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.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 10714104 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims are drawn to a method for encoding a vector of parameters in an audio encoding system. In this case, independent claim 2 of the pending application recites most of the features of claim 1 of the patent, but does not recite applying modulo N to the difference between the index value of the second element and the index value of the preceding element in the vector; claim 2 of the pending application instead recites wherein the calculated one or mor symbols based on the difference are maintained in the range of N values. Claim 2 of the pending application further recites wherein the first element and the at least one second element of the vector of parameters correspond to different frequency bands used in the audio encoding system at a specific time frame, as further recited in claim 2 of the patent.
4. Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9940939 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims are drawn to a method for encoding a vector of parameters in an audio encoding system. In this case, independent claim 2 of the pending application recites most of the features of claim 1 of the patent, but does not recite applying modulo N to the difference between the index value of the second element and the index value of the preceding element in the vector; claim 2 of the pending application instead recites wherein the calculated one or mor symbols based on the difference are maintained in the range of N values. Claim 2 further does not recite additional limitations such as encoding an upmix matrix including M elements represented by a value and a position in the upmix matrix, the elements forming one or more vectors or parameters, nor additional limitations regarding the calculation of the symbols. As such, the claim is rejected under obviousness-type double patenting over the previously patented narrower claim. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761.
5. Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 9704493 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims are drawn to a method for encoding a vector of parameters in an audio encoding system. In this case, independent claim 2 of the pending application recites most of the features of claim 1 of the patent, but does not recite applying modulo N to the difference between the index value of the second element and the index value of the preceding element in the vector; claim 2 of the pending application instead recites wherein the calculated one or mor symbols based on the difference are maintained in the range of N values. Claim 2 further does not recite additional limitations such as associating the first element of the vector with a symbol calculated by shifting the corresponding index value, applying modulo N to the shifted index value, and encoding the first element by entropy coding using the same probability table that is used to encode the second element. In addition, claim 2 further recites wherein the first element and the at least one second element of the vector of parameters correspond to different frequency bands used in the audio encoding system at a specific time frame, as further recited in claim 3 of the patent. As such, the claim is rejected under obviousness-type double patenting over the previously patented narrower claims. In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claim 2 would be allowable pending the filing of a terminal disclaimer to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejections as set forth in this Office action.
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, cited by Applicant, fails to teach the encoding method for vector parameters in an audio system as recited in claim 2, including the vector having a first element and at least a second element, the vector parameters being represented by an index value which may be in the range of N values, and wherein symbols are calculated and associated with the at least one second element. The symbols are calculated by calculating a difference between an index value of the second element and an index value of its preceding element in the vector, wherein the calculated one or more symbols based on the difference are maintained in the range of N values. The encoding further includes encoding each of the at least one second element by entropy coding of the calculated symbol based on a probability table comprising probabilities of the symbols, and wherein the first element and the at least one second element of the vector of parameters correspond to different frequency bands used in the audio encoding system at a specific time frame. There is no individual teaching nor suggestion to render obviousness in combination of the closest prior art all the limitations of the present independent claim as defined by applicant.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABRINA DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 5712727488. 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.
/SABRINA DIAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/AHMAD F. MATAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2693
