DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 8-14 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The newly submitted claims of the method comprising measuring a sound pressure level of the alarm tone, and repositioning the speaker within the housing based on the measured sound pressure level to tune a resonance frequency of a resonator defined by the front chamber and the single opening toward the alarm tone are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed. The original claims 1-7 do not require or recite the above steps of the newly submitted claims 8-14 for patentability, and the newly submitted claims 8-14 do not require or recite the method steps of the original claims 1-7 for patentability.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 8-14 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,356,139 in view of Ramones et al. (US 10,718,996). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming an apparatus and a method comprising providing a device comprising a speaker and a housing enclosing the speaker, the speaker being configured to generate acoustic waves defining an alarm tone, wherein the housing comprises a single opening or a plurality of openings that are located within the housing such that a front chamber is defined between the speaker and the single opening or the plurality of opening within the one portion of the housing, and assembling the device such that the front chamber and the single opening or the plurality of openings create a resonator having a resonance frequency within a frequency range of the alarm tone to selectively increase a sound pressure level of an output of the device corresponding to the alarm tone.
Claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,356,139 do not specifically claim the device comprising an optical apparatus as claimed. However, providing a speaker assembly to a device such as an electronic device comprising an optical apparatus is well known in the art.
Ramones et al. teaches a method comprising providing an electronic device module (10, 12) comprising a speaker (64, figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, page 2, lines 41-44 and page 6, lines 5-18) and an optical apparatus (16, 46, 62, figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, page 2, lines 41-44; page 4, lines 27-32 and page 5, lines 53-67 through page 6, lines 1-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the method for providing the speaker system as claimed in claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,356,139 to any electronic device such as a device comprising an optical apparatus, as taught by Ramones et al., for greater application.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/987,611 (reference application) in view of Ramones et al. (US 10,718,996). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming an apparatus and a method comprising providing a device comprising a speaker and a housing enclosing the speaker, the speaker being configured to generate acoustic waves defining an alarm tone, wherein the housing comprises a single opening or a plurality of openings that are located within the housing such that a front chamber is defined between the speaker and the single opening or the plurality of openings within the one portion of the housing, and assembling the device such that the front chamber and the single opening or the one first opening creates a resonator having a resonance frequency within a frequency range of the alarm tone to selectively increase a sound pressure level of an output of the device corresponding to the alarm tone.
Claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/987,611 do not specifically claim the device comprising an optical apparatus as claimed. However, providing a speaker assembly to a device such as an electronic device comprising an optical apparatus is well known in the art.
Ramones et al. teaches a method comprising providing an electronic device module (10, 12) comprising a speaker (64, figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, page 2, lines 41-44 and page 6, lines 5-18) and an optical apparatus (16, 46, 62, figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, page 2, lines 41-44; page 4, lines 27-32 and page 5, lines 53-67 through page 6, lines 1-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the method for providing the speaker system as claimed in claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/987,611 to any electronic device such as a device comprising an optical apparatus, as taught by Ramones et al., for greater application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/782,355 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming an apparatus and a method comprising providing a device comprising an optical apparatus, wherein the device further comprises a speaker and a housing enclosing the speaker, the speaker being configured to generate acoustic waves defining an alarm tone, wherein the housing comprises a single opening that is located within the housing such that a front chamber is defined between the speaker and the single opening, and acoustic waves generated by the speaker exit through the single opening, and assembling the device such that the front chamber and the single opening create a resonator having a resonance frequency within a frequency range of the alarm tone to selectively increase a sound pressure level of an output of the device corresponding to the alarm tone.
The limitations in claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/782,355 (reference application) cover the limitations in claims 1-7 of the present invention.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isberg et al. (US 2007/0280497) in view of Ramones et al. (US 10,718,996).
Regarding claim 1, Isberg et al. teaches a method comprising providing a device (10, 20, 30, figures 1-7) comprising a speaker (11, paragraph [0022]) and a housing (10, 20) enclosing the speaker, the speaker being configured to generate acoustic wave defining an alarm tone (paragraphs [0001]-[0003], [0005] and [0027]), wherein the housing comprises a single opening (12, 12’, 15 and/or 25) that is located within the housing (figures 1, 2, 4-7) such that a front chamber (14, 24) is defined between the speaker (11) and the single opening (12, 12’, 15 and/or 25, figures 2, 4, 5, 7, paragraph [0007]), and acoustic waves generated by the speaker (11) exit through the single opening (12, 12’, 15 and/or 25, figures 2, 4, 5, 7), and assembling the device such that the front chamber (14, 24) and the single opening (12, 15, 12’, 25, figures 2, 4, 5, 7) create a resonator having a resonance frequency within a frequency range of the alarm tone (paragraphs [0001]-[0003], [0005] and [0027]).
Iseberg et al. does not specifically disclose the resonator having the resonance frequency within the frequency range of the alarm tone to selectively increase a sound pressure level as claimed. However, Iseberg does not restrict to any configuration for the resonator in the front of the speaker and/or any frequency band for the alerting sound in the system (paragraphs [0001]-[0003], [0005] and [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any configuration for the resonator in the system of Iseberg et al. such as providing the resonator having a resonance frequency within the frequency range of the alarm tone to selectively increase a sound pressure level of the output of the device corresponding to the alarm tone for better providing a desired frequency characteristic in the system.
Further, Isberg et al. does not teach providing the device comprising an optical apparatus as claimed. However, providing a speaker assembly to a device such as an electronic device comprising an optical apparatus is well known in the art.
Ramones et al. teaches a method comprising providing an electronic device module (10, 12) comprising a speaker (64, figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, page 2, lines 41-44 and page 6, lines 5-18) and an optical apparatus (16, 46, 62, figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, page 2, lines 41-44; page 4, lines 27-32 and page 5, lines 53-67 through page 6, lines 1-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the speaker system of Isberg to any device such as an electronic device comprising an optical apparatus, as taught by Ramones et al. for greater application.
Regarding claim 2, Iseberg et al. shows the front chamber that is acoustically sealed, such that acoustic waves generated by the speaker are directed only through the single opening (figures 4, 5, 6, 7).
Regarding claim 3, Isberg et al. does not specifically disclose the frequency range of the speaker and the output of the speaker corresponding to the alarm tone falls within a range as claimed in claim 3. However, Iseberg does not restrict to any frequency band of the output of the speaker (paragraphs [0001]-[0003], [0005] and [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any frequency range in the system of Iseberg such as providing the electrodynamic speaker (11) capable of generating an output within a frequency range of from 400 Hz to 4.0 kHz and the frequency range of the output of the speaker corresponding to the alarm tone that falls within a range from 2.0 kHz to 4.0 kHz for an alternate choice depending on the applications and the desired frequency characteristics in the system.
Regarding claim 4, Iseberg et al. does not specifically disclose the method comprising defining one or more parameters of the housing such that the resonance frequency is within the frequency range of the alarm tone as claimed. However, Iseberg does not restrict to any configuration, any parameters of the housing in front of the speaker and/or any frequency band being tuned in the system (paragraphs [0001]-[0003], [0005] and [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any configuration and/or any parameters of the housing in front of the speaker and/or any frequency band being tuned in the system Iseberg et al. such as defining one or more parameters of the housing such that the resonance frequency is within the frequency range of the alarm tone to selectively increase the sound pressure level of the output of the device depending on the applications and the desired frequency characteristics in the system.
Regarding claim 5, Iseberg et al. does not specifically disclose the method comprising defining one or more parameters of the housing comprising increasing and decreasing the volume of the front chamber (14, 24) as claimed. However, Iseberg does not restrict to any configuration, any parameters of the housing in front of the speaker and/or any frequency band being tuned in the system (paragraphs [0001]-[0003], [0005] and [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any configuration and/or any parameters of the housing in front of the speaker and/or any frequency band being changed or tuned in the system Iseberg et al. such as defining the parameters of the housing comprising increasing the volume of the front chamber when the resonance frequency is to be decreased and decreasing the volume of the front chamber when the resonance frequency is to be increased for better selecting the parameters depending on the applications and the desired frequency characteristics in the system.
Regarding claims 6-7, Iseberg et al. does not specifically disclose the method comprising defining the parameters of the housing comprising increasing and decreasing the cross-section area and/or the length of the single opening (15, 25) as claimed. However, Iseberg does not restrict to any dimensions, any parameters of the cross-sectional area, the length of the single opening and/or any frequency band being tuned in the system (paragraphs [0001]-[0003], [0005] and [0027]-[0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any dimensions and/or any parameters of the single opening and/or any frequency band being changed or tuned in the system Iseberg et al. such as defining the parameters of the housing comprising decreasing the cross-sectional area of the single opening when the resonance frequency is to be decreased and increasing the cross-sectional area of the single opening when the resonance frequency is to be increased, decreasing the length of the single opening when the resonance frequency is to be increased, and increasing the length of the single opening when the resonance frequency is to be decreased for better selecting the parameters depending on the applications and the desired frequency characteristics in the system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to the double patenting rejection of claims 1-7 over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,149,885 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejection of claims 1-7 over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,149,885 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Responding to the arguments about the Double Patenting rejections, the rejections of claims 1-7 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,356,139 in view of Ramones et al. (US 10,718,996), claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/987,611 (reference application) in view of Ramones et al. (US 10,718,996), and claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/782,355 (reference application) have been maintained since a Terminal Disclaimer has not been filed.
Responding to the arguments about claim 1, the Examiner refers to the Office Action. Further, the Applicant should note that Isberg et al. does teach a method comprising providing a device (10, 20, 30, figures 1-7) comprising a speaker (11, paragraph [0022]) and a housing (10, 20) enclosing the speaker, wherein the speaker is configured to generate acoustic wave defining an alarm tone (note paragraphs [0001]-[0003], [0005] and [0027]), wherein the housing comprises a single opening (12, 12’, 15 and/or 25) that is located within the housing (figures 1, 2, 4-7) such that a front chamber (14, 24) is defined between the speaker (11) and the single opening (12, 12’, 15 and/or 25, figures 2, 4, 5, 7, paragraph [0007]), and acoustic waves generated by the speaker (11) exit through the single opening (12, 12’, 15 and/or 25, figures 2, 4, 5, 7). Iseberg et al. further teaches the method comprising assembling the device such that the front chamber (14, 24) and the single opening (12, 15, 12’, 25, figures 2, 4, 5, 7) create a resonator having a resonance frequency within a frequency range of the alarm tone (note paragraphs [0001]-[0003], [0005] and [0027]).
Iseberg et al. does not specifically disclose the resonator having the resonance frequency within the frequency range of the alarm tone to selectively increase a sound pressure level as claimed. However, Iseberg does not restrict to any configuration for the resonator in the front of the speaker and/or any frequency band for the alerting sound in the system (note paragraphs [0001]-[0003], [0005] and [0027]). As disclosed in paragraph [0003], Iseberg does teach that “when designing loudspeaker ports for alert and speaker phone functions etc, it will often be necessary to trade sound quality to sound level. If it is desired to optimise for maximum loudness at some frequency or a frequency band, this can be obtained by using resonators in front of the speaker diaphragm. The resonators can be of Helmholtz or quarter-wave type or a combination thereof. This makes it possible to hear the alerting sound even when the phone is placed e.g. in a bag or a pocket of a jacket”, and as disclosed in paragraph [0027], Iseberg does teach that “The cavities 14, 24 and the corresponding tubes 15, 25 form Helmholtz resonators with a resonance frequency determined by the volume of air in the cavities 14, 24 and the acoustic mass of the air in the tubes 15, 25. By proper dimensioning of the cavities 14, 24 and the corresponding tubes 15, 25 it is thus possible to tune the resonance frequency of the Helmholtz resonators to a frequency of the alerting signal or to a frequency band comprising such frequency, which will be amplified by the Helmholtz resonators”.
Since Iseberg does teach and/or suggest “by proper dimensioning of the cavities and the corresponding tubes” or openings “to tune the resonance frequency of the Helmholtz resonators to a frequency of the alerting signal or to a frequency band comprising such frequency, which will be amplified by the Helmholtz resonators”; it therefore would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any configuration for the resonator in the system of Iseberg et al. such as providing the resonator having a resonance frequency within the frequency range of the alerting signal or the alarm tone to selectively increase a sound pressure level of the output of the device corresponding to the alarm tone for better providing a desired frequency characteristic in the system.
Responding to the arguments about the newly submitted claims 8-14, the Examiner refers to the Office Action. The Applicant should note that the newly submitted claims 8-14 of the method comprising measuring a sound pressure level of the alarm tone, and repositioning the speaker within the housing based on the measured sound pressure level to tune a resonance frequency of a resonator defined by the front chamber and the single opening toward the alarm tone are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed. The original claims 1-7 do not require or recite the above steps of the newly submitted claims 8-14 for patentability, and the newly submitted claims 8-14 do not require or recite the method steps of the original claims 1-7 for patentability.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 8-14 withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.
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 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 July 7, 2026
Prosecution Insights