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 . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this Application on 20 April 2026 after the Final Rejection (20 January 2026). Since this Application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 20 April 2026 has been entered.
Art Rejections
Anticipation
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.
Claims 1, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2007/0102267 (published 10 May 2007) (“Schentrup”).
Claim 1 is drawn to “a portable computing device.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed device and the Schentrup reference.
Claim 1
The Schentrup Reference
“1. A portable computing device comprising:
The Schentrup reference describes an electronic product 30 corresponding to the claimed portable computing device. Schentrup at ¶ 13, FIG.3. Schentrup’s product 30 is described as a cellular phone, a smart phone, a messaging device, a laptop computer, a personal digital assistant, a dictation device, a remote control, an MP3 player or any similar device. Id.
“a keyboard comprising a key; and
Product 30 similarly includes a keypad 10 that includes keys 12. Id., FIG.3.
“an acoustic transducer,
Schentrup integrates audio components 14, or acoustic transducers, in keys 12. Id. at ¶¶ 13–15, FIG.3.
“wherein the key comprises an enclosure defining a cavity and a sound port,
Schentrup’s keys 12 define a cavity 19 and further includes audio ports 13 in an upper surface that faces a user. Id. at ¶ 12, FIG.1.
“wherein the acoustic transducer is located within the cavity,
Audio components 14 are positioned inside cavity 19. Id.
“wherein the sound port is configured to allow sound generated by the acoustic transducer to propagate via the sound port to an environment external relative to the cavity and the keyboard,
Audio ports 13 similarly allow sound generated by audio components 14 to propagate out to an external environment. Id.
“wherein the key comprises a top surface arranged to face towards a user of the portable computing device in an operational condition of the portable computing device, and
“wherein the sound port comprises one or more openings in the top surface of the key.”
Keys 12 include a top surface that faces the user and audio ports 13 are located in the top surface. Id.
Table 1
For the foregoing reasons, the Schentrup reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 13 is drawn to “a method of improving performance of speakers in a portable computing device.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed method and the Schentrup reference.
Claim 13
The Schentrup Reference
“13. A method of improving performance of speakers in a portable computing device, the method comprising:
The Schentrup reference describes an electronic product 30 corresponding to the claimed portable computing device and a method for improving performance of speakers in product 30. Schentrup at ¶ 13, FIG.3. Schentrup’s product 30 is described as a cellular phone, a smart phone, a messaging device, a laptop computer, a personal digital assistant, a dictation device, a remote control, an MP3 player or any similar device. Id.
“forming a key including an enclosure defining a cavity and a sound port, the key included in a keyboard of the portable computing device,
“the key comprises a top surface arranged to face towards a user of the portable computing device in an operational condition of the portable computing device, and
“the sound port comprises one or more openings in the top surface of the key;
Product 30 similarly includes a keypad 10 that includes keys 12. Id., FIG.3. Schentrup’s keys 12 define a cavity 19. Id. at ¶ 12, FIG.1. Keys 12 include a top surface that faces the user and audio ports 13 are located in the top surface. Id.
placing an acoustic transducer within the cavity; and
Schentrup integrates audio components 14, or acoustic transducers, in keys 12. Id. at ¶¶ 13–15, FIG.3.
“generating, with the acoustic transducer, sound,
“wherein the sound port allows the sound that is generated to propagate via the sound port to an environment external relative to the cavity and the keyboard,
Audio ports 13 similarly allow sound generated by audio components 14 to propagate out to an external environment. Id.
“wherein the sound that is propagated improves performance of the speakers in the portable computing device.”
Audio output by audio components 14 is improved by positioning components 14 in keys 12, just as described in Applicant’s Specification at ¶ 8.
Table 2
For the foregoing reasons, the Schentrup reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 19 depends on claim 13, and further requires the following:
“wherein the key is formed integrally.”
Similarly, the Schentrup reference describes forming each key integrally. See Schentrup at FIG.1 (depicting multiple keys as an integral part). For the foregoing reasons, the Schentrup reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Obviousness
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 2, 6–8, 14, 16, 17, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Schentrup and US Patent Application Publication 2021/0296061 (effectively filed 26 June 2017)) (“Ku”).
Claims 3, 22, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Schentrup; CN 203675293 U (published 25 June 2014) (“Tang”) and US Patent Application Publication 2007/0139876 (published 21 June 2007) (“Na”).
Claims 18 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Schentrup; Ku; Tang and Na.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Schentrup; Tang; Na and US Patent Application Publication 2021/0392436 (effectively filed 10 June 2020) (“Hirano”).
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“further comprising a grommet underneath the key, the grommet providing support and vibration reduction for the key and/or the acoustic transducer.”
The Schentrup reference describes a keypad 10 with keys 12 that house audio components 14. Schentrup at ¶¶ 12, 13, FIGs.1, 3. See also Figure 1, below. Schentrup’s keypad 10 includes a set of grommets under each key. Schentrup, however, does not describe forming the grommets in away that provides vibration reduction for the key 12 and/or the audio component 14, or acoustic transducer.
PNG
media_image1.png
366
562
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Marked-up version of Schentrup at FIG.1 (marked-up to show the position of a grommet).
The Ku reference teaches and suggests a keyboard with a set of keys. Ku teaches that forces in a device—for example, force from a user operating a key or acoustic forces from a speaker—may cause a rattling of the keys. To resolve this problem, Ku teaches adding dampening material to a bearing surface of a keycap. In particular, Ku’s keys include a link bar 110 with arms 110-A and 110-1 whose ends 112-H and 112-I are coated in a dampening material 116-D, 116-1, such as rubber. According to Ku, this reduces unwanted vibrations of the keys.
Read in light of Schentrup, Ku’s teachings would have reasonably suggested modifying Schentrup’s keys 12 to similarly include dampening material to reduce unwanted rattling noise resulting from operation and acoustic vibrations from audio components 14. For instance, following Ku’s example, one of ordinary skill would have added dampening material to the grommets that support keys 12. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected that modifying Ku’s grommets to include dampening material, such as rubber, would have beneficially reduced unwanted rattling noise. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Schentrup and the Ku references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the key is a first key,
“wherein the keyboard further comprises a plurality of keys including the first key, a second key that is separate and distinct from the first key, and one or more additional keys,
“wherein the acoustic transducer is a first acoustic transducer
“wherein the portable computing device further comprises a second acoustic transducer that is separate and distinct from the first acoustic transducer,
“wherein the second key comprises a second enclosure defining a second cavity and a second sound port,
“wherein the second acoustic transducer is located within the second cavity, and
“wherein the first key is located on a left portion of the keyboard, and the second key is located on a right portion of the keyboard, and
“wherein each of the first key and the second key has a surface area that is larger than an average surface area of the one or more additional keys.”
Schentrup similarly describes a keypad 10 having multiple keys 12 that each include a cavity 19, ports 13 and an audio component 14, or transducer, located inside. Schentrup at ¶¶ 12–13, FIGs1, 3. Keys 12 are located on left and right sides of keypad 10. See id. (depicting a keypad 10 with keys 12 on its left and right sides).
Schentrup does not describe keypad 10 as having keys of different sizes. However, Schentrup notes that keypad 10 may belong to other types of devices, such as laptop.
The Tang reference relates to Schentrup since it similarly describes locating speakers in keycaps. Tang further teaches choosing keys to locate speakers in based on the size and desired acoustic performance of the speakers. For example, larger keys are chosen to house larger speakers while smaller keys are chosen to house smaller speakers. Id. at ¶¶ 18–19, FIG.1. This teaching reasonably suggests similarly locating two larger speakers in two larger keys 12 on the left and right side of Schentrup’s keypad 10. See also Na at FIG.3 (depicting keyboard speakers on the left and the right side of a keyboard). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Schentrup, the Tang and the Na references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 26 depends on claim 3, and further requires the following:
“wherein the first key is formed integrally, and wherein the second key is formed integrally.”
Similarly, the Schentrup reference describes forming each key integrally. See Schentrup at FIG.1 (depicting multiple keys as an integral part). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Schentrup, the Tang and the Na references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 22 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the acoustic transducer is a tweeter.”
As shown in the obviousness rejection of claim 3, incorporated herein, the Tang reference suggests forming a speaker array with a set of tweeters in smaller keys. Cf. Tang at ¶¶ 18–19. This reasonably suggests modifying Tang’s device to similarly include a tweeter in a smaller key of a laptop keyboard. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Schentrup, the Tang and the Na references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 23 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the acoustic transducer is a full range acoustic transducer.”
As shown in the obviousness rejection of claim 3, incorporated herein, the Tang reference suggests forming a speaker array with a set of tweeters in smaller keys and a set of woofers in larger keys. Cf. Tang at ¶¶ 18–19. While neither Schentrup nor Tang describes, teaches or suggests the use of a full-range acoustic transducer, one of ordinary skill would have known about full-range speakers and that an audio system may be built using any combination of full-range speakers, tweeters and woofers. See Hirano at ¶ 41 (teaching the alternative use of full-range speakers and a combination of tweeters and woofers). One of ordinary skill would have reasonably chosen to use full-range speakers instead of a two-way tweeter/woofer system as a known alternative technique for implementing Schentrup’s speaker array. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Schentrup, the Tang, the Na and the Hirano references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 25 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the key is an Enter key.”
As shown in the obviousness rejection of claim 3, incorporated herein, the Tang reference suggests forming a speaker array with a set of tweeters in smaller keys and a set of woofers in larger keys. Cf. Tang at ¶¶ 18–19. This reasonably suggests modifying Tang’s device to similarly include a tweeter in a smaller key of a laptop keyboard and to include a woofer in a larger key of a laptop keyboard, such as the “Enter” key or the “Shift” keys, all of which are notoriously well-known and worthy of Official notice. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Schentrup, the Tang and the Na references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 6 is drawn to “a portable computing device.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed device and the Schentrup reference.
Claim 6
The Schentrup Reference
“6. A portable computing device comprising:
The Schentrup reference describes an electronic product 30 corresponding to the claimed portable computing device. Schentrup at ¶ 13, FIG.3. Schentrup’s product 30 is described as a cellular phone, a smart phone, a messaging device, a laptop computer, a personal digital assistant, a dictation device, a remote control, an MP3 player or any similar device. Id.
“an acoustic transducer; and
Schentrup integrates audio components 14, or acoustic transducers, in keys 12. Id. at ¶¶ 13–15, FIG.3.
“a keyboard comprising a key; and
Product 30 similarly includes a keypad 10 that includes keys 12. Id., FIG.3.
“a dedicated grommet that is dedicated to, and disposed underneath, the key, and
The Schentrup reference describes a keypad 10 with keys 12 that house audio components 14. Schentrup at ¶¶ 12, 13, FIGs.1, 3. Schentrup’s keypad 10 includes a set of grommets under each key. See also Figure 1, above.
“wherein the dedicated grommet provides support and vibration reduction for the acoustic transducer, the key, or a combination thereof.”
Schentrup, however, does not describe forming the grommets in away that provides vibration reduction for the key 12 and/or the audio component 14, or acoustic transducer.
Table 3
The table above shows that the Schentrup reference describes a product 30 that corresponds closely to the claimed device. Schentrup does not anticipate the claimed invention, however, because it does not describe forming its grommets to support and reduce vibration for an acoustic transducer, key or combination thereof.
The differences between the claimed invention and the Schentrup reference are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed. The Ku reference teaches and suggests a keyboard with a set of keys. Ku teaches that forces in a device—for example, force from a user operating a key or acoustic forces from a speaker—may cause a rattling of the keys. To resolve this problem, Ku teaches adding dampening material to a bearing surface of a keycap. In particular, Ku’s keys include a link bar 110 with arms 110-A and 110-1 whose ends 112-H and 112-I are coated in a dampening material 116-D, 116-1, such as rubber. According to Ku, this reduces unwanted vibrations of the keys.
Read in light of Schentrup, Ku’s teachings would have reasonably suggested modifying Schentrup’s keys 12 to similarly include dampening material to reduce unwanted rattling noise resulting from operation and acoustic vibrations from audio components 14. For instance, following Ku’s example, one of ordinary skill would have added dampening material to the grommets that support keys 12. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected that modifying Ku’s grommets to include dampening material, such as rubber, would have beneficially reduced unwanted rattling noise. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Schentrup and the Ku references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 7 depends on claim 6, and further requires the following:
wherein the key comprises a sound port that is configured to allow sound generated by the acoustic transducer to propagate via the sound port to an environment external relative to the keyboard
Audio ports 13 similarly allow sound generated by audio components 14 to propagate out to an external environment. Schentrup at ¶ 12, FIG.1. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Schentrup and the Ku references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 8 depends on claim 6, and further requires the following:
wherein the key comprises an enclosure defining a cavity, and wherein the acoustic transducer is located within the cavity.
Schentrup’s keys 12 define a cavity 19 and further includes audio ports 13 in an upper surface that faces a user. Schentrup at ¶ 12, FIG.1. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Schentrup and the Ku references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 21 depends on claim 8, and further requires the following:
“wherein the key is formed integrally.”
Similarly, the Schentrup reference describes forming each key integrally. See Schentrup at FIG.1 (depicting multiple keys as an integral part). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Schentrup and the Ku references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 14 is drawn to “a method of improving performance of speakers in a portable computing device.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed method and the Schentrup reference.
Claim 14
The Schentrup Reference
14. A method of improving performance of speakers in a portable computing device, the method comprising:
The Schentrup reference describes an electronic product 30 corresponding to the claimed portable computing device and a method for improving performance of speakers in product 30. Schentrup at ¶ 13, FIG.3. Schentrup’s product 30 is described as a cellular phone, a smart phone, a messaging device, a laptop computer, a personal digital assistant, a dictation device, a remote control, an MP3 player or any similar device. Id.
“placing a [sic, an] acoustic transducer in or underneath a key of a keyboard of the portable computing device;
Product 30 similarly includes a keypad 10 that includes keys 12. Id., FIG.3. Schentrup’s keys 12 define a cavity 19. Id. at ¶ 12, FIG.1. Keys 12 include a top surface that faces the user and audio ports 13 are located in the top surface. Id. Schentrup integrates audio components 14, or acoustic transducers, in keys 12. Id. at ¶¶ 13–15, FIG.3.
“placing a dedicated grommet that is underneath, and dedicated to, the key to support the acoustic transducer; and
The Schentrup reference describes a keypad 10 with keys 12 that house audio components 14. Schentrup at ¶¶ 12, 13, FIGs.1, 3. Schentrup’s keypad 10 includes a set of grommets under each key. See also Figure 1, above.
“generating, with the acoustic transducer, sound,
Audio ports 13 similarly allow sound generated by audio components 14 to propagate out to an external environment. Id.
“wherein the dedicated grommet provides vibration reduction for the acoustic transducer, the key, or a combination thereof, and
Schentrup, however, does not describe forming the grommets in away that provides vibration reduction for the key 12 and/or the audio component 14, or acoustic transducer.
“wherein the sound that is propagated improves performance of the speakers in the portable computing device.”
Audio output by audio components 14 is improved by positioning components 14 in keys 12, just as described in Applicant’s Specification at ¶ 8.
Table 4
The table above shows that the Schentrup reference describes a product 30 that corresponds closely to the claimed device. Schentrup does not anticipate the claimed invention, however, because it does not describe forming its grommets to support and reduce vibration for an acoustic transducer, key or combination thereof.
The differences between the claimed invention and the Schentrup reference are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed. The Ku reference teaches and suggests a keyboard with a set of keys. Ku teaches that forces in a device—for example, force from a user operating a key or acoustic forces from a speaker—may cause a rattling of the keys. To resolve this problem, Ku teaches adding dampening material to a bearing surface of a keycap. In particular, Ku’s keys include a link bar 110 with arms 110-A and 110-1 whose ends 112-H and 112-I are coated in a dampening material 116-D, 116-1, such as rubber. According to Ku, this reduces unwanted vibrations of the keys.
Read in light of Schentrup, Ku’s teachings would have reasonably suggested modifying Schentrup’s keys 12 to similarly include dampening material to reduce unwanted rattling noise resulting from operation and acoustic vibrations from audio components 14. For instance, following Ku’s example, one of ordinary skill would have added dampening material to the grommets that support keys 12. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected that modifying Ku’s grommets to include dampening material, such as rubber, would have beneficially reduced unwanted rattling noise. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Schentrup and the Ku references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 16 depends on claim 14, and further requires the following:
“further comprising:
“placing a second acoustic transducer in or underneath a second key of the keyboard of the portable computing device, the second key is separate and distinct from the key;
“placing a second dedicated grommet that is underneath, and dedicated to, the second key to support the second acoustic transducer; and
“generating, with the second acoustic transducer, second sound, wherein the second dedicated grommet provides vibration reduction for the second acoustic transducer, the second key, or a combination thereof, and
“wherein the second sound that is propagated further improves performance of the speakers in the portable computing device.”
Schentrup similarly describes a keypad 10 having multiple keys 12 that each include a cavity 19, ports 13 and an audio component 14, or transducer, located inside, and a supporting set of grommets. Schentrup at ¶¶ 12–13, FIGs1, 3. See also Figure 1, above. Keys 12 are located on left and right sides of keypad 10. See id. (depicting a keypad 10 with keys 12 on its left and right sides). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Schentrup and the Ku references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 17 depends on claim 16, and further requires the following:
“wherein the acoustic transducer is one or more first acoustic transducers,
“wherein the second acoustic transducer is one or more second acoustic transducers,
“wherein the dedicated grommet is one or more first dedicated grommets, and wherein the second dedicated grommet is one or more second dedicated grommets.”
Schentrup similarly describes a keypad 10 having multiple keys 12 that each include a cavity 19, ports 13 and an audio component 14, or transducer, located inside, and a supporting set of grommets. Schentrup at ¶¶ 12–13, FIGs1, 3. See also Figure 1, above. Keys 12 are located on left and right sides of keypad 10. See id. (depicting a keypad 10 with keys 12 on its left and right sides). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Schentrup and the Ku references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 18 depends on claim 16, and further requires the following:
“wherein the keyboard includes the key, the second key, and one or more additional keys, wherein the key is located on a left portion of the keyboard and the second key is located on a right portion of the keyboard, and
“wherein each of the key and the second key has a surface area that is larger than an average surface area of the one or more additional keys on the keyboard.”
Schentrup similarly describes a keypad 10 having multiple keys 12 that each include a cavity 19, ports 13 and an audio component 14, or transducer, located inside. Schentrup at ¶¶ 12–13, FIGs1, 3. Keys 12 are located on left and right sides of keypad 10. See id. (depicting a keypad 10 with keys 12 on its left and right sides).
Schentrup does not describe keypad 10 as having keys of different sizes. However, Schentrup notes that keypad 10 may belong to other types of devices, such as laptop.
The Tang reference relates to Schentrup since it similarly describes locating speakers in keycaps. Tang further teaches choosing keys to locate speakers in based on the size and desired acoustic performance of the speakers. For example, larger keys are chosen to house larger speakers while smaller keys are chosen to house smaller speakers. Id. at ¶¶ 18–19, FIG.1. This teaching reasonably suggests similarly locating two larger speakers in two larger keys 12 on the left and right side of Schentrup’s keypad 10. See also Na at FIG.3 (depicting keyboard speakers on the left and the right side of a keyboard). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Schentrup, the Ku, the Tang and the Na references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 20 depends on claim 16, and further requires the following:
“wherein the key is formed integrally, and wherein the second key is formed integrally.”
Similarly, the Schentrup reference describes forming each key integrally. See Schentrup at FIG.1 (depicting multiple keys as an integral part). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Schentrup and the Ku references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 24 depends on claim 16, and further requires the following:
“wherein the key is a Shift key.”
As shown in the obviousness rejection of claim 3, incorporated herein, the Tang reference suggests forming a speaker array with a set of tweeters in smaller keys and a set of woofers in larger keys. Cf. Tang at ¶¶ 18–19. This reasonably suggests modifying Tang’s device to similarly include a tweeter in a smaller key of a laptop keyboard and to include a woofer in a larger key of a laptop keyboard, such as the “Enter” key or the “Shift” keys, all of which are notoriously well-known and worthy of Official notice. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Schentrup, the Ku, the Tang and the Na references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Summary
Claims 1–3, 6–8, 13, 14 and 16–26 are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s Reply (20 April 2026) has substantively amended claims 1 and 13. This Office action has been updated accordingly.
Applicant’s Reply at 7–11 further includes comments pertaining to the rejections presented in the previous Final Rejection (20 January 2026). Those comments have been considered, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WALTER F BRINEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-4:30 pm.
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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/Walter F Briney III/
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
6/23/2026
Prosecution Insights