Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 17/921,977

SPEAKER BOX

Non-Final OA §102§DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Mar 12, 2025
Priority
Apr 07, 2022 — CN 202210361090.1 +1 more
Examiner
MCKINNEY, ANGELICA M
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
AAC Technologies Holdings Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
7m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allowance Rate
439 granted / 515 resolved
+25.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
526
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.2%
-38.8% vs TC avg
§103
53.0%
+13.0% vs TC avg
§102
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
§112
16.1%
-23.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 515 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §DOUBLEPATENT
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Drawings 2. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a sounding unit” and “a heat exchange medium” recited in Claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: SPEAKER BOX HAVING A HEAT EXCHANGE CAVITY FILLED WITH A HEAT EXCHANGE MEDIUM. 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 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/921976 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of copending Application No. 17/628386 reads into the pending claim 1 as shown in the table 1 below. The claim under examination is anticipate over the copending Application’s claim. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Table 1 Claim Under Examination (17/921977) Copending Application (17/921976) 1. A speaker box, comprising: a casing with an accommodating cavity; a sounding unit, fixed in the accommodating cavity and dividing the accommodating cavity into a closed rear acoustic cavity and a front acoustic cavity communicated with an outside of the casing; wherein a heat exchange cavity is arranged within a wall of the accommodating cavity, and the heat exchange cavity is filled with a heat exchange medium. 1. A speaker box, comprising: a casing with an accommodating cavity; a sounding unit, fixed in the accommodating cavity and dividing the accommodating cavity into a closed rear acoustic cavity and a front acoustic cavity communicated with an outside of the casing; the heat exchange cavity is filled with a heat exchange medium, Regarding claims 2-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 8. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 9. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 10. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (Hereinafter Huang) CN 210351614 (For examination purports English Machine Translation of Huang would be use as cited reference). Regarding claim 1, Huang teaches A speaker box (Figs. 1-4 show a loudspeaker device 100), comprising: a casing (Figs. 1-4 show a shell 11) with an accommodating cavity (Fig. 3 shows a first containing space 10) as shown in Fig. 1; a sounding unit (Figs. 2-3 show a sounding monomer 12), fixed in the accommodating cavity (i.e. first containing space 10) and dividing the accommodating cavity (i.e. first containing space 10) into a closed rear acoustic cavity (Figs. 3-4 show a rear chamber 102) and a front acoustic cavity (Figs. 3-4 show a front acoustic chamber 101) communicated with an outside of the casing (i.e. shell 11) as shown in Fig. 3; wherein a heat exchange cavity is arranged within a wall of the accommodating cavity (i.e. first containing space 10) as shown in Fig. 3, and the heat exchange cavity is filled with a heat exchange medium (Fig. 3 shows a heat conducting cover plate 13) as shown in Fig. 3. Allowable Subject Matter 11. Regarding claims 2-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Xu et al. US-PG-PUB No. 2021/0112342, Speaker Device And Mobile Terminal, Fig. 3 shows a speaker device comprises a speaker box, a heat source, and a heat conducting member. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA M MCKINNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3321. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST 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, 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. /ANGELICA M MCKINNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 12, 2025
Application Filed
Aug 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12726769
LOUDSPEAKER AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
3y 2m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12726758
SPEAKER CONTROL METHOD AND DEVICE, TERMINAL EQUIPMENT AND COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM
3y 3m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12726754
WEARABLE SMART ELECTRONICS
3y 0m to grant Granted Sep 01, 2026
Patent 12701367
ELECTRET MICROPHONE
3y 2m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12684278
HEADPHONES
2y 7m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+13.9%)
2y 2m (~7m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 515 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month