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
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. 12,293,768 B2. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,830,510. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (1963): “Omission of an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before”.
11,830,510
19/189,496
1. A decoding method in a multi-channel audio processing system, the decoding method comprising:
receiving at least a waveform-coded downmix signal comprising spectral coefficients corresponding to frequencies above a first fixed cross-over frequency; performing frequency reconstruction to determine a reconstructed signal based on the waveform-coded downmix signal, wherein the reconstructed signal is above a second cross-over frequency, wherein the second fixed cross-over frequency is different than the first cross-over frequency; and performing a parametric upmix of the reconstructed signal into M upmix signals.
1. A decoding method in a multi-channel audio processing system, the decoding method comprising: de multiplexing from a bitstream a parameter for frequency reconstruction;
receiving at least a waveform-coded downmix signal comprising spectral coefficients corresponding to frequencies above a first fixed cross-over frequency; performing frequency reconstruction to determine a reconstructed signal based on the waveform-coded downmix signal based on the parameter, wherein the reconstructed signal is above a second cross-over frequency, wherein the second fixed cross-over frequency is different than the first cross-over frequency; and performing a parametric upmix of the reconstructed signal into M upmix signals.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is allowed.
The application is a continuation with similar limitations as the allowed parent application 18/504,879. The claims are identical and have features including "...receiving at least a waveform-coded downmix signal comprising spectral coefficients corresponding to frequencies above a first fixed cross-over frequency; performing frequency reconstruction to determine-a reconstructed signal based on the waveform-coded downmix signal, wherein the reconstructed signal is above a second cross-over frequency, wherein the second fixed cross-over frequency is different than the first cross-over frequency...." claim 7 recites the features "...a receiver configured to receive at least a waveform-coded downmix signal comprising spectral coefficients corresponding to frequencies above a first fixed cross-over frequency; a frequency reconstructor for performing frequency reconstruction to determine a reconstructed signal based on the waveform-coded downmix signal, wherein the reconstructed signal is above a second fixed cross-over frequency, wherein the second fixed cross-over frequency is different than the first fixed cross-over frequency, and wherein the frequency reconstruction is based on the waveform-coded downmix signal...." Heiko fails to disclose the feature, "wherein the reconstructed signal is above a second cross-over frequency, wherein the second cross-over frequency is different than the first cross-over frequency, and wherein the frequency reconstruction is based on the waveform-coded downmix signal." Neuendorf discloses a variable cross-over frequency that changes whether speech decoding or audio decoding at different time portions of an encoded audio signal. See, e.g., paragraphs [0033]-[0038].
Applicant admitted prior art to Atti teaches “ The ACELP encoder 150 may include a time domain ACELP analysis module 159. In the example of FIG. 1, the ACELP encoder 150 performs bandwidth extension and includes a low band analysis module 160 and a separate high band analysis module 161. The low band analysis module 160 may encode a low band portion of the audio signal 102. In an illustrative example, the low band portion of the audio signal 102 occupies a frequency range spanning approximately 0 Hz-6.4 kHz. In alternate examples, a different crossover frequency may separate the low band and the high band portions and/or the portions may overlap, as further described with reference to FIG. 2.” However, it does not teach a second cross-over frequency. Davis doesn’t teach the reconstruction step. Heiko teaches a single ross over frequency [0116] Due to the re-arrangement of the SBR encoder 42, the PS encoder 41 may be configured to operate not on the full bandwidth of the input signal but e.g. only on the frequency range below the SBR crossover frequency. However it is silent with regards to a second cross-over frequency. Purnhagen teaches second channels and a reconstructed signal but no second cross-over frequency. A new search was made, and no art was found which teaches the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Weckbecker ‘263 teaches encoded metadata stream is multiplexed together with the EVS coded stream by the multiplexer 230 so as to output the encoded HOA signal/encoded audio stream, see par. [0111]. However, it does not beat the priority date.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Ortiz-Sanchez whose telephone number is (571)270-3711. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday at 9AM-6PM.
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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at 571-272-7453. 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.
/MICHAEL ORTIZ-SANCHEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656
Prosecution Insights