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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 293 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 293 recites the limitation "the peak resonance frequency of the resonance valley" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 58-66 and 292-301 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, wherein a mass of the core housing is less than 0.5 g or less than 1.0 g, and a stiffness of the first vibration plate is greater than 80,000 N/m or greater than 7000 N/m.
The limitations in claims 1, 95-103 and 292-301 of copending Application No. 18/542512 (reference application) cover the limitations in claims 1, 58-66 and 292-301 of the present application.
Claims 1, 58-66 and 292-301 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 67-83 and 292-293 of copending Application No. 18/542,531 (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 a mass of the core housing is less than 0.5 g, and a stiffness of the first vibration plate is greater than 80,000 N/m (note claims 75, 77 and 81 in the copending Application No. 18/542,531).
The limitations in claims 1, 67-83 and 292-293 of copending Application No. 18/542531 (reference application) cover the limitations in claims 1, 58-66 and 292-301 of the present application.
Claims 1, 58-66 and 292-301 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 46-55 and 292-300 of copending Application No. 18/542,570 (reference application) and claims 1, 84-93 and 292-300 of copending Application No. 18/544,353 (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, the transducer device is suspended in the accommodating cavity of the core housing through the first vibration plate, a mass of the core housing and a stiffness of the first vibration plate.
Claims 1, 46-55 and 292-300 of copending Application No. 18/542,570 and claims 1, 84-93 and 292-300 of copending Application No. 18/544,353 do not specifically claim that the mass of the core housing is less than or equal to 0.5 g, and the stiffness of the first vibration plate is greater than or equal to 80,000 N/m. However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any mass for the core housing and any stiffness for the first vibration plate as claimed in claims 1, 46-55 and 292-300 of copending Application No. 18/542,570, and claims 1, 84-93 and 292-300 of copending Application No. 18/544,353 such as providing the mass of the core housing is less than or equal to 0.5 g, and the stiffness of the first vibration plate is greater than or equal to 80,000 N/m depending on the applications and the desired frequency characteristics in the system.
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, 58-62 and 292-294 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),
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 claim 58, 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 59, Liao et al. shows a peripheral region of the second vibration plate (2001, 2217, 2317) that is connected with the frame (2012, 2212, 2312, figures 20, 22A and 23), and a central region of the second vibration plate that is connected with the magnetic circuit system (figures 20, 22A, 23).
Regarding claim 60, Liao et al. teaches a frequency response curve of the vibration panel in a non-wearing state (paragraph [0145]). Liao et al. does not specifically disclose a frequency response curve of the vibration panel that has a resonant valley and a peak resonance frequency of the resonant valley 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 panel in the system of Liao et al. such as providing a frequency response curve of the vibration panel that has a resonant valley generated by the first vibration plate, and the peak resonance frequency of the resonant valley that is greater than or equal to a 2kHz depending on the applications, the desired frequency characteristics and better improving the sound quality in the system.
Regarding claim 61, Liao et al. teaches a frequency response curve of the vibration panel and/or the vibration plates (paragraphs [0140] and [0145] and figures 21B-21C). Liao et al. does not specifically disclose that the frequency response curve has first and second resonant peaks as claimed. However, Liao et al. does not restrict a frequency range for the frequency response curve and/or 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 having a first resonance peak and a second resonance peak that are generated jointly by the first vibration plate and the second vibration plate, the peak resonance frequency of the first resonant peak that is less than the peak resonance frequency of the resonant valley, and a peak resonance frequency of the second resonant peak that is greater than the peak resonance frequency of the resonance valley depending on the applications, the desired frequency characteristics and for better improving the sound quality in the system.
Regarding claims 62 and 294, Liao et al. teaches a frequency response curve of the vibration plates (paragraphs [0140] and [0145] and figures 21B-21C). Liao et al. does not specifically disclose that the frequency response curve has first and second resonant peaks as claimed. However, Liao et al. does not restrict a frequency range for the frequency response curve and/or 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 having the peak resonance frequency of the first resonant peak that is within a range of 200 Hz to 400 Hz, and a peak resonance frequency of the second resonant peak that is larger than or equal to 4 kHz depending on the applications, the desired frequency characteristics and for better improving the sound quality in the system.
Regarding claim 292, 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 160,000 N/m depending on the applications, the desired frequency characteristics and for better improving the sound quality in the system.
Regarding claim 293, Liao et al. teaches a frequency response curve of the vibration panel (paragraphs [0140] and [0145] and figures 21B-21C). Liao et al. does not specifically disclose that the frequency response curve has the peak resonance frequency of the resonant valley as claimed. However, Liao et al. does not restrict a frequency range for a 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 frequency response curve in the system of Liao et al. such as providing the frequency response curve having the peak resonance frequency of the resonant valley that is greater than or equal to 4 kHz depending on the applications, the desired frequency characteristics and for better improving the sound quality in the 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 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights