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
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, 67-83 and 292-293 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 95-103 and 292-301 of copending Application No. 18/542512 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming a headphone comprising a supporting assembly and a core module connected with the supporting assembly, wherein the supporting assembly is configured to support the core module to be worn at a wearing position, the core module includes a core housing, a transducer device, and a vibration panel, the transducer device is provided in a accommodating cavity of the core housing, and the vibration panel is connected with the transducer device and is configured to transmit a mechanical vibration generated by the transducer device to a user, wherein the core module includes a first vibration plate, and the transducer device is suspended in the accommodating cavity of the core housing through the first vibration plate, and in the non-wearing state, a frequency response curve of the vibration panel has a resonant valley, wherein the peak resonance frequency of the resonant valley is greater than or equal 400 Hz.
Claims 1, 95-103 and 292-301 of copending Application No. 18/542512 does not specifically claim in the non-wearing state, the frequency response curve of the vibration panel does not have an effective resonant valley in a frequency band within a range of 400Hz to 2kHz. However, claims 1, 95-103 and 292-301 of copending Application No. 18/542512 do claim in the non-wearing state, a frequency response curve of the vibration panel has a resonant valley, wherein a peak resonance frequency of the resonant valley that is greater than 400 Hz.
Since claims 1, 95-103 and 292-301 of copending Application No. 18/542512 do not restrict the frequency range for the frequency response curve of the vibration panel; it therefore would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any frequency response curve of the vibration panel as claimed in claims 1, 95-103 and 292-301 of copending Application No. 18/542512 such as providing a frequency response curve of the vibration panel does not have an effective resonant valley in a frequency band within a range of 400Hz to 2kHz depending on the applications and the desired frequency characteristics in the system.
Claims 1, 67-83 and 292-293 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 58-66 and 292-301 of copending Application No. 18/542561 (reference application), claims 1, 46-55 and 292-300 of copending Application No. 18/542570 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming a headphone comprising a supporting assembly and a core module connected with the supporting assembly, wherein the supporting assembly is configured to support the core module to be worn at a wearing position, the core module includes a core housing, a transducer device, and a vibration panel, the transducer device is provided in a accommodating cavity of the core housing, and the vibration panel is connected with the transducer device and is configured to transmit a mechanical vibration generated by the transducer device to a user, wherein the core module includes a first vibration plate, and the transducer device is suspended in the accommodating cavity of the core housing through the first vibration plate, wherein the core module is configured such that in the non-wearing state, a frequency response curve of the vibration panel has a resonant valley and a peak resonance frequency of the resonant valley is greater than 2 kHz (Application No. 18/542561) and/or a peak resonance frequency of the resonant valley is less than 400 Hz (Application No. 18/542512), or the frequency response curve of the vibration panel does not have an effective resonant valley in a frequency band within a range of 400Hz to 2kHz.
The limitations in claims 1, 58-66 and 292-301 of copending Application No. 18/542561 (reference application) and claims 1, 46-55 and 292-300 of copending Application No. 18/542570 (reference application) cover the limitations in claims 1, 67-83 and 292-293 of the present application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
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 CFR 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.
Claims 1, 68-81 and 83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 2020/0228902).
Regarding claim 1, Liao et al. teaches a headphone comprising a supporting assembly (1201, figures 12, 14A, 14B, 15) and a core module (1202, 1203, 1202a, 1202b, and see the core module in figures 12, 18B, 20, 22A and 23) connected with the supporting assembly, wherein the supporting assembly is configured to support the core module to be worn at a wearing position (figures 12, 14A, 14B, 15, 24A), the core module includes a core housing (2019, 2219, 2319, figures 20, 22A, 23), a transducer device (2002. 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2210, 2211, 2212, 2214, 2215, 2310, 2311, 2312, 2314, 2315, figures 20, 22A, 23), and a vibration panel (2030, 2213, 2313, figures 20, 22A, 23), the transducer device is provided in a accommodating cavity of the core housing (figures 20, 22A, 23), and the vibration panel (2030, 2213, 2313) is connected with the transducer device (figures 20, 22A, 23) and is configured to transmit a mechanical vibration generated by the transducer device to a user (see the text for figures 20, 22A, 23), wherein the core module includes a first vibration plate (2003, 2216, 2316), and the transducer device is suspended in the accommodating cavity of the core housing through the first vibration plate (2003, 2216, 2316, figures 20, 22A, 23), and a frequency response curve of the vibration panel in the non-wearing state (paragraph [0145]).
Liao et al. does not specifically disclose a frequency response curve of the vibration panel that does not have an effective resonant valley in a frequency band within a range of 400Hz to 2kHz as claimed. However, Liao et al. does not restrict to any frequency range for the frequency response curve of the vibration panel (paragraph [0145]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any frequency response curve of the vibration plate in the system of Liao et al. such as providing a frequency response curve of the vibration plate does not have an effective resonant valley in a frequency band within a range of 400 Hz to 2kHz depending on the applications, the desired frequency characteristics and better improving the sound quality in the system.
Regarding claims 68, 76 and 78, Liao et al. teaches a mass of the core housing and/or a stiffness of the first vibration plate (paragraphs [0008], [0071]-[0072], [0082], [0103], [0107], [0143], [0146]) and a frequency response curve of the vibration plate (paragraphs [0140] and [0145] and figures 21B-21C). Liao et al. does not specifically disclose that a mass of the core housing and/or a stiffness of the first vibration plate is configured such that the frequency response curve does not have the effective resonant valley in a frequency band within a range of 400 Hz to 2 kHz, 200 Hz to 2 kHz or 200 Hz to 4 kHz as claimed. However, Liao et al. does not restrict to any mass of the core housing and/or a stiffness of the first vibration plate (paragraphs [0008], [0071]-[0072], [0082], [0103], [0107], [0143], [0146]) and a frequency range for the frequency response curve of the vibration panel (paragraphs [0140] and [0145]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any mass of the core housing and/or any stiffness of the first vibration plate in the system of Liao et al. such as providing a mass of the core housing and/or a stiffness of the first vibration plate that is configured such that the frequency response curve does not have the effective resonant valley in a frequency band within a range of 400 Hz to 2 kHz, 200 Hz to 2 kHz or 200 Hz to 4 kHz depending on the applications, the desired frequency characteristics and for better improving the sound quality in the system.
Regarding claim 69, Liao et al. teaches that the transducer device (2002. 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2210, 2211, 2212, 2214, 2215, 2310, 2311, 2312, 2314, 2315, figures 20, 22A and 23) includes a frame (2012, 2212, 2312, figures 20, 22A and 23), a second vibration plate (2001, 2217, 2317, figures 20, 22A and 23), a magnetic circuit system (2009, 2011, 2012, 2210, 2211, 2212, 2310, 2311, 2312), and a coil (2008, 2215, 2315), the frame is connected with the core housing through the first vibration plate ((2003, 2216, 2316, figures 20, 22A and 23), the second vibration plate (2001, 2217, 2317) connects the frame and the magnetic circuit system to suspend the magnetic circuit system within the accommodating cavity (figures 20, 22A and 23), the coil is connected with the frame and extends into a magnetic gap of the magnetic circuit system along a vibration direction of the transducer device (figures 20, 22A and 23), and the vibration panel (2030, 2213, 2313) is connected with the frame (figures 20, 22A, 23).
Regarding claim 70, Liao et al. teaches a mass of the core housing and/or a stiffness of the first vibration plate (paragraphs [0008], [0071]-[0072], [0082], [0103], [0107], [0143], [0146]) and a frequency response curve of the vibration plate (paragraphs [0140] and [0145]). Liao et al. does not specifically disclose that a mass of the core housing and/or a stiffness of the first vibration plate is configured such that the frequency response curve has an effective resonant valley in a frequency band within a range of 200 Hz to 400 Hz as claimed. However, Liao et al. does not restrict to any mass of the core housing and/or a stiffness of the first vibration plate (paragraphs [0008], [0071]-[0072], [0082], [0103], [0107], [0143], [0146]) and a frequency range for the frequency response curve of the vibration panel (paragraphs [0140] and [0145] and figures 21B-21C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any mass of the core housing and/or a stiffness of the first vibration plate in the system of Liao et al. such as providing a mass of the core housing and/or a stiffness of the first vibration plate that is configured such that the frequency response curve has an effective resonant valley in a frequency band within a range of 200 Hz to 400 Hz depending on the applications, the desired frequency characteristics and for better improving the sound quality in the system.
Regarding claim 71, Liao et al. teaches a mass of the core housing and a stiffness of the first vibration plate (paragraphs [0008], [0071]-[0072], [0082], [0103], [0107], [0143], [0146]). Liao et al. does not specifically disclose a mass of the core housing and a stiffness of the first vibration plate as claimed. However, Liao et al. does not restrict to any mass for the core housing and any stiffness for the first vibration plate (paragraphs [0008], [0071]-[0072], [0082], [0103], [0107], [0143], [0146]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any mass of the core housing and any stiffness of the first vibration plate in the system of Liao et al. such as providing a mass of the core housing that is greater than or equal to 1 g, and a stiffness of the first vibration plate that is less than or equal to 7000 N/m depending on the applications, the desired frequency characteristics and for better improving the sound quality in the system.
Regarding claim 72, Liao et al. teaches a frequency response curve of the vibration plate (paragraphs [0140] and [0145] and figures 21B-21C). Liao et al. does not specifically disclose that the frequency response curve has two resonant peaks as claimed. However, Liao et al. does not restrict a frequency range for the frequency response curve and the resonant peaks generated jointly by the first vibration plate and the second vibration plate (paragraphs [0140] and [0145]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any frequency response curve in the system of Liao et al. such as providing the frequency response curve that has two resonant peaks generated jointly by the first vibration plate and the second vibration plate in a frequency band within a range of 400 Hz to 2 kHz depending on the applications, the desired frequency characteristics and for better improving the sound quality in the system.
Regarding claim 73, Liao et al. teaches a stiffness of the first vibration plate and/or the second vibration plate (paragraphs [0008], [0071]-[0072], [0082], [0103], [0107], [0143], [0146]). Liao et al. does not specifically disclose a stiffness of the second vibration plate as claimed. However, Liao et al. does not restrict to any stiffness for the first vibration plate and/or the second vibration plate (paragraphs [0008], [0071]-[0072], [0082], [0103], [0107], [0143], [0146]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any stiffness of the second vibration plate in the system of Liao et al. such as providing a stiffness of the second vibration plate that is greater than or equal to 1000 N/m depending on the applications, the desired frequency characteristics and for better improving the sound quality in the system.
Regarding claim 74, Liao et al. teaches a mass of the core housing and/or a stiffness of the first vibration plate (paragraphs [0008], [0071]-[0072], [0082], [0103], [0107], [0143], [0146]) and a frequency response curve of the vibration plate (paragraphs [0140] and [0145] and figures 21B-21C). Liao et al. does not specifically disclose that a mass of the core housing and/or a stiffness of the first vibration plate is configured such that the frequency response curve has the effective resonant valley in a frequency band within a range of 2kHz to 20 kHz as claimed. However, Liao et al. does not restrict to any mass of the core housing and/or a stiffness of the first vibration plate (paragraphs [0008], [0071]-[0072], [0082], [0103], [0107], [0143], [0146]) and a frequency range for the frequency response curve of the vibration panel (paragraphs [0140] and [0145]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any mass of the core housing and/or any stiffness of the first vibration plate in the system of Liao et al. such as providing a mass of the core housing and/or a stiffness of the first vibration plate that is configured such that the frequency response curve has the effective resonant valley in a frequency band within a range of 2 kHz to 20 kHz depending on the applications, the desired frequency characteristics and for better improving the sound quality in the system.
Regarding claim 75, Liao et al. teaches a mass of the core housing and a stiffness of the first vibration plate (paragraphs [0008], [0071]-[0072], [0082], [0103], [0107], [0143], [0146]). Liao et al. does not specifically disclose a mass of the core housing and a stiffness of the first vibration plate as claimed. However, Liao et al. does not restrict to any mass for the core housing and any stiffness for the first vibration plate (paragraphs [0008], [0071]-[0072], [0082], [0103], [0107], [0143], [0146]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any mass of the core housing and any stiffness of the first vibration plate in the system of Liao et al. such as providing a mass of the core housing that is less than or equal to 0.5 g, and a stiffness of the first vibration plate that is greater than or equal to 80,000 N/m depending on the applications, the desired frequency characteristics and for better improving the sound quality in the system.
Regarding claims 77, 79 and 81, Liao et al. teaches a mass of the core housing and a stiffness of the first vibration plate and/or the second vibration plate (paragraphs [0008], [0071]-[0072], [0082], [0103], [0107], [0143], [0146]). Liao et al. does not specifically disclose a mass of the core housing and a stiffness of the first vibration plate and the second vibration plate as claimed. However, Liao et al. does not restrict to any mass for the core housing and any stiffness for the first vibration plate and the second vibration plate (paragraphs [0008], [0071]-[0072], [0082], [0103], [0107], [0143], [0146]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any mass of the core housing, any stiffness of the first vibration plate and any stiffness of the second vibration plate in the system of Liao et al. such as providing a mass of the core housing that is greater than or equal to 1 g or less than, or equal 0.5 g, a stiffness of the first vibration plate that is less than or equal to 2500 N/m, greater than or equal to 80,000 N/m, or greater than or equal to 160,000 N/m, and a stiffness of the second vibration plate that is less than or equal to 10000 N/m, or between 1,000 N/m and 5000,000 N/m depending on the applications, the desired frequency characteristics and for better improving the sound quality in the system.
Regarding claim 80, Liao et al. teaches a frequency response curve of the vibration plate (paragraphs [0140] and [0145] and figures 21B-21C). Liao et al. does not specifically disclose that the frequency response curve has at least one resonant peak as claimed. However, Liao et al. does not restrict a frequency range for the frequency response curve and the resonant peaks generated jointly by the first vibration plate and the second vibration plate (paragraphs [0140] and [0145]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any frequency response curve in the system of Liao et al. such as providing the frequency response curve that has at least one resonant peak generated jointly by the first vibration plate and the second vibration plate in a frequency band within a range of 200 Hz to 2 kHz depending on the applications, the desired frequency characteristics and for better improving the sound quality in the system.
Regarding claim 83, Liao et al. teaches a headphone comprising a supporting assembly (1201, figures 12, 14A, 14B, 15) and a core module (1202, 1203, 1202a, 1202b, and see the core module in figures 12, 18B, 20, 22A and 23) connected with the supporting assembly. Liao does not specifically disclose that the core module is in a cantilever state relative to the supporting assembly as claimed. However, it is well known in the art to provide a flexible supporting assembly or the core module is in a cantilever state relative to the supporting assembly in a headphone device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a flexible supporting assembly and the core module is in a cantilever state relative to the supporting assembly in the system of Liao et al. for better providing a supporting assembly in the headphone system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US 2006/0165246) teaches a bone conduction speaker using a vibrating plate comprising a body having a shape of a cylinder of which upper portion is opened, a mastoid which is contacted to bone conduction of a user and by which is transmitted to the user, and an acoustic vibrating plate which is inserted at a lower side of the mastoid to cover the opening portion of the body and which is made of an elastic material.
Fukuda (US 2015/0264473) teaches a bone conduction speaker unit comprising a bone conduction speaker main body in a housing, wherein an elastic plate is fixed on a top face of a plate yoke of the main body, an elastic cover for holding a contact which, upon a pressing force having been applied thereto in use, is abutted against the plate yoke through the elastic plate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUYEN D LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7502. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am-6:00 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, Fan Tsang can be reached at (571) 272-7547. 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.
/HUYEN D LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694 HL
April 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights