DETAILED ACTION
1. Applicant's amendments and remarks submitted on July 9, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 9-11, 13 and 17-18 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are still pending on this application, with claims 1-20 being rejected. All new grounds of rejection were necessitated by the amendments to claims 1 and 13. Accordingly, this action is made final.
2. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Double Patenting
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12114127 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Mainly, the claims of the pending application are broader than the corresponding claims of the patent. Claims 1 and 13 of the pending application recite a portable electronic device and valve assembly, respectively, comprising an electromechanical valve including a number of flaps, the flap being configured to open or close a vent or enclosure opening, and the flap comprising a first material layer, a second material layer, and a third material layer. The pending claims however do not disclose additional features recited in the corresponding patented claims, including the flap coupled to the enclosure via a hinge and configured to rotate about the hinge, nor the hinge biasing the flap to a closed position, and the enclosure wall having a structure such that a voltage required to transition the flap to an open position is reduced. As such, they are rejected under obviousness-type double patenting over the previously patented narrower claim(s). In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761. In addition, the limitations in dependent claims 2-12 and 14-20 of the pending application parallel those of the patented claims as mapped out above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. Claim(s) 1-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub No 2016/0330546 A1 to Barrentine et al. (“Barrentine”) in view of US Patent Pub No 2016/0352309 A1 to Xu et al. (“Xu”), and further in view of US Patent Pub No 2020/0100033 A1 to Stoppel et al. (“Stoppel”).
As to claim 1, Barrentine discloses a portable electronic device comprising: an enclosure having an enclosure wall that forms an interior chamber and a sound output port to an ambient environment (see figures 3 and 10; pg. 3, ¶ 0034); a transducer positioned within the interior chamber and dividing the interior chamber into a front volume chamber coupling a first side of the transducer to the sound output port and a back volume chamber coupled to a second side of the transducer (see figure 10; pg. 3, ¶ 0034); and an electromechanical valve comprising a number of flaps operable to open and close a vent to the interior chamber, the front volume chamber or the back volume chamber (see figure 10; pg. 10, ¶ 0071, ¶ 0073), the at least one flap is coupled to a support member having a first portion that defines the vent (1044, see figure 10; pg. 10, ¶ 0071).
Barrentine discloses the valves can be MEMS devices, piezoelectric devices, or other forms of actuators activated by application of a signal (see pg. 10, ¶ 0073), but does not expressly disclose at least one flap of the number of flaps comprises a first material layer, a second material layer and a third material layer. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Xu, which discloses a similar MEMS flap structure that can be actuated by the application of a signal, the flap including an electrode layer, a piezoelectric layer, and a support layer (see figure 7; pg. 4, ¶ 0062, ¶ 0064 - ¶ 0066). It would therefore have been an obvious choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the layer structure as taught by Xu in the device as taught by Barrentine. The motivation being as a matter of design, as Barrentine already discloses the use of a MEMS structure as an actuating valve, and further as the layer configuration of the MEMS structure as taught by Xu allows the application of a voltage to enable the deformation of the piezoelectric layer and achieve the actuation or movement of the flap (Xu pg. 4, ¶ 0062, ¶ 0064 - ¶ 0066).
Barrentine in view of Xu discloses the support member comprising upper and lower structures forming the vent, and the at least one flap configured to contact the upper portion to close the vent (1044, see figure 10; pg. 10, ¶ 0071), but does not expressly disclose the support member having a second portion that overlaps the at least one flap, and the at least one flap contacts the second portion to close the vent. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Barrentine in view of Xu, which already discloses first and second (i.e. upper and lower) support structures (see figure 10; pg. 10, ¶ 0071), and further as the use of an overlapping shape for contacting the flap is known in the art. For example, Stoppel discloses a similar flap element, and further discloses the vent forming structure can include an overhang portion that overlaps the flap to contact and close the vent (see figure 13d; pg. 10, ¶ 0137). The claimed invention is therefore considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the motivation being to provide the support portions already taught by Barrentine in view of Xu with an overhang or flap overlapping portion that can act as a mechanical stop for the flap, ensuring the flap does not move beyond a certain point and the vent remains closed (Stoppel figure 13d; pg. 10, ¶ 0137).
As to claim 2, Barrentine in view of Xu and Stoppel further discloses wherein the number of flaps are operable to open or close the vent to the ambient environment upon application of a voltage (Barrentine pg. 10, ¶ 0073).
As to claim 3, Barrentine in view of Xu and Stoppel further discloses wherein the vent comprises a first opening and a second opening, and the number of flaps comprise a first flap operable to open and close the first opening, and a second flap operable to open and close the second opening (Barrentine figure 10; pg. 10, ¶ 0071).
As to claim 4, Barrentine in view of Xu and Stoppel further discloses wherein the first material layer, the second material layer and the third material layer comprise different materials (Xu pg. 4, ¶ 0066).
As to claim 5, Barrentine in view of Xu and Stoppel further discloses wherein the first material layer is an electrode layer and the second material layer is a structural material layer (Xu electrode and support layers, see figure 7; pg. 4, ¶ 0062, ¶ 0066).
As to claim 6, Barrentine in view of Xu and Stoppel further discloses wherein the third material layer is a piezoelectric layer (Xu piezoelectric layer, see figure 7; pg. 4, ¶ 0062, ¶ 0066).
As to claim 7, Barrentine in view of Xu and Stoppel further discloses further comprising a fourth material layer comprising a same material as the first material layer (Xu top and bottom electrodes, see figure 7; pg. 4, ¶ 0062, ¶ 0066).
As to claim 8, Barrentine in view of Xu and Stoppel further discloses wherein the first material layer comprises a metal material, the second material layer comprises a structural material, the third material layer comprises a piezoelectric material and a fourth material layer comprises a metal material (Xu figure 7; pg. 4, ¶ 0062, ¶ 0066).
As to claim 9, Barrentine in view of Xu and Stoppel further discloses wherein the first portion is arranged perpendicular to the at least one flap (Barrentine lower 1044, see figure 10; pg. 10, ¶ 0071), and upon application of a voltage, the at least one flap transitions from a closed position to an open position in which it is coupled to the first portion by an electrostatic force (Barrentine open position 1051, see figure 10; pg. 10, ¶ 0073; Xu pg. 4, ¶ 0065).
As to claim 10, Barrentine in view of Xu and Stoppel further discloses wherein the second portion runs perpendicular to the first portion and is positioned above the at least one flap (Barrentine upper 1044, see figure 10; pg. 10, ¶ 0071; Stoppel perpendicular overhang stop, see figure 13d; pg. 10, ¶ 0137), and upon application of a voltage, the at least one flap is coupled to the second portion to close the vent (Barrentine closed position 1053, figure 10; pg. 10, ¶ 0073; Stoppel figure 13d).
As to claim 12, Barrentine in view of Xu and Stoppel does not expressly disclose wherein the vent comprises a first polygonal shape and the at least one flap comprises a second polygonal shape different than the vent. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Barrentine in view of Xu and Stoppel, particularly as it discloses varying shapes for the flap (Xu figures 6A-6E), and further as it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of choice for a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, the shapes of the vent and the flap can depend on various factors, such as the type of portable electronic device, the shape of the enclosure, and the positioning of the vent in said electronic device or enclosure, as long as the vent provides communication to ambient environment and the flap is configured to open and close the vent, as already taught by Barrentine in view of Xu and Stoppel (Barrentine pg. 10, ¶ 0073).
5. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrentine in view of Xu and Stoppel, and further in view of US Patent Pub No 2009/0226023 A1 to Akino.
As to claim 11, Barrentine in view of Xu and Stoppel discloses the portable electronic device of claim 1.
Barrentine in view of Xu and Stoppel discloses the device can include multiple valves at multiple locations (Barrentine figure 10), but it does not expressly disclose wherein the electromechanical valve is a first valve, and the device further comprises a second valve having at least one flap operable to open in an opposite direction to at least one flap of the number of flaps of the first valve to cancel a net air pressure generated by the first valve when transitioning to an open position.
Akino discloses a similar audio device with multiple valves, and further discloses the use of first and second valves comprising first and second flaps configured to open in opposite directions for eliminating pressure differences (see figures 5A-5C; pg. 1, ¶ 0021).
Barrentine in view of Xu, Stoppel and Akino are analogous art because they are drawn to portable electronic devices.
It would have been an obvious choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate opposing valve configurations as taught by Akino for the multiple valves in the device as taught by Barrentine in view of Xu and Stoppel. The motivation being to provide a means for eliminating pressure differences and ensure the device components are not negatively affected due to changes in pressure (Akino pg. 1, ¶ 0013, ¶ 0021).
6. Claim(s) 13-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrentine in view of Stoppel.
As to claim 13, Barrentine discloses a valve assembly for a portable electronic device, the valve assembly comprising: a support member coupled to an enclosure opening (structures 1044, see figure 10; pg. 10, ¶ 0071); and an electromechanical flap movably coupled to the support member, and wherein upon application of a voltage, the electromechanical flap is operable to transition between a closed configuration in which the electromechanical flap attaches to the support member to close the enclosure opening and an open configuration in which the electromechanical flap uncovers the enclosure opening (valve 1050/1052, see figure 10; pg. 10, ¶ 0071, ¶ 0073).
Barrentine discloses the valves can be MEMS devices, piezoelectric devices, or other forms of actuators activated by application of a signal (see pg. 10, ¶ 0073), but does not expressly disclose the support member having an insulating layer, nor the electromechanical flap comprising a first material layer, a second material layer, a third material layer, and a fourth material layer, nor the support member having a latching portion that overlaps the electromechanical flap and comprises the insulating layer. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Stoppel, which discloses a similar MEMS flap structure that can be actuated by the application of a signal, the flap including electrode layers, a piezoelectric layer, and a structural passive layer (see figures 11a-11d; pg. 4, ¶ 0050; pg. 8, ¶ 0122), and the flap structure being coupled to a support member having an insulating component and/or layer (see figures 11a-11d; pg. 9, ¶ 0123), the support member further including an overhang portion that overlaps the flap to contact and close the vent (see figure 13d; pg. 9, ¶ 0131; pg. 10, ¶ 0137).
It would therefore have been an obvious choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the layer structure and latching portion as taught by Stoppel in the device as taught by Barrentine. The motivation being as a matter of design, as Barrentine already discloses the use of a MEMS structure as an actuating valve, and further as the layer configuration of the MEMS structure as taught by Stoppel allows the application of a voltage to enable the deformation of the piezoelectric layer and achieve the actuation or movement of the flap (Stoppel pg. 4, ¶ 0050). In addition, the use of an overhang or flap overlapping portion in the support structure can provide a mechanical stop for the flap, ensuring the flap does not move beyond a certain point and the vent remains closed (Stoppel figure 13d; pg. 10, ¶ 0137).
As to claim 14, Barrentine in view of Stoppel further discloses wherein the first material layer is an electrode layer and the second material layer is a structural layer comprising a polysilicon, a silicon nitride, or a single crystalline silicon (Stoppel pg. 8, ¶ 0104, ¶ 0122).
As to claim 15, Barrentine in view of Stoppel further discloses wherein the third material layer comprises a piezoelectric material (Stoppel figures 11a-11d; pg. 8, ¶ 0122).
As to claim 16, Barrentine in view of Stoppel further discloses wherein the fourth material layer is an electrode layer (Stoppel figures 11a-11d; pg. 8, ¶ 0122).
As to claim 19, Barrentine in view of Stoppel further discloses wherein the electromechanical flap comprises a first electromechanical flap and a second electromechanical flap (Barrentine figure 10; Stoppel figure 1a, 3b, 5 and 11d).
7. Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barrentine in view of Stoppel, and further in view of US Patent Pub No 2018/0091892 A1 to Taylor et al. (“Taylor”).
As to claim 17, Barrentine in view of Stoppel discloses the valve assembly of claim 13.
Barrentine in view of Stoppel discloses the support member including the latching portion being made of insulating material and having additional insulating layers (see pg. 9, ¶ 0123; pg. 9, ¶ 0131; pg. 10, ¶ 0137), but does not expressly disclose wherein the second insulating layer is coupled to a tapered surface of the support member defining the enclosure opening. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Barrentine in view of Stoppel, and further as it has been held that changes in shape are generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art and therefore a matter of design choice (see In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)). In this case, a support member having a tapered surface would still perform the function of the support member as taught by Barrentine in view of Stoppel, and therefore such a configuration is considered a matter of design, as long as the support member provides support for the flap when moving from a closed position to an open position (Barrentine figure 10; pg. 10, ¶ 0071).
Barrentine in view of Stoppel further discloses the valve can be configured in a variety of ways and using various materials or actuators (Barrentine pg. 10, ¶ 0073), but it does not expressly disclose the flap rotates about a hinge toward the insulating layer to the open configuration. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Taylor, which discloses a similar electromechanical valve for use in acoustic devices, and further discloses the valve configured to be coupled to an enclosure wall by a hinged portion, the valve flap thus configured to rotate about the hinge to open or close (see figures 1-2B; pg. 4, ¶ 0028). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being as a matter of design, as the use of a hinge for coupling the flap to the enclosure wall is merely a straightforward possibility from which a skilled person would select when coupling the valve flap to the wall portion, particularly to configure the valve to transition from an open position to a closed position and vice versa with a simple movement and in a stable, controlled manner (Taylor figures 2A-2B; pg. 4, ¶ 0028 - ¶ 0029).
As to claim 18, Barrentine in view of Stoppel and Taylor further discloses wherein the latching portion runs parallel to the enclosure opening and is positioned above the electromechanical flap (Stoppel figure 13d), and wherein the electromechanical flap rotates about a hinge toward the insulating layer to the closed configuration (Taylor figures 1-2B; pg. 4, ¶ 0028 - ¶ 0029).
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and further pending the filing of a terminal disclaimer to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action.
9. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claim further limits the first and second electromechanical flaps of parent claim 19 as being positioned on respective first and second ends of the support member, wherein the second electromechanical flap opens in a direction opposite to the first electromechanical flap to cancel a net air pressure generated by the first electromechanical flap when transitioning to an open position. Barrentine in view of Stoppel disclose multiple flaps that can be coupled to the support structure (Barrentine figure 10; Stoppel figure 1a, 3b, 5 and 11d), and the support structure further comprising the latching portion that overlaps the electromechanical flap (Stoppel figure 13d), but it does not disclose or suggest, either alone or in combination with the remaining applied prior art, the configuration as recited in claim 20, wherein the first and second electromechanical flaps are positioned on respective first and second ends of the support member with the latching portion, and wherein the second electromechanical flap opens in a direction opposite to the first electromechanical flap to cancel a net air pressure generated by the first electromechanical flap when transitioning to an open position. Claim 20 is therefore considered to include allowable subject matter.
Response to Arguments
10. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
11. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABRINA DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 5712727488. 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.
/SABRINA DIAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/AHMAD F. MATAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2693
