position, wherein the origin source position is projected from the origin unit sphere onto the destination unit sphere based on a perspective projection with respect to the destination listening position).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 11109178. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. See above as an example.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is allowable upon overcoming the above rejection(s).
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: regarding claim 1, the prior art or combination thereof fails to disclose and make obvious the invention as a whole. The previously cited art (e.g. Habets, Mahabub, Vennstrom, and Umminger III) fail to explicitly teach an “origin unit sphere) and a “destination unit sphere” as claimed. It is understood that a “unit sphere” is defined as a sphere with a radius of one around a given center and this understanding is being applied to the recited claim language. This aspect of the allowable subject matter has been previously discussed on Office Action mailed 3/29/2024 in parent application 18/352,115.
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