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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to applicant's amendment which was filed on 5/6/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, and 4-7 have been amended. Claims 2-3 have been cancelled. No claims have been added. Claims 1, and 4-19 are still pending in this application, with claim 1 being independent.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-9, 11, 14-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clyne (US 2018/0081258) in view of Parkins (US 9084053) in further view of Lee (US 2021/0046425).
Regarding claim 1, Clyne teaches A microphone module, comprising: a casing (Clyne figures 2A-2B, front housing 210); a microphone, disposed in the casing (Clyne figures 2A-2B, microphone system 220); a drainage structure, disposed on the casing, the drainage structure comprising a first channel and a second channel connected to each other (Clyne figures 2A-2B, ¶0028, channels 250a-c and the path of drainage ports 240a-b are considered channels), wherein a first sound hole (Clyne figure 2B-2C, and ¶0029, openings of channel 250b) and a drainage hole of the first channel (Clyne figure 2B-2C, drainage port 240a, 240b) are exposed from the casing (Clyne figure 1C and 2C, drainage channel 118 and ¶0026 “front housing removed”), and a second sound hole (Clyne figure 2B-2C, the circular channel connected to path 250a where the microphone 220 receives sound is considered a sound hole. Drainage hole 240a and The ends of path 250a can be considered sound holes as well) of the second channel corresponds to the microphone (Clyne figure 2B-2C, channels 250a, ¶0029, “The microphone port 220 of the microphone system is orthogonal to the front surface 230 and may couple the microphone system to the external environment via the drainage channels 250 and drainage ports 240”), wherein a first normal line of the first sound hole is perpendicular to a second normal line of the second sound hole (Clyne figures 2C, normal line of the sound hole of microphone 220 extends vertically while the normal line of opening of channels 250a-c extends horizontally. Also note that with BRI, the claim does not define from what surface of the sound hole the normal line is formed. It may be normal to the longitudinal axis or the face of the cylindrical hole. Drainage hole 240a is perpendicular to the vertical opening of 250b in figure 2B); and a waterproof membrane, disposed on the casing and located between the microphone and the second sound hole (Clyne ¶0029, “The microphone port 220 can be the portion of the waterproof membrane protecting the microphone exposed to the external environment and can be substantially circular in shape”), wherein the first channel comprises a first portion and a second portion connected to each other (Clyne figure 2B, vertical portion of channel 250b is connected to the horizontal portion of 250b), the first portion extending along a first extension axis and the second portion extending along a second extension axis (Clyne figure 2B, vertical portion of channel 250b is extending vertically while the horizontal portion is extending horizontally), wherein the first portion is connected to the first sound hole and the second channel (Clyne figure 2B, the vertical part of 250b connectors to the 250a via the opening of channel 250b), the second portion is connected to the drainage hole (port 250b), and an included angle is formed between the first extension axis and the second extension axis (Clyne figure 2B, the angles in the arcuate portion of channel 250b), wherein the first portion intersects the second channel at a first connection end (Clyne figure 2B, 250b intersecting 250a), the first portion intersects the second portion at a second connection end (Clyne figure 2B, arcuate portion of 250b), and a distance is provided between the first connection end and the second connection end (Clyne figure 2B, distance between the top opening of channel 250b and the arcuate portion), however does not clearly teach a waterproof membrane, disposed on the casing and located between the microphone and the second sound hole and the distance being greater than or equal to 3 millimeters.
Parkin further supports the teaching of a waterproof membrane, disposed on the casing and located between the microphone (Parkins Col 3 lines 45-55, “an additional waterproof membrane, called an acoustic vent, can be incorporated to block the path to the microphone sensing surface to ensure that the microphone is not damaged by contact with water. Acoustic vents may be attached directly to the front face of a microphone”) and the second sound hole (Parkins figure 4, coupler inlet 48, chamber 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Parkin to improve the known microphone of Clyne to achieve the predictable result of reducing the damage to the microphone from water (Parkins Col 3 lines 45-55).
Lee teaches teach the distance being greater than or equal to 3 millimeters (Lee ¶0059, “the drainage path 130 of the filter body 10 has a vertical length (L of FIG. 3) of 5 mm-30 mm” and figure 2, flow path 120).
Therefore, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the distance between the first connection end and the second connection end to be greater than or equal to 3mm to achieve the appropriate routing of unwanted water since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, Clyne in view of Parkins in further view of Lee teaches wherein a combination of a length of the first portion along the first extension axis and a length of the second portion along the second extension axis is less than or equal to 17 millimeters (Lee ¶0059 “the drainage path 130 of the filter body 10 has a vertical length (L of FIG. 3) of 5 mm-30 mm,” A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 5, Clyne in view of Parkins in further view of Lee teaches wherein the first extension axis coincides with the first normal line (Clyne figure 2B, vertical part of channel 250b coincides with the line normal to drainage hole 240a).
Regarding claim 6, Clyne in view of Parkins in further view of Lee teaches wherein the included angle is greater than 90 degrees and less than or equal to 180 degrees (Clyne figure 2B, the arc in channel 250b has angles greater than 90 degrees).
Regarding claim 8, Clyne in view of Parkins in further view of Lee teaches wherein the second channel extends along a third extension axis, and an angle is formed between the third extension axis and the first normal line, the angle being less than or equal to 90 degrees (Clyne figures 2C, normal line of the sound hole of microphone 220 extends vertically while the normal line of opening of channels 250a-c extends horizontally).
Regarding claim 9, Clyne in view of Parkins in further view of Lee teaches wherein the second normal line is different from the third extension axis, and an included angle between the second normal line and the third extension axis is less than 90 degrees (Clyne figure 2B, channel 250a extends slightly less than 90 degrees from the vertical channel 250b).
Regarding claim 11, Clyne in view of Parkins in further view of Lee teaches wherein the casing comprises a first outer surface and a second outer surface connected to each other, wherein the first sound hole is located on the first outer surface, and the drainage hole is located on the second outer surface (Clyne figure 2B, drainage hole 240a and 240b).
Regarding claim 14, Clyne in view of Parkins in further view of Lee teaches wherein the first channel extends along the first normal line, and the drainage hole is located on the first normal line (Clyne figure 2B, drainage hole 240b meets the normal line of the horizonal opening of channel 240b).
Regarding claim 15, Clyne in view of Parkins in further view of Lee teaches wherein the casing comprises a first outer surface and a third outer surface opposite to each other, wherein the first sound hole is located on the first outer surface, and the drainage hole is located on the third outer surface (Clyne figure 2B, the housing portion of the bottom case, has an exterior side and an interior side opposite the exterior side. The interior side is a part of the first sound hole of channel 250b and drainage hole 240b is part of the exterior side).
Regarding claim 18, Clyne in view of Parkins in further view of Lee teaches wherein the casing comprises a first casing and a second casing connected to each other (Clyne figure 2C and ¶0026, “FIG. 2C illustrates an isometric view of the drainage channel with the front housing removed, showing components of the integrated drainage channels internal to the camera housing”), the second casing and the first casing forming a cavity together (Clyne figure 3B), wherein the drainage structure and the waterproof membrane is embedded in the first casing, and the microphone is located in the cavity (Clyne figure 3B).
Claim(s) 7 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clyne (US 2018/0081258) in view of Parkins (US 9084053) in further view of Lee (US 2021/0046425) in further view of Jing (US 2017/0006398).
Regarding claim 7, Clyne in view of Parkins in further view of Lee does not explicitly teach wherein a width of the second portion perpendicular to the second extension axis changes along the second extension axis.
Jing teaches wherein a width of the second portion perpendicular to the second extension axis changes along the second extension axis (Jing figure 7, channel 702 has varying width).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Jing to improve the known microphone of Clyne in view of Parkins in further view of Lee to achieve the predictable result of improving the drainage speed (Jing ¶0017).
Regarding claim 10, Clyne in view of Parkins in further view of Lee in further view of Jing teaches wherein a width of the second channel perpendicular to the third extension axis changes along the third extension axis (Jing figure 7, channel 702 has varying width).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clyne (US 2018/0081258) in view of Parkins (US 9084053) in further view of Lee (US 2021/0046425) in further view of Wang (US 2024/0064460).
Regarding claim 12, Clyne in view of Parkins in further view of Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the first sound hole comprises a plurality of first sub-sound holes, each of the first sub-sound holes having a diameter between 0.2 millimeters and 1 millimeter and a depth between 0.5 millimeters and 1 millimeter.
Wang teaches wherein the first sound hole comprises a plurality of first sub-sound holes, each of the first sub-sound holes having a diameter between 0.2 millimeters and 1 millimeter (Wang figure 6 and ¶0146, ¶0148 “the hole diameter may be in a range of 0.1 mm-0.2 mm”) and a depth between 0.5 millimeters and 1 millimeter (Wang ¶0148, “the plate thickness may be in a range of 0.2 mm-0.7 mm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Wang to improve the known microphone of Clyne in view of Parkins in further view of Lee to achieve the predictable result of adjusting the sound absorption in specific frequency ranges (Wang ¶0146).
Regarding claim 13, Clyne in view of Parkins in further view of Lee in further view of Wang teaches wherein the second sound hole comprises a plurality of second sub-sound holes, each of the second sub-sound holes having a diameter between 0.2 millimeters and 1 millimeter (Wang figure 6 and ¶0146, ¶0148 “the hole diameter may be in a range of 0.1 mm-0.2 mm”) and a depth between 0.5 millimeters and 1 millimeter (Wang ¶0148, “the plate thickness may be in a range of 0.2 mm-0.7 mm”).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clyne (US 2018/0081258) in view of Parkins (US 9084053) in further view of Lee (US 2021/0046425) in further view of Woo (US 2023/0188879).
Regarding claim 16, Clyne in view of Parkins in further view of Lee does not explicitly teach a circuit board, wherein the circuit board is disposed in the casing and located between the waterproof membrane and the microphone, and the circuit board comprises an opening, the opening corresponding to the second sound hole, wherein the microphone is connected to the circuit board and covers the opening.
Woo teaches a circuit board, wherein the circuit board is disposed in the casing and located between the waterproof membrane and the, and the circuit board comprises an opening, the opening corresponding to the second sound hole, wherein the microphone is connected to the circuit board and covers the opening microphone (Woo figure 9, microphone 242, first circuit board 241 and waterproof layer 261).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Woo to improve the known microphone of Clyne in view of Parkins in further view of Lee to achieve the predictable result of a thinner device (Woo ¶0011).
Regarding claim 17, Clyne in view of Parkins in further view of Lee in further view of Woo teaches a circuit assembly and a circuit board, wherein the circuit board is disposed in the casing, and the circuit assembly is at least partially disposed in the casing (Woo figure 9, microphone 242, first circuit board 241 and waterproof layer 261).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19 is 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 because the closest prior art either alone or in combination, fail to anticipate or render obvious, the claimed limitation of “wherein the first channel comprises a first portion and a plurality of second portions, the plurality of second portions intersecting the first portion at a second connection end, wherein the drainage hole comprises a plurality of sub-drainage holes, and the plurality of second portions are connected to the plurality of sub-drainage holes respectively” in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as defined by the applicant.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 10-11 of Remarks that Lee does not teach “a distance is provided between the first connection end and the second connection end, the distance being greater than or equal to 3 millimeters,” because length L of the drainage path 130 of Lee figure 3, only indicates the opening length of the drainage path 130, rather than a measure to limit the length of the drainage path 130 in the extension direction and does not provide the specific relationship between the two endpoints. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that Lee does not teach the distance relationship between the two endpoints, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Examiner relied on reference Clyne to teach the relationship between the two endpoint as elaborated in the rejection of the current office action : a distance is provided between the first connection end and the second connection end (Clyne figure 2B, distance between the top opening of channel 250b and the arcuate portion). With BRI, the length of a portion of the channel 250b is considered the claimed distance, and Lee does not need to teach the relation between the two connection ends. Examiner relied on Lee to teach that a channel can be greater than or equal to 3 millimeters. Looking at figures 3 of Lee, the Length L of drainage path 130 is 5mm-30mm, which is already greater than the claimed distance being greater than or equal to 3 millimeters. Lee further shows channels that are longer than said drainage path 130, where the length of flow path 120 clearly reads on the claimed limitation “a distance is provided between the first connection end and the second connection end, the distance being greater than or equal to 3 millimeters” (Lee figure 2, flow path 120). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Lee with Clyne in view of Parkins to teach the claimed limitation “a distance is provided between the first connection end and the second connection end, the distance being greater than or equal to 3 millimeters” since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). The arguments are not persuasive and the claims stand rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NORMAN YU whose telephone number is (571)270-7436. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571-272-7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Va. 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for
informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Arlington, VA 22314
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NORMAN YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights