Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/685,238

AUDIO OUTPUT DEVICE AND INSPECTION METHOD

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 21, 2024
Examiner
SNIEZEK, ANDREW L
Art Unit
2693
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Sony Group Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 1m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allow Rate
1030 granted / 1213 resolved
+22.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+8.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 1m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
1241
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.7%
-37.3% vs TC avg
§103
36.8%
-3.2% vs TC avg
§102
35.1%
-4.9% vs TC avg
§112
18.8%
-21.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1213 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 2/21/24 has been considered. Drawings The drawings filed 2/21/24 are acceptable to the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claim(s) 1, 14 and17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bernal Castillo et al. (US 2020/0275222 A1). Re claim 1: Bernal Castillo et al. teaches an audio output device comprising: a plurality of actuators (depicted for example in figure 3A, including elements 326 and 33) each of which function to vibrate) or as depicted in an alternative embodiment in figure 8A, elements 826a, 826b) that vibrates a diaphragm from a back surface side to output audio from a front surface side of the diaphragm (See discussion in paragraph [0050] directed to similar use of elements); and a determination unit (such as element 308 or 808) that determines presence or absence of abnormality of an inspection target actuator to be inspected among the actuators on a basis of a displacement signal from a measurement actuator arranged in a vicinity of the inspection target actuator (note the processor receives signals from a detection actuator/sensor (such as (330) that indicates if an actuator (such as 326) provides enough actuation to the backside of the display to obtain a desired audio output; see discussion in paragraph [0054] and [0057]) , the displacement signal being output in response to vibration of the inspection target actuator (note the displacement signal sensed by element (330) is in response to a vibration produced in the display by the actuator (326). Re claim 17: this claim substantially sets forth in a method that corresponds to the operation of the device as set forth in claim 1 and is deemed taught by the operation of those features in Bernal Castillo et al. as discussed above with respect to claim 1. Re claim 14: the claimed unit that generates a signal for the target actuator is satisfied by element (324) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernal Castillo et al. in view of Liu et al. (US 2024/0170625 A1). Re claim 9: The teaching of Bernal Castillo et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Bernal Castillo et al. does not teach that the electronic device includes a substrate having light emitting element(s) mounted thereon. Liu et al. teaches in a similar environment of electronic devices that the display includes a substrate mounting light emitting elements (see paragraph [100]) providing a means which allows for images to be displayed to a user. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these features of Liu et al. into the device arrangement of Bernal Castillo et al. to predictable provide means which allows for images to be displayed to a user. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention. Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernal Castillo et al. in view of Lee et al. (US 2021/0058690 A1) Re claims 15-16: The teaching of Bernal Castillo et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. Bernal Castillo et al. does not teach the type of actuator used; piezo (claim 15) or voice coil (claim 16). Lee et al. teaches in a similar environment each of these types of actuators to vibrate the display (paragraph [0101] and be used alternatively for the same purpose of vibrating the display for audio. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate either of these actuators into the device arrangement of Bernal Castillo et al. to predictably provide alternatives in the structure used to vibrate the display and provide audio. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernal Castillo et al. in view of Liu et al.as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (US 2013/0222722 A1). Re claim 12: The teaching of Bernal Castillo et al. in view of Liu et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. This combination does not teach to tile the display arrangement. Zhao et al. teaches in a similar environment to tile displays (See paragraph [0176] as an alternative way of displaying information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate such a feature into the arrangement of Bernal Castillo et al. in view of Liu et al. as applied to predictably provide an alternative way in which information can be displayed to a user. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-8, 10-11 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The claimed device including those features set forth in claim 1 in combination wherein the determination unit determines presence or absence of abnormality of the inspection target actuator by comparing the displacement signal output from the measurement actuator in response to vibration of the inspection target actuator with a reference signal recorded in advance for the measurement actuator as set forth in claim 2 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The limitations of claims 3-8 depend upon those features of claim 2/1. The claimed device including in combination those features set forth in claim 9/1 further comprising a presentation control unit that presents presence or absence of abnormality of the inspection target actuator as set forth in claim 10 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. The limitations of claim 11 depend upon those features of claim 10/9/1. The claimed device including in combination those features set forth in claim 1 that further comprises an audio output unit that is configured by combining a plurality of the diaphragms as set forth in claim 13 is neither taught by nor an obvious variation of the art of record. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM EST. 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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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. /ANDREW SNIEZEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 /A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 1/26/26
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 21, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598415
AUDIO PROCESSING SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598421
ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND CONTROLLING METHOD OF ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12582375
Modular Auscultation Device
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12581235
NOISE REDUCTION SYSTEM USING FINITE IMPULSE RESPONSE FILTER THAT IS UPDATED BY CONFIGURATION OF MINIMUM PHASE FILTER FOR NOISE REDUCTION AND ASSOCIATED METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12568326
MECHANISM FOR EXTERNAL MULTI-FUNCTIONAL CABLE RETENTION FOR A HEARING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
85%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+8.8%)
2y 1m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1213 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month