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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 8, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Applicant’s submission of prior art, French, US Patent Number 10,667,040 (hereinafter French) .
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, French discloses a method, an apparatus [figure 11], and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium configured to store instructions that when executed cause a processor to perform the method [col. 2: lines 22-43; and col. 3: line 64 - col. 4: line 18], comprising:
bandpass filtering a voltage input Vvc and a current input Ivc [fig. 11; blocks 302, 304; col. 13: line 66 - col. 14: line 7 ];
determining a root means square of the bandpass filtering of the voltage input and the current input [col. 14, lines 22-29, regarding "the first low pass filter 306 and the second
low pass filter 308 converts an instantaneous value of Vvc measured and Ivc measured, respectively, and converts the same to a corresponding rms value for an average voltage of the voice coil 112 and an average current of the voice coil 112"];
dividing the root means square of the voltage input by the root means square of the current input to identify an impedance value Zavg [fig. 11, block 310; and col. 14: lines 29-38];
and determining whether a fault has occurred with the one or more audio channels based on the impedance value Zavg [col. 14: lines 59-60 "if the impedance at the specific frequency is known, it is possible to predict the values of Kms and Rms"].
Regarding claims 7 and 14, French discloses the impedance value Zavg corresponds to a narrowband signal [col. 14: lines 36-38, regarding "can provide the average impedance presented by the voice coil 112 at the given frequency"].
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.
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over French in view of Applicant’s submission of prior art, Tackett, US Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0294609 (hereinafter Tackett).
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, French does not specifically wherein the fault comprises one or more of a short circuit or open circuit. However, Tackett teaches this limitation [paragraph 0033]. Before the effective filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify French to include the teaching of Tackett. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
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, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, and 17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 15, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,811,463. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are generic to all that is recited in the patented claims and are therefore an obvious variant thereof. Specifically, instant independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are taught in patented claims 1, 7, and 13, respectively. However, the instant claims are slightly broader as the omit the patented limitation that the voltage input is time delayed and clipped prior to bandpass filtering. Instant dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 are taught in patented claims 5, 11, and 17, respectively. Instant dependent claims 7 and 14 are taught in patented claims 3 and 15, respectively.
Claims 2, 4-6, 9, 11-13, 16, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,811,463 in view of US Patent No. 12,113,585. Specifically instant dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 are taught in patented claims 2, 8, and 14, respectively. Instant dependent claims 4, 11, and 18 are taught in patented claims 5, 11, and 17, respectively. Instant dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 are taught in patented claims 5, 11, and 17, respectively. Instant dependent claim 6 is taught in patented claim 6. Instant dependent claims 13 and 20 are taught in patented claim 12. Before the effective filing of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify 11,811,463 to include the teaching of 12,113,585. The motivation for this modification would have been to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Miller et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2016/0309270, disclose speaker impedance monitoring.
Crawley et al., US Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0126730, disclose methods and apparatus related to protection of a speaker.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIKA WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-7841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday.
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, Kathy Wang-Hurst can be reached at 571-270-5371. 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.
/EAW/
June 8, 2026
/ERIKA A WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights