DETAILED ACTION
I. 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 .
II. Response to Amendment
A. The response, filed December 30, 2025, has been entered and made of record. Claims 1,3-7,9, and 10 are pending in the application.
B. Applicant’s cancellation of claim 8 has obviated the outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
III. Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding amended claim 1 and the combination of Haddad and Zhou et al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments are primarily directed to Zhou et al., which was not specifically relied upon to satisfy the limitation of the plurality of microphones being disposed between the display and the imaging unit as required by canceled claim 2. The examiner agrees with Applicant as to Zhou’s positioning of the microphones and camera. However, Haddad illustrates a microphone disposed between a camera and a display, the only difference between Haddad and amended claim 1 being Haddad only discloses a single microphone. Zhou et al. was introduced to show a plurality of microphones arranged laterally, not for the positioning of those microphones relative to a display and imaging unit. As stated in the previous Office action with regard to claim 1, “the examiner submits that it would have also been obvious to mount Haddad’s camera image sensor and the two microphones on a substrate as disclosed by Zhou et al, with the relative positioning of the microphones and the camera illustrated by Haddad.”
IV. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
A. Claims 1,6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haddad (US # 9,571,708 B2) in view of the Chinese Publication of Zhou et al. (CN 113079292 A)
Please refer to the attached translation of Zhou et al. for the cited page and line numbers as they differ from those of original Chinese document.
As to claim 1, Haddad teaches an electronic device (Figure 1, electronic device “102”) comprising:
a housing (Figure 1, unnumbered housing of electronic device “102”);
a display disposed in the housing (Figure 1, display “104”);
an imaging unit (Figure 1, camera “135”) disposed in the housing and positioned around the display in a planar view of the housing (Figure 1; {The planar view of the housing is the view of the electronic device housing as illustrated in Figure 1.}); and
a microphone (Figure 1, upper microphone “136”) disposed in the housing and positioned around the imaging unit in a planar view of the housing (Figure 1), wherein
the microphone is disposed at a position closer to the display than the imaging unit (Figure 1) in a first direction in which the display and the imaging unit are adjacent to each other (Figure 1; {The examiner reads “a first direction” as the vertical direction with respect to the planar view of the housing illustrated in Haddad’s Figure 1.})[[.]],
wherein the microphone is disposed between the display and the imaging unit (Figure 1)
The claim differs Haddad in that it requires that the electronic device includes a plurality of microphones that are disposed side by side at intervals in a second direction intersecting the first direction. However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhou et al. teaches a display device (electronic device of Fig. 1 with display panel “200”) including a housing (Fig. 3, housing “11”) for a camera (Fig. 1, one of cameras “22”) and a plurality of microphones (Fig. 8, microphones “243”). The microphones are horizontally positioned relative to each at intervals (Fig. 8; {The horizontal direction is the claimed second direction which intersects the vertical first direction. Furthermore, a point to the left of the leftmost microphone can be arbitrarily chosen such that this left point is a distance from the leftmost microphone equal to the distance between the two microphones, thereby resulting in interval positioning of the microphones.}). The housing includes a plurality of sound holes corresponding to the microphones (Fig. 4, sound collecting holes “212c”) and encloses a substrate (Fig. 8, connecting plate “221”) with a surface (Fig. 8, second connecting plate surface “221b”) on which the microphones and a camera image sensor are mounted (p. 10, lines 23 and 24; p. 11, lines 19-21; {The microphones are mounted on the second connecting plate surface via substrate “241.”}).
In light of the teaching of Zhou et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include an additional upper microphone in Haddad’s device housing that is horizontally spaced from the disclosed upper microphone as illustrated in Zhou et al. Furthermore, the examiner submits that it would have also been obvious to mount Haddad’s camera image sensor and the two microphones on a substrate as disclosed by Zhou et al, with the relative positioning of the microphones and the camera illustrated by Haddad. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the extra microphone would widen the directional field of audio capture, resulting in high-quality sound data. Also, mounting the camera image sensor and microphones as disclosed by Zhou et al. would establish a stable and compact installation foundation (see Zhou et al., p. 11, lines 21-23).
As to claim 6, Haddad, as modified by Zhou et al., teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, further comprising a substrate (see Zhou et al., Fig. 8, connecting plate “221”) having a mounting surface (Fig. 8, second connecting plate surface “221b”) on which the plurality of microphones and the imaging unit are mounted (see Zhou et al., p. 10, lines 23 and 24; p. 11, lines 19-21; {The microphones are mounted on the second connecting plate surface via substrate “241.”}), wherein
the mounting surface of the substrate includes a first region in which the imaging unit is mounted and a second region in which the plurality of microphones are mounted (see Zhou et al., Fig. 8), and the first region and the second region are disposed separately in the first direction (see Haddad, Figure 1).
As to claim 9, Haddad, as modified by Zhou et al., teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the imaging unit and the plurality of microphones are positioned in an upper center in a planar view of the housing (see Haddad, Figure 1).
B. Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haddad (US # 9,571,708 B2) in view of Zhou et al. (CN 113079292 A) and further in view of Kunnathu Kulangara et al. (US 2018/0352062 A1)
As to claim 3, Haddad, as modified by Zhou et al., teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the housing is provided with a plurality of first through holes (The examiner submits that sound collecting holes are inherent in Haddad’s device housing. Also, note the sound collecting through holes “212c” of Zhou’s Fig. 4.}). The claim differs from Haddad, as modified by Zhou et al., in that it further requires that the electronic device includes an elastic member disposed between the housing and the plurality of microphones and that the elastic member is provided with a plurality of second through holes connected to the plurality of first through holes.
However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Kunnathu Kulangara et al. discloses a display device (Fig. 7) having a housing that encloses a microphone (e.g., Fig. 7, microphone port “656”). The housing includes a sound hole that leads to the microphone (Fig. 3, port “216”) and encloses a rubber gasket in contact with the housing (see Fig. 3, rubber gasket “220” ;{The examiner reads the rubber gasket as the claimed elastic member.}). The gasket includes an opening connected to the sound hole, allowing sound to reach the microphone (Fig. 3). In light of the teaching of Kunnathu Kulangara et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a rubber gasket between the Haddad’s device housing and each respective microphone (without Kunnathu Kulangara’s transparent tube) and having an opening that connects the housing sound holes to the microphone because an artisan of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a gasket positioned as disclosed by Kunnathu Kulangara et al. would add resiliency against compressive and bending forces between the housing and the substrate on which the microphone is positioned (see Kunnathu Kulangara et al., [0022], lines 6-8) as well as prevent sound leakage (see Kunnathu Kulangara et al., [0017], lines 10 and 11).
As to claim 4, Haddad, as modified by Zhou et al. and Kunnathu Kulangara et al., teaches the electronic device according to claim 3, wherein the plurality of microphones are configured to receive sounds having passed through the plurality of first through holes and the plurality of second through holes (see Kunnathu Kulangara et al., Fig. 3; [0015], lines 8-10).
As to claim 5, Haddad, as modified by Zhou et al. and Kunnathu Kulangara et al., teaches the electronic device according to claim 3, wherein the housing has a surface in contact with the elastic member, and the elastic member is pressed by the surface of the housing (see Kunnathu Kulangara et al., Fig. 3; {Note the prevention of sound leakage discussed in para. [0017].}).
C. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haddad (US # 9,571,708 B2) in view of Zhou et al. (CN 113079292 A) and further in view of Bettner et al. (US 2005/0146475 A1)
As to claim 7, Haddad, as modified by Zhou et al., teaches the electronic device according to claim 1. The claim differs from Haddad, as modified by Zhou et al., in that it further requires that the device includes two antennas disposed in the housing and that the two antennas are respectively disposed in two regions disposed on both sides of the plurality of microphones in a planar view of the housing.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Bettner et al. discloses a handheld display device (Fig. 9, tablet “910”) having a housing frame positioned vertically and horizontally along the whole periphery of the device’s display (Fig. 9). The frame includes slot antennas that are positioned along the vertical frame portions (e.g., Figs. 1 and 9). In light of the teaching of Bettner et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to position slot antennas in the portions of Haddad’s device housing that vertically border the display because, as Bettner et al. notes in para. [0015], these slot antennas can be implemented durably with a low profile and can comparatively reduce the weight of the host device.
D. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haddad (US # 9,571,708 B2) in view of Zhou et al. (CN 113079292 A) and further in view of Yeh et al. (US # 11,143,937 B2)
As to claim 10, Haddad, as modified by Zhou et al., teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the imaging unit includes an imaging element (see Haddad, Figure 1, camera “135”; {A camera within a mobile device inherently has an imaging element.}). Although Haddad discloses a shutter that that shields the imaging element by moving in the second direction (Figures 3A-3C, shutter “340”), the reference fails to specifically disclose that it is part of the imaging unit and, thus, disposed in the housing.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yeh et al. discloses a mobile device (col. 2, lines 20-25) including a camera disposed in the device housing and a shutter that is integral with the device housing and that shields the camera by sliding in a horizontal direction (Fig. 3; col. 4, lines 55-57). In light of the teaching of Yeh et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design Haddad’s shutter as an integral part of the device housing because this would alleviate the need to attach a separate case that includes the shutter.
VI. 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 ANTHONY J DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)272-7362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Sinh Tran can be reached at 571-272-7564. 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.
/ANTHONY J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
2/21/2026