Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Art Rejections
Obviousness
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 1, 2, 10–12 and 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US 2020/0169816 (published 28 May 2020) (“Kim”); US Patent Application Publication 2021/0034119 (published 04 February 2021) (“Yoon”) and US Patent Application Publication 2013/0070943 (published 21 March 2013) (“Chang”).
Claims 3–9 and 13–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim; Yoon; Chang and US Patent Application Publication 2022/0167079 (published 26 May 2022) (“Kim II”).
Claim 1 is drawn to “a speaker module.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed speaker module and the Kim reference.
Claim 1
The Kim Reference
“1. A speaker module comprising:
Kim likewise describes a speaker box 551 corresponding to the claimed speaker module. Kim at ¶ 83, FIGs.5–7.
“a speaker housing comprising a first speaker housing defining at least one first surface of the speaker module and a second speaker housing defining at least one second surface of the speaker module that is opposite to the least one first surface;
Speaker box 551 includes upper box cover 551a and lower cover 551b that respectively correspond a first speaker housing and a second speaker housing that both define internal surfaces that are opposite to each other. Id. at ¶ 97, FIGs.6, 7.
“a speaker assembly comprising a voice coil and a vibration member, the speaker assembly being accommodated in an interior of the speaker housing;
Speaker box encloses a speaker 505 that includes a voice coil 554 and a diaphragm 555, or vibration member. Id. at ¶ 81, FIG.5.
“a back volume in an interior of the speaker housing and defined by the first speaker housing and the second speaker housing; and
Speaker box 551 (i.e., upper cover 551a and lower cover 551b) further defines an internal back volume. Id. at FIG.6. See also Figure 1, below.
“a side surface shield member between an inner surface of the speaker assembly and the back volume, the side surface shield member comprising a ferrite-based magnetic substance,
Magnetic shield structure 508 is formed in a ‘C’-shape with a flat plate along a horizontal axis and wings on either end that extend along a vertical axis. Id. at ¶ 104. The wings correspond to the claimed side surface shield member and arranged as claimed. Kim at FIG.6. See also Figure 1, below. Magnetic shield structure 508 is ferromagnetic, including its wings. Id. at ¶ 95.
“wherein at least one vent hole communicating the speaker assembly and the back volume is in the side surface shield member.”
Kim depicts the wings as extending through a portion of lower cover 551b, leaving a passage between speaker 505 and a back volume open. Id. at FIG.6. See also Figure 1, below. Kim also depicts magnetic shield structure 508 with openings in the wings. Id. at FIG.7. See also Figure 2, below.
While Kim depicts communication between speaker 505 and the back volume, it is not clear from Kim if the holes in the wings are used for that purpose.
Table 1
PNG
media_image1.png
264
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Marked-up version of Kim at FIG.6 (marked-up to highlight correspondence with claimed invention).
PNG
media_image2.png
227
368
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Marked-up version of Kim at FIG.7 (marked-up to highlight correspondence with claimed invention).
The table above shows that the Kim reference describes a speaker box 551 that corresponds closely to the claimed speaker module. Kim does not anticipate the claimed invention, however. Kim provides a magnetic shield structure 508 in order to at least partially shield speaker 505 from nearby electronics. Kim at ¶ 101, FIGs.6, 7. Kim forms the shield 508 with a flat plate and side wings to shield the bottom and sides of speaker 505. Id. Kim teaches that shield 508 not only acts as a shield but increases acoustic output by increasing flux density in speaker 505. Id. at ¶ 28.
The differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed. Though Kim depicts perforations in the wings, Kim does not appear to use the perforations to communicate a speaker with a back volume. See Kim at FIG.7. Rather, Kim’s side wings appear limited in their extent, which allows communication between speaker 505 and a back volume. See id. at FIG.6.
The Yoon reference teaches a similar magnetic shield for use with a miniaturized speaker having limited space for functional elements. Yoon at Abs., ¶¶ 3–9. Yoon’s shield includes a first portion 251 shaped as a plate and a second portion 252 shaped as wings bent up from the plate at 90-degree angles. Id. at ¶¶ 57–66, FIGs.7A, 7B, 8. According to Yoon, wings 252 are capable of improving magnetic field concentration. Id. at ¶¶ 9, 17, 64, 82, FIG.12. Yoon demonstrates the effect of the wings. Id. at ¶¶ 84, 85, FIG.13. These teachings reasonably suggest experimenting with the size and position of Kim’s wings to balance protection and magnetic field concentration, which one of ordinary skill would have expected to improve acoustic output. For example, one of ordinary skill would have experimented with decreasing and increasing the height of the wings.
The Chang reference relates to Kim because it too describes techniques for shielding a loudspeaker. Chang at Abs., ¶ 13, FIGs.2, 3. Chang locates a shield 36 over a speaker outlet formed by output holes 12. Id. Chang perforates shield 36 with through-holes 362 that are aligned with output holes 12. Id. This teaching illustrates that one of ordinary skill may provide speaker shielding while maintaining audio operation by perforating a shield.
Read in light of Kim, Yoon and Chang reasonably suggest conducting routine experimentation on the size and position of Kim’s wings to not only shield Kim’s speaker 505 but improve its magnetic flux density and acoustic output. For example, one of ordinary skill would have predictably experimented with eliminating the wings and increasing the height of the wings to a great extent, including completely surrounding speaker 506. One of ordinary skill may have further experimented with the distance between the wings and the speaker’s magnetic circuit. Given that Kim’s speaker 505 and speaker box 551 are miniaturized for use in a portable device (e.g., a smartphone), there is limited space available for the wings. See Kim at FIG.6 (illustrating a passage over the wings between speaker 505 and a back volume). Thus, when extending the wings to a height that completely surrounds speaker 506, one of ordinary skill would have had to take measures to prevent cutting off communication between speaker 506 and a back volume. To solve this problem, one of ordinary skill would have reasonably followed the teachings of Chang by perforating the wings (see Kim at FIG.7 (depicting perforations in wings) in a region of the wings that would effectively communicate the speaker with the back volume (see Kim at FIG.6 (depicting a passage between a speaker and a back volume)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed to have modified Kim’s wings to extend over the entire height of speaker 506. One of ordinary skill would have perforated the wings to maintain communication between speaker 506 and a back volume in speaker box 551. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Kim, the Yoon and the Chang references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein a first end of the side surface shield member contacts the first speaker housing or the second speaker housing, and wherein a second end of the side surface shield member protrudes toward the interior of the speaker housing, the second end being opposite to the first end.”
Similarly, Kim’s wings include a first end that is in contact with upper cover 551a (i.e., first speaker housing) and an opposite second end protrudes toward the interior of speaker box 551, or speaker housing. See Kim at FIG.6. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Kim, the Yoon and the Chang references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 depends on claim 2, and further requires the following:
“further comprising: an upper shield member connected to the second end of the side surface shield member, and between an upper surface of the speaker assembly and the back volume.”
Kim’s shield 508 includes a plate, or upper shield member. Kim at ¶ 104, FIGs.6, 7. Kim’s plate does not anticipate the claimed upper shield member, however, because the plate is connected to a first end of the wings and is not between an upper surface of a speaker and back volume.
The Kim II reference is related to the Kim reference since it also describes a shielding structure for a miniaturized speaker and speaker box. Kim II at ¶ 97, FIG.8. Kim II differs from Kim by teaching and suggesting the location of a shield between an upper surface of a speaker and a back volume. Compare Kim II at FIG.8 with Kim at FIG.6. This reasonably suggests modifying Kim to likewise include an upper shield connected to Kim’s wings and between an upper surface of the speaker assembly and the back volume. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected that doing so would further shield speaker 506 from the top, for example, preventing interference between speaker 506 and a display. See Kim II at ¶ 97. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Kim, the Yoon, the Chang and the Kim II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3, and further requires the following:
“wherein the upper shield member is spaced apart from an upper end surface of the speaker assembly by a predetermined interval.”
The Kim II reference similarly teaches spacing a first metal plate 260, or upper shield member, from an upper surface of a speaker 252 by an interval to allow for sound to pass through an opening to a first duct D1. Kim II at FIG.8. This teaching would have reasonably suggested modifying Kim so that a metal plate, or upper shield, is similarly spaced from Kim’s speaker 506. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Kim, the Yoon, the Chang and the Kim II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 5 depends on claim 3, and further requires the following:
“further comprising: a first sound output opening in an area corresponding to the first speaker housing; and
“a second sound output opening in an area corresponding to the upper shield member, the second sound output opening communicating the speaker assembly and the first sound output opening,
“wherein a sound signal generated by the speaker assembly is radiated to an outside via the second sound output opening and the first sound output opening.”
As shown in the obviousness rejection of claim 3, incorporated herein, Kim II teaches adding a first metal plate 260, or upper shield member, spaced apart from the top of Kim’s speaker. And as discussed in the obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, it would have been obvious to include an opening, or second sound output opening, in any shielding plate to allow for sound communication. See also Kim II at FIG.8 (depicting a sound opening in plate 260). That opening would further communicate with Kim’s discharge hole 501c, or first sound output opening, to allow sound to be radiated outside. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Kim, the Yoon, the Chang and the Kim II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 6 depends on claim 3, and further requires the following:
“wherein the side surface shield member comprises at least one of
“a first shield wall between a first side surface of the speaker assembly and the speaker housing,
“a second shield wall between a second side surface of the speaker assembly that is opposite to the first side surface and the speaker housing,
“a third shield wall between a third side surface of the speaker assembly that is connected from one end of the first side surface to one end of the second side surface and the speaker housing, and
“a fourth shield wall between a fourth side surface of the speaker assembly that is opposite to the third side surface and the speaker housing, and
“wherein the at least one vent hole is in at least one of the first shield wall, the second shield wall, the third shield wall, and the fourth shield wall.”
Similarly, Kim teaches forming four wings as claimed. Kim at ¶ 89, FIGs.6, 7. The obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated, herein further shows the obviousness of adding vent holes to the wings. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Kim, the Yoon, the Chang and the Kim II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 7 depends on claim 6, and further requires the following:
“wherein at least one of the first shield wall, the second shield wall, the third shield wall, and the fourth shield wall comprises:
“a reference portion having a first height being smaller than a height of the speaker assembly; and
“an expansion portion on the reference portion, wherein the reference portion and the expansion portion together have a second height that is greater than or equal to the height of the speaker assembly, and
“wherein at least one vent hole is in the expansion portion.”
Claim 8 depends on claim 7, and further requires the following:
“wherein at least one vent hole is in the reference portion.”
Claims 7 and 8 are analyzed together. Based on the position of a communication channel between speaker 506 and a back volume in speaker box 551 being located internally from a back edge of speaker box 551, one of ordinary skill would have located openings in either a reference portion, expansion portion or both of Kim’s wings in order to enable communication between speaker 506 and a back volume in speaker box 551. See Kim at FIG.6. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Kim, the Yoon, the Chang and the Kim II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 9 depends on claim 3, and further requires the following:
“wherein the upper shield member comprises the ferrite-based magnetic substance.”
Kim II teaches and suggests forming a first metal plate 260, or upper shield member, from a ferromagnetic material. Kim II at ¶ 97. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Kim, the Yoon, the Chang and the Kim II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 10 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the side surface shield member is spaced apart from the inner surface of the speaker assembly by a predetermined interval.”
Similarly, Kim locates wings a set distance from speaker 505. Kim at FIG.6. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Kim, the Yoon and the Chang references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 11 is drawn to “an electronic device.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed electronic device and the Kim reference.
Claim 11
The Kim Reference
“11. An electronic device comprising:
Kim describes a corresponding electronic device 100. Kim at ¶ 30, FIG.1.
“a housing;
Kim’s device 100 includes a housing 110. Id.
“a main board inside the housing; and
Kim’s device 100 includes a main board 340, 360. Id. at ¶ 42, FIG.3.
“a speaker module on the main board, wherein the speaker module comprises:
Kim likewise describes a speaker box corresponding to the claimed speaker module. Id. at ¶ 83, FIGs.5–7.
“a speaker housing comprising a first speaker housing defining at least one first surface of the speaker module and a second speaker housing defining at least one second surface of the speaker module that is opposite to the at least one first surface;
Speaker box 551 includes upper box cover 551a and lower cover 551b that respectively correspond a first speaker housing and a second speaker housing that both define internal surfaces that are opposite to each other. Id. at ¶ 97, FIGs.6, 7.
“a speaker assembly comprising a voice coil and a vibration member, the speaker assembly being accommodated in an interior of the speaker housing;
Speaker box encloses a speaker 505 that includes a voice coil 554 and a diaphragm 555, or vibration member. Id. at ¶ 81, FIG.5.
“a back volume in an interior of the speaker housing and defined by the first speaker housing and the second speaker housing; and
Speaker box 551 (i.e., upper cover 551a and lower cover 551b) further defines an internal back volume. Id. at FIG.6. See also Figure 1, below.
“a side surface shield member between an inner surface of the speaker assembly and the back volume, the side surface shield member comprising a ferrite-based magnetic substance, and
Magnetic shield structure 508 is formed in a ‘C’-shape with a flat plate along a horizontal axis and wings on either end that extend along a vertical axis. Id. at ¶ 104. The wings correspond to the claimed side surface shield member and arranged as claimed. Kim at FIG.6. See also Figure 1, below. Magnetic shield structure 508 is ferromagnetic, including its wings. Id. at ¶ 95.
“wherein at least one vent hole communicating the speaker assembly and the back volume is in the side surface shield member.”
Kim depicts the wings as extending through a portion of lower cover 551b, leaving a passage between speaker 505 and a back volume open. Id. at FIG.6. See also Figure 1, below. Kim also depicts magnetic shield structure 508 with openings in the wings. Id. at FIG.7. See also Figure 2, below.
While Kim depicts communication between speaker 505 and the back volume, it is not clear from Kim if the holes in the wings are used for that purpose.
Table 2
The table above shows that the Kim reference describes an electronic device 100 that corresponds closely to the claimed electronic device. Kim does not anticipate the claimed invention, however. Kim provides a magnetic shield structure 508 in order to at least partially shield speaker 505 from nearby electronics. Kim at ¶ 101, FIGs.6, 7. Kim forms the shield 508 with a flat plate and side wings to shield the bottom and sides of speaker 505. Id. Kim teaches that shield 508 not only acts as a shield but increases acoustic output by increasing flux density in speaker 505. Id. at ¶ 28.
The differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed. Though Kim depicts perforations in the wings, Kim does not appear to use the perforations to communicate a speaker with a back volume. See Kim at FIG.7. Rather, Kim’s side wings appear limited in their extent, which allows communication between speaker 505 and a back volume. See id. at FIG.6.
The Yoon reference teaches a similar magnetic shield for use with a miniaturized speaker having limited space for functional elements. Yoon at Abs., ¶¶ 3–9. Yoon’s shield includes a first portion 251 shaped as a plate and a second portion 252 shaped as wings bent up from the plate at 90-degree angles. Id. at ¶¶ 57–66, FIGs.7A, 7B, 8. According to Yoon, wings 252 are capable of improving magnetic field concentration. Id. at ¶¶ 9, 17, 64, 82, FIG.12. Yoon demonstrates the effect of the wings. Id. at ¶¶ 84, 85, FIG.13. These teachings reasonably suggest experimenting with the size and position of Kim’s wings to balance protection and magnetic field concentration, which one of ordinary skill would have expected to improve acoustic output. For example, one of ordinary skill would have experimented with decreasing and increasing the height of the wings.
The Chang reference relates to Kim because it too describes techniques for shielding a loudspeaker. Chang at Abs., ¶ 13, FIGs.2, 3. Chang locates a shield 36 over a speaker outlet formed by output holes 12. Id. Chang perforates shield 36 with through-holes 362 that are aligned with output holes 12. Id. This teaching illustrates that one of ordinary skill may provide speaker shielding while maintaining audio operation by perforating a shield.
Read in light of Kim, Yoon and Chang reasonably suggest conducting routine experimentation on the size and position of Kim’s wings to not only shield Kim’s speaker 505 but improve its magnetic flux density and acoustic output. For example, one of ordinary skill would have predictably experimented with eliminating the wings and increasing the height of the wings to a great extent, including completely surrounding speaker 506. One of ordinary skill may have further experimented with the distance between the wings and the speaker’s magnetic circuit. Given that Kim’s speaker 505 and speaker box 551 are miniaturized for use in a portable device (e.g., a smartphone), there is limited space available for the wings. See Kim at FIG.6 (illustrating a passage over the wings between speaker 505 and a back volume). Thus, when extending the wings to a height that completely surrounds speaker 506, one of ordinary skill would have had to take measures to prevent cutting off communication between speaker 506 and a back volume. To solve this problem, one of ordinary skill would have reasonably followed the teachings of Chang by perforating the wings (see Kim at FIG.7 (depicting perforations in wings) in a region of the wings that would effectively communicate the speaker with the back volume (see Kim at FIG.6 (depicting a passage between a speaker and a back volume)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed to have modified Kim’s wings to extend over the entire height of speaker 506. One of ordinary skill would have perforated the wings to maintain communication between speaker 506 and a back volume in speaker box 551. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Kim, the Yoon and the Chang references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 12 depends on claim 11, and further requires the following:
“wherein a first end of the side surface shield member contacts the first speaker housing or the second speaker housing, and
“wherein a second end of the side surface shield member protrudes toward the interior of the speaker housing, the second end being opposite to the first end.”
Similarly, Kim’s wings include a first end that is in contact with upper cover 551a (i.e., first speaker housing) and an opposite second end protrudes toward the interior of speaker box 551, or speaker housing. See Kim at FIG.6. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Kim, the Yoon and the Chang references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 13 depends on claim 12, and further requires the following:
“further comprising: an upper shield member connected to the second end of the side surface shield member, and between an upper surface of the speaker assembly and the back volume.”
Kim’s shield 508 includes a plate, or upper shield member. Kim at ¶ 104, FIGs.6, 7. Kim’s plate does not anticipate the claimed upper shield member, however, because the plate is connected to a first end of the wings and is not between an upper surface of a speaker and back volume.
The Kim II reference is related to the Kim reference since it also describes a shielding structure for a miniaturized speaker and speaker box. Kim II at ¶ 97, FIG.8. Kim II differs from Kim by teaching and suggesting the location of a shield between an upper surface of a speaker and a back volume. Compare Kim II at FIG.8 with Kim at FIG.6. This reasonably suggests modifying Kim to likewise include an upper shield connected to Kim’s wings and between an upper surface of the speaker assembly and the back volume. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected that doing so would further shield speaker 506 from the top, for example, preventing interference between speaker 506 and a display. See Kim II at ¶ 97. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Kim, the Yoon, the Chang and the Kim II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 14 depends on claim 13, and further requires the following:
“wherein a first sound output opening is in an area of the first speaker housing, and wherein a speaker hole communicated with the first sound output opening is in the housing.”
Claim 15 depends on claim 14, and further requires the following:
“wherein a second sound output opening communicating the speaker assembly and the first sound output opening is in an area of the upper shield member.”
Claims 14 and 15 are analyzed together.
As shown in the obviousness rejection of claim 13, incorporated herein, Kim II teaches adding a first metal plate 260, or upper shield member, spaced apart from the top of Kim’s speaker. And as discussed in the obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, it would have been obvious to include an opening, or second sound output opening, in any shielding plate to allow for sound communication. See also Kim II at FIG.8 (depicting a sound opening in plate 260). That opening would further communicate with Kim’s discharge hole 501c, or first sound output opening, to allow sound to be radiated outside. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Kim, the Yoon, the Chang and the Kim II references makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Claim 16 depends on claim 13, and further requires the following:
“wherein the upper shield member comprises the ferrite-based magnetic substance.”
Kim II teaches and suggests forming a first metal plate 260, or upper shield member, from a ferromagnetic material. Kim II at ¶ 97. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Kim, the Yoon, the Chang and the Kim II references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 17 depends on claim 11, and further requires the following:
“wherein the side surface shield member comprises at least one of
“a first shield wall between a first side surface of the speaker assembly and the speaker housing,
“a second shield wall between a second side surface of the speaker assembly that is opposite to the first side surface and the speaker housing,
“a third shield wall between a third side surface of the speaker assembly that is connected from one end of the first side surface to one end of the second side surface and the speaker housing, and
“a fourth shield wall between a fourth side surface of the speaker assembly that is opposite to the third side surface and the speaker housing, and
“wherein the at least one vent hole is in at least one of the first shield wall, the second shield wall, the third shield wall, and the fourth shield wall.”
Similarly, Kim teaches forming four wings as claimed. Kim at ¶ 89, FIGs.6, 7. The obviousness rejection of claim 11, incorporated, herein further shows the obviousness of adding vent holes to the wings. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Kim, the Yoon and the Chang references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 18 depends on claim 17, and further requires the following:
“wherein the at least one vent hole is in the second shield wall and is spaced apart from at least one of a plurality of components mounted on the main board that generates a magnetic field.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated, herein further shows the obviousness of adding vent holes to the wings. Further, the vent will be located away from components on a PCB 390. See Kim at ¶ 43, FIG.5. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Kim, the Yoon and the Chang references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 19 depends on claim 17, and further requires the following:
“wherein at least one of the first shield wall, the second shield wall, the third shield wall and the fourth shield wall comprises:
“a reference portion having a first height being smaller than a height of the speaker assembly; and
“an expansion portion on the reference portion, wherein the reference portion and the expansion portion together have a second height that is greater than or equal to the height of the speaker assembly, and
“wherein at least one vent hole is in the expansion portion.”
Claim 20 depends on claim 19, and further requires the following:
“wherein at least one vent hole is in the reference portion.”
Claims 19 and 20 are analyzed together. Based on the position of a communication channel between speaker 506 and a back volume in speaker box 551 being located internally from a back edge of speaker box 551, one of ordinary skill would have located openings in either a reference portion, expansion portion or both of Kim’s wings in order to enable communication between speaker 506 and a back volume in speaker box 551. See Kim at FIG.6. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Kim, the Yoon and the Chang references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Summary
Claims 1–20 are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art. 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.
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 C.F.R. § 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WALTER F BRINEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-4:30 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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 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 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.
/Walter F Briney III/
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
6/26/2026
Prosecution Insights