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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 04/13/2026 is acknowledged.
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 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,149,885. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming a device comprising a diaphragm, and a housing enclosing the diaphragm or a speaker and including a single opening within one portion of the housing, the diaphragm being positioned within the housing to define a front chamber between the diaphragm and the one portion of the housing, and the single opening being sized to generate, with the front chamber, an increased output of the device within a frequency range of an output of the speaker corresponding to an alarm tone, wherein a sound pressure level of the output of the speaker is increased by at least 10 dB.
The limitations in claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,149,885 cover the limitations in claims 1-12 of the present application.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No.12,356,139. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming a device comprising a diaphragm, and a housing enclosing the diaphragm or a speaker and including a single opening or a plurality of openings within one portion of the housing, the diaphragm being positioned within the housing to define a front chamber between the diaphragm and the one portion of the housing, and the single opening or a plurality of openings being sized or arranged to generate, with the front chamber, an increased output of the device within a frequency range of an output of the speaker corresponding to an alarm tone, wherein a sound pressure level of the output of the speaker is increased by at least 6dB or at least 10 dB.
The limitations in claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No.12,356,139 cover the limitations in claims 1-12 of the present application.
Claims 1-12 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). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are claiming a device comprising a diaphragm, and a housing enclosing the diaphragm or a speaker and including a single opening or a plurality of openings within one portion of the housing, the diaphragm being positioned within the housing to define a front chamber between the diaphragm and the one portion of the housing, and the single opening or a plurality of openings being sized or arranged to generate, with the front chamber, an increased output of the device within a frequency range of an output of the speaker corresponding to an alarm tone, wherein a sound pressure level of the output of the speaker is increased by at least 10 dB.
The limitations in claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/987,611 (reference application) cover the limitations in claims 1-12 of the present application.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isberg et al. (US 2007/0280497) in view of Bennett (US 4,349,083) and/or Atoji et al. (US 4,239,945).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Isberg et al. teaches a device (10, 20, 30, figures 1-7) comprising a speaker (11, paragraph [0022]) configured to generate sound, and a housing (10, 10’, 20) enclosing the speaker and including a single opening (12, 12’, 15, 25) within one portion of the housing (figures 1, 2, 4-7), the speaker (11) being positioned within the housing to define a front chamber (14, 24) between the speaker and the one portion (figures 2, 4, 5, 7). As broadly claimed, Isberg et al. teaches the single opening being sized to generate, with the front chamber, an increased output of the device within a frequency range of an output of the speaker corresponding to an alerting sound, a frequency band and/or an alarm tone (paragraphs [0001]-[0003], [0005] and [0027]).
Isberg et al. does not specifically disclose that the speaker (11) includes a diaphragm as claimed. However, it is very well known in the art to provide a resonator in a front of a speaker diaphragm or providing a speaker transducer comprising an electrodynamic transducer including a diaphragm (also note the speaker transducer including a diaphragm in the Back Ground of the Invention in paragraph [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any type of a speaker transducer such as providing an electrodynamic transducer comprising a diaphragm in the speaker transducer (11) in the system of Isberg et al., wherein the front chamber (14, 24) is between the diaphragm and the one portion of the housing for greater applications and better providing a desired frequency characteristic in the speaker system.
As interpreted in a different manner, Isberg et al. does not specifically disclose that the frequency range of the output of the speaker corresponding to an alarm tone as claimed. However, Isberg et al. does not restrict to any alerting sound or any frequency band in the system (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 Isberg et al. such as providing an increased output of the device within a frequency range of the output of the speaker corresponding to an alarm tone depending on the desired frequency characteristics in the system.
Further, Iseberg does not specifically disclose a sound pressure level of the output that is increased by at least 10 dB as claimed. However, providing a sound pressure level of the output of the speaker is increased by at least 10dB is known in the art.
Bennet and/or Atoji et al. teaches a sound pressure level of the output of the speaker that is increased by at least 10 dB as claimed (col. 4, lines 5-16 and lines 58-65 in Bennet; and figure 7, col. 3, lines 28-61 in Atoji et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any sound pressure level of the output of the speaker such as providing a sound pressure level output of the speaker corresponding to the alarm tone is increased by at least 10 dB, as taught by Bennet and/or Atoji et al. in the system of Isberg et al. for better providing an improved and/or intensifying sound pressure for an acoustic signal in the system.
Regarding claim 2, as broadly claimed, Isberg et al. teaches the front chamber (14, 24) and the single opening (12, 15, 12’, 25, figures 2, 4, 5, 7) that are configured to create a resonator having a resonance frequency within the frequency range of the alarm tone (paragraphs [0003], [0005] and [0027]). Isberg et al. in view of Bennet and/or Atoji et al. does not specifically disclose a sound pressure level as claimed. However, Isberg et al. in view of Bennet does not restrict to any configuration for the resonator in front of the speaker diaphragm to optimize for maximum loudness and/or any frequency band in the system (paragraphs [0001]-[0003], [0005] and [0027] in Isberg et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the resonator in the system of Isberg et al. in view of Bennet and/or Atoji et al. 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 depending on the applications and desired frequency characteristics in the system.
Regarding claims 3-5, Isberg et al. in view of Bennet and/or Atoji et al. does not specifically disclose a peak output of the device, and the frequency range as claimed in claims 3-5. However, Iseberg et al. in view of Bennet and/or Atoji et al. does not restrict to any frequency band of the output of the speaker (paragraphs [0001]-[0003], [0005] and [0027] in Iseberg et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any frequency range in the system of Isberg et al. in view of Bennet and/or Atoji et al. such as providing the increased output of the device comprising a peak output of the device within the frequency range of the output of the speaker corresponding to an alarm tone, providing the electrodynamic speaker capable of generating an output within a frequency range of from 400 Hz to 4.0 kHz or 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 6, Isberg et al. in view of Bennet and/or Atoji et al. does not specifically disclose the speaker comprising a security alarm speaker as claimed. However, Isberg et al. in view of Bennet and/or Atoji et al. does teach the output of the speaker comprising speech signals and does not restrict to any frequency band of the speaker system (paragraphs [0001]-[0003], [0005] and [0027] in Isberg et al.). Further, providing a speaker system for a security device and/or an alarm speaker is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any type for the speaker in the system of Isberg et al. in view of Bennet and/or Atoji et al. such as providing a security alarm speaker and the diaphragm being a part of the security alarm speaker, and the output of the speaker comprising speech for greater applications.
Regarding claim 7, Isberg et al. in view of Bennet and/or Atoji et al. does not teach a camera enclosed in the housing (10, 10’, 20, figures 1-7 in Isberg et al.) as claimed. However, it is very well known in the art to provide a camera enclosed in the housing of the mobile phone or the speaker system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide a camera enclosed in the housing of the mobile phone or the speaker system of Isberg et al. in view of Bennet and/or Atoji et al. for greater applications.
Regarding claim 9, as broadly claimed, Isberg et al. in view of Bennet and/or Atoji et al. teaches 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 in Isberg et al.).
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atoji et al. (US 4,239,945).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Atoji et al. teaches a device (figures 1, 3A, 3B, 5A) comprising a speaker (4, 5, 6, 7, 8) configured to generate sound and including a diaphragm (7), and a housing (1, 3, 10, figures 1, 3A, 5A) enclosing the speaker and including a single opening (2, 13, figures 1, 3A, 3B, 5A) within one portion of the housing (figures 1, 3A, 5A), the speaker or the diaphragm (4, 5, 6, 7, 8) being positioned within the housing to define a front chamber (figures 1, 3A, 5A) between the diaphragm and the one portion (figures 1, 3A, 5A). As broadly claimed, Atoji et al. teaches the single opening (2, 13, figures 1, 3A, 3B, 5A) being sized to generate, with the front chamber, an increased output of the device within a frequency range of an output of the speaker corresponding to higher frequencies, a frequency band and/or an alarm tone (figure 7, col. 3, lines 28-68 through col. 4, lines 1-2). Further, Atoji et al. teaches a sound pressure level of the output of the speaker that is increased by at least 10 dB as claimed (figure 7).
As interpreted in a different manner, Atoji et al. does not specifically disclose that the frequency range of the output of the speaker corresponding to an alarm tone as claimed. However, Atoji et al. does not restrict to any frequency range of the output of the speaker (figure 7, and see col. 3, lines 28-61).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any frequency range in the system of Atoji et al. such as providing an increased output of the device within a frequency range of the output of the speaker corresponding to an alarm tone depending on the applications and the desired frequency characteristics in the system.
Regarding claim 2, as broadly claimed, Atoji et al. teaches the front chamber and the single opening (figures 1, 3A, 3B, 5A) that are configured to create a 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 (figure 7, and see col. 3, lines 28-61).
Regarding claim 3, as broadly claimed, Atoji et al. teaches the increased output of the device that comprises a peak output of the device within the frequency range of the output of the speaker corresponding to the alarm tone (figure 7, and see col. 3, lines 28-61).
Regarding claim 4, as broadly claimed, Atoji et al. teaches that the speaker (4, 5, 6, 7, 8) comprises an electrodynamic speaker capable of generating an output within a frequency range of from 400 Hz to 4.0 kHz (figure 7, and see col. 3, lines 28-61).
Regarding claim 5, as broadly claimed, Atoji et al. teaches that the frequency range of the output of the speaker corresponding to the alarm tone falls within a range from 2.0 kHz to 4.0 kHz (figure 7).
Regarding claim 6, Atoji et al. does not specifically disclose the speaker comprising a security alarm speaker as claimed. However, Atoji et al. does not restrict to any frequency band in the speaker system (figure 7, and col. 3, lines 28-61). Further, providing a speaker system for a security device and/or an alarm speaker is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the speaker in the system of Atoji et al. in any applications such as a security alarm speaker, and the output of the speaker comprising speech for greater applications.
Regarding claim 7, as broadly claimed, Atoji et al. does not teach a camera enclosed in a housing of a speaker system as claimed. However, it is well known in the art to provide a camera enclosed in the housing of a speaker system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the speaker system of Atoji et al. in any applications such as providing a camera enclosed in the housing of the speaker system for greater applications.
Regarding claim 9, as broadly claimed, Atoji et al. teaches the front chamber that is acoustically sealed, such that acoustic waves generated by the speaker are directed only through the single opening (figures 1, 3A, 5A).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Williams et al. (US 6,473,625) teaches a radiotelephone that comprises a housing having an earpiece port (4), a loudspeaker (6) and a resonator, wherein the resonator comprises an earpiece path from the loudspeaker to the earpiece port (4), and wherein the resonator also comprise an internal cavity that can be a ring, and a path (8) from the loudspeaker (6) to the internal cavity to provide a specified resonance performance.
Huang (US 2015/0181322) teaches an earphone device (100) including a housing (10), and a speaker diaphragm (20), wherein the housing (10) defines a cavity (111) and a plurality of openings (121), and wherein the speaker diaphragm (20) is configured to produce sound and divides the cavity (111) into a first chamber (112) and a second chamber (113).
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
June 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights