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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 10, 11, 13, 15-22 of U.S. Application No. 18/930964, and claims 1, 3-11, 14, 16-20 of U.S. Application No. 18/932323. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim in the pending application is broader than the one in co-pending applications. For example, the subject matter claimed in claim 1 of the pending application is covered by claim 1 and 11 of the co-pending application No. 18/930964 except for at least one planar magnetic driver assembly in the housing that drives at least a woofer and/or a tweeter in the housing, wherein at least first and second base surfaces of the housing are oriented at an obtuse angle relative to each other, so that a user can push the speaker housing onto the first base surface to aim a sonic axis of the speaker in a first direction and then tilt the speaker onto the second base surface to aim the sonic axis in a second direction.
Similarly, the subject matter claimed in claim 1 of the pending application is covered by claim 1 and 11 of the co-pending application No. 18/932323 except for at least one charging dock comprising charge circuitry for charging at least one battery in the housing, the charging dock comprising plural contacts, the speaker comprising plural pogo pins to register with and electrically contact respective contacts of the dock, the pogo pins being disposed in a recess of the housing, the recess being configured and sized to snugly receive the charging docks wherein the charging dock comprises at least two base surfaces on which the charging dock can rest, an obtuse angle being established between the base surfaces of the charging dock.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-11 of U.S. Application No. 18/930871. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim in the pending application is broader than the one in co-pending applications. For example, the subject matter claimed in claim 1 of the pending application is covered by claim 1 and 11 of the co-pending application No. 18/930871 except for wherein when the speaker is supported on the first base surface, the a sonic axis of the speaker is aimed in a first direction and wherein when the speaker is supported on the second base surface, the sonic axis is aimed in a second direction; and a planar speaker driver that is tilted towards the first and second base surfaces within the housing when the audio speaker is resting on the first base surface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowed after overcoming the rejection on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD S ELAHEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7536. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Friday; 8:30AM to 5:00PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn R. Edwards can be reached on (571) 270-7136. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MD S ELAHEE/MD SHAFIUL ALAM ELAHEE
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2653
August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights