Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claims 1-9 are pending in this application and Claim 10 has been canceled.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
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, the “heat dissipation member” of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Note, paragraph 0079 of the specification indicates that “heat dissipation members (not shown in accompanying drawings)”. 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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 17/921,975. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are obvious variance of each other.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims of Instant application (17/921,978)
Claims of co-pending application (17/921,975)
Claim 1] (Original) A speaker module, comprising: a casing provided with an accommodating cavity; a speaker driver arranged in the accommodating cavity; a heat dissipation bracket, comprising a body portion, wherein a part of the body portion is arranged in the accommodation cavity, and the other part of the body portion is arranged on an outer side of the casing; one end of the body portion located on the outer side of the casing is provided with an extension portion that is bent and extended upward along a thickness direction of the speaker module, and the extension portion is abutted against heat dissipation members outside the speaker module; the body portion is provided with a first cooling channel, wherein the first cooling channel is arranged around the speaker driver; the extension portion is provided with a second cooling channel communicated with the first cooling channel; the second cooling channel is extended away from the speaker driver along the thickness direction of the speaker module, and the first cooling channel and the second cooling channel are filled with cooling liquid.
Claim 1] A speaker module, comprising: a casing provided with an accommodating cavity; a speaker driver arranged in the accommodating cavity; a heat dissipation bracket provided with a first cooling channel arranged around the speaker driver; and a heat dissipation pipe, arranged on the heat dissipation bracket, located outside the casing and abutted against a heat dissipation member outside the speaker module, and provided with a second cooling channel communicated with the first cooling channel; wherein the first cooling channel and the second cooling channel are filled with cooling liquid.
[Claim 2] The speaker module of claim 1, wherein the heat dissipation bracket comprises a body portion, wherein a part of the body portion is arranged in the accommodation cavity, and the other part of the body portion is arranged on an outer side of the casing; one end of the body portion located on the outer side of the casing is provided with an extension portion that is bent and extended upward along a thickness direction of the speaker module; a part of the first cooling channel is provided in the body portion, and the other part of the first cooling channel is provided in the extension portion.
Claim 3
Claims 3 + 9
Claim 4
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claims 5+9
Claim 6
Claim 6
Claim 7
Claim 7
Claim 8
Claim 8
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Penghui Liu (CN211018897).
Regarding claim 1, Liu discloses a speaker module comprising a housing (equivalent to
the housing), wherein an accommodating cavity 210 is provided in the housing; a sound production
unit 202 (equivalent to the loudspeaker unit) located in the accommodating cavity; and a condensation
end 1a (equivalent to the heat dissipation support) integrally injection-molded with the housing,
wherein the portion of a first section 101a of the condensation end located in the housing is located
in the accommodating cavity 210 (equivalent to one part of the body portion being mounted in the
accommodating cavity), the portion of a second section 102a of the condensation end protrudes out of
the sound production unit and the outer side of an upper cover thereof (equivalent to the other part of
the body portion extending to the outer side of the housing), the protruding portion is bent and extends
upwards (equivalent to the extension portion) in the thickness direction of the sound production unit,
the extension portion abuts against an external heat conduction member 52 (equivalent to the external
heat dissipation part of the loudspeaker module), a pipeline of the first section 101a of the
condensation end (equivalent to the first cooling channel, also see pages 9 and 10) is wound on a lower
side of the sound production unit, the second section 102a of the condensation end which is bent and
extends upwards in the thickness direction of the sound production unit and is away from the sound
production unit is in communication with the first section 101a, and a heat transfer medium for liquid
cooling (equivalent to the cooling liquid) can be filled in the second section 102a. Liu does not disclose
that the other part of the body portion extends to the outer side of the housing. However Liu disclosed
that the portion of the second section 102a of the condensation end protrudes out of the sound
production unit and the outer side of the upper cover thereof, and the upper cover and the lower cover
form the housing; and the portion protruding out of the upper cover being considered to extend to the
outer side of the housing is common general knowledge in the art. Therefore, it would have been
obvious to an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the technical
solution of claim 1 by combining Liu and common general knowledge in the art to extend the other part
outer side of the housing for heat dissipation.
Regarding claim 2, Liu disclosed that the first section 101a of the condensation end is located
on one plane, the second section 102a of the condensation end is located on the other plane, and an
included angle is formed between the two planes.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Huang et al. (US2021/0029459), Huang et al. (Us2021/0029850), Huang et al. (US2021/0029457), and Huang et al. (Us2021/0029462) are all cited to show a speaker module with heat radiation sheet.
Langford et al. is cited to show a speaker module with air channels for heat dissipation.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Claims 3-9 are allowable because the prior art does not specifically disclose the structure recited in claims 3-9.
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.”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3022. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Thursday from 8:30AM – 4:30PM
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Beck, can be reached at telephone number571-272-3750. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/JASON CHAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights