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 .
This office action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 09/20/2024. Claims 1 – 18 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09/20/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Particularly, there is no copy of any of the foreign patent documents.
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because FIG 20 – 30 are either not clear or hand drawn. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “104” in par. 0058 has been used to designate both “opening” and “sound enhancing element” multiple times. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 – 12, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 4 and 16 each recite the broad recitation “at least 2 mm, at least 3 mm, at least 4 mm, or at least 5 mm; less than 10 mm, less than 9 mm, less than 8 mm, or less than 7 mm”, and the claims also recite “4-8 mm, 4.5-7.5 mm, or 5-7 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 5 – 12 each recites the limitation "the device case" in preamble and/or the body of the claim, sometimes multiple times, or simply “the case”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitations "the bottom surface", “the rear surface”, “the opening”. The antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim is not clear since it is not clear whether they refer to corresponding surfaces recited by claim 1, or it should refer to “second” surfaces of claim 6.
Claim 9 recites the limitations "the bottom surface", “the rear surface”, “the opening”. The antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim is not clear since it is not clear whether they refer to corresponding surfaces recited by claim 1, or it should refer to “third” surfaces of claim 9.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the device case". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7 – 10 are also rejected as being dependent from the rejected base claims.
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 7, 9, 13 – 15 and 18/(1, 2, 3, 5) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20130045782 (Simmer).
Regarding claim 1, Simmer teaches “A mobile device case (FIG 1 – 10 with corresponding description), comprising:
an encircling sidewall (paragraph 0028: The case 10 includes a back panel or base 12 and a raised side wall 14 extending around the periphery of the base 12.) having:
an interior surface configured to retain a mobile device (corresponds to reference designator 20 in FIG 1); and
an exterior surface (external surface of the sidewall 14 clearly shown in FIG 2 – 5);
an opening in a portion of the interior surface (FIG 8 – 10 and paragraph 0032: a first opening 24. The first opening 24 has a periphery generally aligned with a plane parallel to the sidewall 14 of the case); and
a sound enhancing element extending from the opening towards the exterior surface (paragraph 0032 – 0034: each port 22 has a first opening 24 and a second opening 28 connected by a channel or sound conduit 26. The channel 26 is generally elbow shaped and tapers from the first opening 24 to the second opening 28. The interior surfaces of the channel 26 are preferably smooth and regular, and formed of a material having good sound-reflective properties.), the sound enhancing element comprising:
a bottom surface disposed adjacent to the exterior surface of the encircling sidewall (please see Sketch 1 below based on Simmer’s FIG 8 – 10 with the Examiner’s annotations showing positions of particular surfaces recited by the claim);
a rear surface extending from the opening to the bottom surface (see Sketch 1 below); and
opposing side surfaces extending along the rear surface from the opening to the bottom surface (see Sketch 1 below).”
PNG
media_image1.png
526
1224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1277
1187
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Sketch 1
Regarding claim 13, Simmer teaches “A sound enhancing device (shown in FIG 1 and 8 – 10 with corresponding description), comprising:
an upper surface, a lower surface, and a body extending between the upper surface and the lower surface (please see Sketch 2 below based on Simmer’s FIG 8 – 10 with the Examiner’s annotations showing positions of particular parts recited by the claim);
an opening in a portion of the upper surface (FIG 8 – 10 and paragraph 0032: a first opening 24. The first opening 24 has a periphery generally aligned with a plane parallel to the sidewall 14 of the case); and
a sound enhancing element extending through the body, from the opening towards the lower surface (paragraph 0032 – 0034: each port 22 has a first opening 24 and a second opening 28 connected by a channel or sound conduit 26. The channel 26 is generally elbow shaped and tapers from the first opening 24 to the second opening 28. The interior surfaces of the channel 26 are preferably smooth and regular, and formed of a material having good sound-reflective properties.), the sound enhancing element comprising:
a bottom surface disposed adjacent to the lower surface (see Sketch 2 below);
a rear surface extending from the opening to the bottom surface (see Sketch 2 below); and
opposing side surfaces extending along the rear surface from the opening to the bottom surface (see Sketch 2 below).”
PNG
media_image3.png
969
597
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
859
1318
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Sketch 2
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Simmer teaches “wherein the rear surface is sloped or curved (it may clearly be seen from FIG 8 – 10 that the rear surface is curved).”
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Simmer teaches “wherein one or both of the opposing side surfaces sloped or curved (it may clearly be seen from FIG 9 – 10 that both of “the opposing side surfaces” are curved).”
Regarding claim 5, Simmer teaches “wherein the opening and the sound enhancing element are disposed in a location of the encircling sidewall corresponding to a position of a speaker on a mobile device for which the device case is configured (paragraph 0008: The case includes at least one sound-directing port having a first opening, a second opening, and a sound channel extending between the first and second opening. The first opening (“the opening and the sound enhancing element”) is configured for alignment with a sound element such as a microphone or speaker of an electronic device onto which the case is installed (“disposed in a location of the encircling sidewall corresponding to a position of a speaker”). Also paragraph 0036. The claimed subject matter corresponds to the port 22R shown in FIG 9 and 10).”
Regarding claim 6, Simmer teaches “further comprising: a second opening in a second portion of the interior surface; and a second sound enhancing element extending from the second opening towards the exterior surface, the second sound enhancing element comprising: a bottom surface disposed adjacent to the exterior surface of the encircling sidewall; a rear surface extending from the opening to the bottom surface; and opposing side surfaces extending along the rear surface from the opening to the bottom surface (may clearly be seen in FIG 9 showing the second sound enhancement port 22L having exactly same structure as the first port 22R addressed in the rejection of claim 1 and also shown in the Examiner’s Sketch 1 above).”
Regarding claim 7, Simmer teaches “wherein the second opening is disposed adjacent to the opening on a lower portion of the encircling sidewall (may clearly be seen from FIG 11. Paragraph 0036: In the depicted embodiment of FIGS. 11 and 12, the electronic device A is a cellular telephone with a speaker and a microphone located on its bottom edge (“disposed … on a lower portion of the encircling sidewall”). The speaker and microphone are located on the bottom surface of the device, placed in proximity to the sound enhancement ports 22 as depicted (“disposed adjacent to the opening”).).”
Regarding claim 9, Simmer teaches “further comprising:
a third opening in a third portion of the interior surface; and a third sound enhancing element extending from the third opening towards the exterior surface, the third sound enhancing element comprising: a bottom surface disposed adjacent to the exterior surface of the encircling sidewall; a rear surface extending from the opening to the bottom surface; and opposing side surfaces extending along the rear surface from the opening to the bottom surface (indeed, this is implemented in the sound enhancement port 22L which has exactly same physical structure as the sound enhancement port 22R addressed in the rejection of claims 1 and 5 (and thus having exactly same surfaces)).”
Regarding claims 18/(1, 2, 3, 5), Simmer teaches “A method of enhancing, focusing, or amplifying sound from a mobile device, the method comprising:
inserting a mobile device into the mobile device case of any one of claims 1-5 (paragraph 0035: an electronic device is installed within the case 10, with the device's exterior housing fitting snugly within the inner layer 18 and the raised wall 14 and held therein by a friction fit with the inner layer 18.);
emitting sound from the mobile device through the opening (paragraph 0036: The speaker and microphone are aligned with a respective one of the sound enhancement ports 22 when the case 10 is installed onto the electronic device, so that the speaker and microphone are located in proximity to the respective first opening 24.); and
enhancing, focusing, or amplifying the sound emitted from the mobile device by means of the sound enhancing element (paragraph 0036: the sound waves emitted by the speaker are amplified and/or enhanced as they leave the sound enhancement port 22R. Also paragraphs 0038 – 0039).”
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.
Claims 4, 8, 10, 11, 16 and 18/4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130045782 (Simmer).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Simmer does not teach “wherein the opening is separated from the bottom surface by: at least 2 mm, at least 3 mm, at least 4 mm, or at least 5 mm; less than 10 mm, less than 9 mm, less than 8 mm, or less than 7 mm; or 4-8 mm, 4.5-7.5 mm, or 5-7 mm.”
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to implement a specific separation between the first opening 24 in FIG 8 and “the bottom surface”, including the values specified by the claim, simply as design choice with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Additionally, the way the claim is written it encompasses every possible separation value. Thus, the claim is met with any separation value.
Regarding claim 8, Simmer teaches “wherein: the opening and the sound enhancing element are disposed in a location of the encircling sidewall corresponding to a position of a first speaker on a mobile device for which the device case is configured (please see explanation in the rejection of claims 1 and 5 above); and
the second opening and the second sound enhancing element are disposed in a location of the encircling sidewall corresponding to a position of…” [a microphone] “…on a mobile device for which the device case is configured (FIG 9 and paragraphs 0036 – 0038: implemented as sound enhancement port 22L. The sound waves that enter and exit the sound enhancement port 22L are amplified and/or enhanced such that sound waves entering the microphone are better received. During example operation, the sound waves enter the left sound enhancement port 22L through the second opening and sound conduit and exit through the respective first opening toward the secured device's microphone.).”
Simmer does not teach that the second sound enhancing element is for “a second speaker”.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that if a particular mobile phone has two speakers at the bottom edge of the device, rather than a speaker and a microphone as disclosed by Simmer, to utilize both sound enhancement ports 22R and 22L for the speakers.
Regarding claim 10, Simmer does not teach “wherein the third opening and the third sound enhancing element are disposed on an upper portion of the encircling sidewall and in a location of the sidewall corresponding to a position of a speaker on a mobile device for which the device case is configured.”
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that if the mobile device includes a speaker at the upper edge of the device, to include, in the mobile device protective case, exactly same sound enhancement port corresponding to the specific speaker. Doing so would have simply allowed to utilize exactly same structure as disclosed by Simmer for all speakers present in the mobile device.
Regarding claim 11, while teaching in paragraph 0029 that the base 12 and wall 14 are constructed of a unitary molding of substantially rigid and impact-resistant polymeric material, Simmer does not teach that “the case is formed of thermoplastic.”
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize “thermoplastic” as the material to be used to construct the mobile phone case disclosed by Simmer with predictable results, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 18/4, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 18/(1, 2, 3, 5) above.
Claim 8 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130045782 (Simmer) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of US 20130170686 (Lester).
Regarding claim 8, Simmer teaches “wherein: the opening and the sound enhancing element are disposed in a location of the encircling sidewall corresponding to a position of a first speaker on a mobile device for which the device case is configured (please see explanation in the rejection of claims 1 and 5 above)…”
Simmer does not teach “the second opening and the second sound enhancing element are disposed in a location of the encircling sidewall corresponding to a position of a second speaker on a mobile device for which the device case is configured.”
Lester teaches a case that holds and secures the entire perimeter of the mobile media device. The case includes a passive acoustic boosting portion. The passive acoustic boosting portion includes an acoustic waveguide, the acoustic waveguide being a conduit capable of guiding sound waves from at least one speaker of the mobile media device towards a listener. (All this in abstract).
Additionally, as disclosed in FIG 2 and 3 with corresponding description, the device includes “the second opening and the second sound enhancing element are disposed in a location of the encircling sidewall corresponding to a position of a second speaker on a mobile device for which the device case is configured (paragraph 0030: the acoustic waveguides 114 each (i.e. there are two waveguides shown in FIG 2 so that, for example, the first waveguide is on the right side, and the second waveguide is on the left side) include: a waveguide input 115 positioned adjacent to the speaker 106, and capable of receiving sound directly from the speaker 106; a waveguide body 116 extending from the waveguide input 115 and capable of guiding the sound from the waveguide input 115; and a waveguide output 117 positioned at a distal end of the waveguide body 116, so as to receive the guided sound from the waveguide body 116, and being capable of projecting the guided sound outward from the mobile media device case 110 and substantially towards a listener.).”
In other words, Lester teaches two identical sound enhancing structures in the case, each corresponding to respective speaker on the mobile device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Lester second sound enhancing structure corresponding to a second speaker in the system of Simmer, for those applications when the mobile device has two speakers located at the bottom edge of the device. Doing so would have allowed to enhance sound emitted by both speakers.
Claims 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20130045782 (Simmer) as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of US 20150172431 (Huang).
Regarding claims 12 and 17, Simmer does not teach “A mobile device docking station, comprising the mobile device case of claim 1 and an electrical connection interface configured to mate with a mobile device for which the device case is configured.”
Huang teaches “A mobile device docking station (shown in FIG 25 – 26 with corresponding description), comprising the mobile device case of claim 1 (paragraph 0097: the functional shell 30 coupled to the protective shell 20 as shown in FIG 13. Paragraphs 0082 – 0083: When the functional shell 30 is assembled to the protective shell 20 that has been fitted onto the hand-held electronic device 40, the sound guide hole 56 has an end located corresponding to the speaker opening 43 on the hand-held electronic device 40 and the connection element 322 is inserted into the transmission jack 42. The sound guide hole 56 has another opposite end located on the cover plate 321 to orient in a direction the same as the display screen 44 of the hand-held electronic device 40. When the hand-held electronic device 40 plays a sound via the speaker openings 43, the sound guide holes 56 function to concentrate the sound and amplify its volume. In other words, disclosed by Huang structure corresponds to the structure claimed in claim 1 above) and an electrical connection interface configured to mate with a mobile device for which the device case is configured (paragraph 0082: When the functional shell 30 is assembled to the protective shell 20 that has been fitted onto the hand-held electronic device 40, the connection element 322 is inserted into the transmission jack 42. Paragraph 0067: a connection element 322 for plugging into the transmission jack 42 on the hand-held electronic device 40. The connection element 322 can serve as a coupling structure for holding the functional shell 30 to the hand-held electronic device 40, or an electric connector for electrically connecting to the hand-held electronic device 40.).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Simmer protective case with sound enhancement ports in a docking station embodiment, as disclosed by Huang. Doing so would have allowed to place the hand-held electronic device in an angular position most suitable for the user to operate the hand-held electronic device in a convenient manner (see Huang, paragraph 0100).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20240016273; US 20220301532; US 20180103134; US 20160219134; US 20150041245; JP 3175661; CN 204013648; KR 101957817; CN 110557491 and CN 113163044, all disclose variations of sound enhancement arrangement similar to the one claimed by the Applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights