DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendments
The Remarks filed 2026 April 14 have been fully considered. Claims 1, 5, and 8 have been amended. Claims 3 and 9 have been cancelled. Claims 1–2, 4–8, and 10 are pending.
The objection to the title has been rendered moot by Applicant's amendment to the title. The objections to the specification regarding the inconsistency between paragraph [0027] and FIG. 3, and the grammatical error in paragraph [0027], have been rendered moot by Applicant's amendment to the specification. The objection to the drawings has been rendered moot by Applicant's submission of replacement drawing sheets.
The §102 rejection of claims 1 and 8 is withdrawn. Applicant's amendments to claims 1 and 8 have incorporated limitations directed to a casing having first and second opposing surfaces with the inner and outer accommodation recesses distributed across those surfaces. Amended claims 1 and 8, and all remaining pending claims, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. This change from § 102 to § 103 for claims 1 and 8 is not a new ground of rejection; it is necessitated by Applicant's own amendment of those claims, and the same reference (LEUNG) and the same underlying rationale apply.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2026 April 14 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections of claims 1–2, 4–8, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained.
On pages 1–2 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the accommodating structure of the instant claims is fundamentally different from LEUNG's because in LEUNG both the earphone and microphone recesses are located on the same surface of the case member and are both covered by the cover, whereas in the instant claims the inner and outer recesses are on opposing surfaces and only the inner recess is covered by the cover. Applicant contends that this structural distinction means a PHOSITA could not arrive at the instant invention through modification of LEUNG.
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 does not require that a prior art reference expressly disclose the exact claimed arrangement. Under MPEP § 2143(I)(E), a claimed invention is obvious when it involves choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant correctly identifies the factual distinction; LEUNG places both recesses on the same surface, while amended claims 1 and 8 distribute them across opposing surfaces. That distinction was the basis for the §103 rejection in the Non-Final Office Action. However, the relevant inquiry under §103 is not whether LEUNG expressly discloses the claimed arrangement, but whether a PHOSITA would have been motivated to modify LEUNG to arrive at it. A PHOSITA designing a compact enclosure for two accessories would have recognized that concentrating multiple cutouts on a single surface reduces structural integrity and creates spatial crowding, and would have distributed the recesses to opposing surfaces to avoid both. This is a finite, predictable design option. Applicant's argument restates the factual distinction but does not explain why this modification would have exceeded ordinary skill or failed to yield the expected result.
Thus, these remarks are not persuasive.
On page 2 of the Remarks, Applicant argues that the Examiner's motivation-to-combine rationale for placing the outer accommodation recess on the cover is insufficient because LEUNG addresses a different technical problem than the instant invention, and therefore a PHOSITA would not have been motivated to modify LEUNG to arrive at the claimed configuration.
Under MPEP § 2141(III), the motivation to modify prior art need not be the same motivation that the inventor had, and the prior art as a whole, not just the cited references, is to be considered. The fact that a prior art reference addresses a problem framed differently from the instant application does not negate the motivation to modify the prior art structure when the modification follows directly from recognized design principles and the nature of the problem.
Applicant's own Remarks supply the missing motivation. Applicant states: "the internal space of a conventional charging box is only sufficient to accommodate wireless earphones, and is not suitable for simultaneously accommodating a microphone." By characterizing insufficient interior space as a general constraint of conventional charging boxes, Applicant confirms that a PHOSITA would have been motivated to look to the cover's available exterior surface as the location for the microphone recess. That is precisely the finite, predictable design option identified in the Non-Final Office Action.
Applicant's own characterization of the recognized design constraint confirms the motivation a PHOSITA would have had to place the outer accommodation recess on the cover. Thus, these remarks are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim(s) 1–2, 4–8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEUNG et al. (US 2022/0029456 A1).
Regarding Amended Claim 1, LEUNG discloses a charging box, configured to accommodate at least one wireless earphone and at least one microphone (¶[0006]; ¶[0069]), comprising: a casing, having a first surface, a second surface, at least one inner accommodation recess and at least one outer accommodation recess (¶[0069]; ¶[0070]), the second surface faces away from the first surface (FIG. 1), the at least one inner accommodation recess is configured to accommodate the at least one wireless earphone (¶[0070]), and the at least one outer accommodation recess is configured to accommodate the at least one microphone (¶[0070]); a cover, mounted at the casing, and the cover is configured to cover the at least one inner accommodation recess (¶[0069]); and a charging system, disposed in the casing, and the charging system is configured to charge the at least one wireless earphone (¶[0071]).
LEUNG is silent to the at least one inner accommodation recess is located at the first surface, the at least one outer accommodation recess is located at the second surface.
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to distribute the inner and outer accommodation recesses to opposing surfaces of LEUNG's case member to avoid structural weakening caused by concentrating multiple cutouts on a single surface.
Regarding Claims 2, 4, LEUNG discloses the charging box further comprising a battery, wherein the battery is disposed in the casing, the charging system charges the battery, and the charging system is configured to charge the at least one wireless earphone via the battery ([0071]), a quantity of the at least one inner accommodation recess is two (FIG. 1).
Regarding Amended Claim 5, LEUNG discloses a charging box, configured to accommodate at least one wireless earphone and at least one microphone (¶[0006]; ¶[0069]), comprising: a casing, having a first surface and at least one inner accommodation recess, the at least one inner accommodation recess is located at the first surface, and the at least one inner accommodation recess is configured to accommodate the at least one wireless earphone (¶[0069]; ¶[0070]); a cover, mounted at the casing, the cover is configured to cover the at least one inner accommodation recess (¶[0069]), the cover has a second surface, the second surface faces away from the first surface (FIG. 1), and a charging system, disposed in the casing, and the charging system is configured to charge the at least one wireless earphone (¶[0071]).
LEUNG is silent to the cover has at least one outer accommodation recess, the at least one outer accommodation recess is located at the second surface, and the at least one outer accommodation recess is configured to accommodate the at least one microphone.
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to relocate the outer accommodation recess to the exterior-facing second surface of the cover of LEUNG's case member, to reduce crowding of the interior-facing first surface of the casing.
Regarding Claims 6 – 7, LEUNG discloses the charging box further comprising a battery, wherein the battery is disposed in the casing, the charging system charges the battery, and the charging system is configured to charge the at least one wireless earphone via the battery ([0071]), a quantity of the at least one inner accommodation recess is two (FIG. 1).
Regarding Amended Claim 8, LEUNG discloses a storage box, configured to accommodate at least one wireless earphone and at least one microphone, comprising: a casing, having a first surface, a second surface, at least one inner accommodation recess, the second surface faces away from the first surface, the at least one inner accommodation recess is located at the first surface, and the at least one inner accommodation recess is configured to accommodate the at least one wireless earphone; and a cover, mounted at the casing, and the cover is configured to cover the at least one inner accommodation recess; wherein the casing or the cover has at least one outer accommodation recess, and the at least one outer accommodation recess is configured to accommodate the at least one microphone.
LEUNG is silent to the at least one outer accommodation recess is located at the second surface.
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to distribute the inner and outer accommodation recesses to opposing surfaces of LEUNG's case member to avoid structural weakening caused by concentrating multiple cutouts on a single surface.
Regarding Claim 10, LEUNG is silent to wherein the at least one outer accommodation recess is located at the cover.
It would have been obvious for a PHOSITA to relocate the outer accommodation recess to the cover of LEUNG's casing to reduce crowding of the interior-facing first surface.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHANN DJANAL-MANN whose telephone number is (571)272-4697. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 - 17:00.
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, Drew Dunn can be reached at (571) 272-2312. 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.
/D. JOHANN DJANAL-MANN/Examiner, Art Unit 2859
/DREW A DUNN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2859
Prosecution Insights