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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Microphone Module with Drainage Structure.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, 11, 14-15 and 17-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5 and 11 of copending Application No. 18/908779 in view of Clyne (US 2018/0081258). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: claim 1 of copending application teaches all the limitations in the claim 1 of instant application except for wherein a first normal line of the first sound hole is perpendicular to a second normal line of the second sound hole.
Clyne teaches 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).
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 Clyne to improve the microphone of copending application 18/908779 to achieve the predictable result of optimizing the drainage path to reduce damage to the device.
Dependent claims 2, 6, 8-9, 11, 14-15 and 18 are also rejected over claim 1 of Copending application 18/908779 in view of Clyne (See rejection below for how Clyne teaches the corresponding limitations of each claim).
Dependent claim 5 is rejected over claim 5 of Copending application 18/908779 in view of Clyne.
Dependent claim 17 is rejected over claim 11 of Copending application 18/908779 in view of Clyne.
Copending Application 18/908779
Instant Application 18/740541
1. A microphone module, comprising: a casing, having a recess; a microphone, disposed in the casing and corresponds to the recess; a drainage structure, disposed on the casing and comprising a first channel and a second channel connected to each other, wherein a first sound hole of the first channel is exposed from the casing, and a second sound hole of the second channel corresponds to the microphone; a waterproof membrane, disposed in the recess and located between the microphone and the second sound hole; and a limiting member, disposed in the recess and located between the microphone and the waterproof membrane.
5. The microphone module according to claim 1, wherein the first sound hole comprises a plurality of first sub-sound holes, and the second sound hole comprises a plurality of second sub-sound holes.
11. The microphone module according to claim 1, further comprising a circuit board and a circuit assembly, wherein the circuit board is disposed in the casing, at least part of the circuit assembly is disposed in the casing, and the microphone is connected to the circuit board.
1. A microphone module, comprising: a casing; a microphone, disposed in the casing; a drainage structure, disposed on the casing, the drainage structure comprising a first channel and a second channel connected to each other, wherein a first sound hole and a drainage hole of the first channel are exposed from the casing, and a second sound hole of the second channel corresponds to the microphone, wherein a first normal line of the first sound hole is perpendicular to a second normal line of the second sound hole; and a waterproof membrane, disposed on the casing and located between the microphone and the second sound hole.
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) 1-2, 5-6, 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).
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”), however does not clearly teach a waterproof membrane, disposed on the casing and located between the microphone and the second sound hole.
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).
Regarding claim 2, Clyne in view of Parkins teaches wherein the first channel comprises a first portion and a second portion connected to each other, the first portion extending along a first extension axis and the second portion extending along a second extension axis, wherein the first portion is connected to the first sound hole and the second channel, the second portion is connected to the drainage hole, and an included angle is formed between the first extension axis and the second extension axis (Clyne figure 2B, channel 250b).
Regarding claim 5, Clyne in view of Parkins 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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) 3-4 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 3, Clyne in view of Parkins teaches wherein the first portion intersects the second channel at a first connection end, the first portion intersects the second portion at a second connection end, and a distance is provided between the first connection end and the second connection end (Clyne figure 2B), however does not explicitly teach the distance being greater than or equal to 3 millimeters.
Lee teaches 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 (Lee ¶0059 “the drainage path 130 of the filter body 10 has a vertical length (L of FIG. 3) of 5 mm-30 mm”).
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)).
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 Jing (US 2017/0006398).
Regarding claim 7, Clyne in view of Parkins 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 to achieve the predictable result of improving the drainage speed (Jing ¶0017).
Regarding claim 10, Clyne in view of Parkins 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 Wang (US 2024/0064460).
Regarding claim 12, Clyne in view of Parkins 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 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 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 Woo (US 2023/0188879).
Regarding claim 16, Clyne in view of Parkins 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 to achieve the predictable result of a thinner device (Woo ¶0011).
Regarding claim 17, Clyne in view of Parkins 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.
Conclusion
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