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 .
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 claims at issue 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 reference 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. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 9 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, of 10 of Patent 12356139. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: claim 1, 6 and 10 of Patent 12356139 teaches all the limitations in the claims 1, 9 and 15 of instant application because the claims of the instant application are broader variations of the patented claims.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, 16-20 are also rejected because they are obvious variants of the patented claims. See Rejections of the Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103.
Dependent claims 2, 10, 16 are rejected by Claim 1, 6 and 10 of Patent 12356139 in view of Shimada (JP 2011186844).
Dependent claims 3, 11, 17 are rejected by claims 2,7, 11 of Patent 12356139.
Dependent claims 4, 12, 18 are rejected by claims 3 and 8 of Patent 12356139.
Dependent claim 5 is rejected by claim 4, 9 of Patent 12356139.
Dependent claim 6, 8, 14, 19-20 are rejected by claims 1, 6 and 10 of Patent 12356139.
Dependent claim 7 is rejected by Claim 5 of Patent 12356139.
Claim 13 is rejected by claim 4, 9 and 10 of Patent 12356139.
Patent 12356139
Instant Application 18987611
1. A device comprising: a speaker configured to output sound in the form of speech and an alarm tone, the speaker capable of generating an output within a frequency range of from 400 Hz to 4.0 kHz; and a housing enclosing the speaker and including a plurality of openings within one portion of the housing, the speaker being positioned within the housing to define a front chamber between a diaphragm of the speaker and the one portion, the front chamber and the plurality of openings being arranged to create a resonator having a resonance frequency within a frequency range of the alarm tone to selectively increase a sound pressure level of a given output that includes the alarm tone, the increase being at least 6 dB and within a frequency range of 2.5 kHz to 2.7 kHz, the given output includes a peak in frequency amplitude falling within the frequency range of 2.5 kHz to 2.7 kHz.
6. A method for assembling a device, the method comprising: providing a speaker and a housing, the speaker configured to output sound in the form of speech and an alarm tone, and the housing comprising a plurality of openings within one portion, wherein the speaker is capable of generating an output within a frequency range of from 400 Hz to 4.0 kHz; assembling the housing and the speaker to form the device such that the housing encloses the speaker and the speaker is positioned within the housing to define a front chamber between a diaphragm of the speaker and the one portion; and arranging the front chamber and the plurality of openings to create a resonator having a resonance frequency within a frequency range of the alarm tone to selectively increase a sound pressure level of a given output that includes the alarm tone, the increase being at least 6 dB and within a frequency range of 2.5 kHz to 2.7 kHz, the given output includes a peak in frequency amplitude falling within the frequency range of 2.5 kHz to 2.7 kHz.
10. A method comprising: providing a speaker including a diaphragm, the speaker being capable of generating an output in the form of speech and an alarm tone within a frequency range of from 400 Hz to 4.0 kHz; providing a housing for enclosing the speaker and including a plurality of openings within one portion of the housing; positioning the speaker within the housing to define a front chamber between the diaphragm and the one portion, the speaker and the housing defining a device, and the front chamber including the plurality of openings within the one portion of the housing but is otherwise acoustically sealed; and defining one or more parameters of the device to collectively create a resonator having a resonance frequency matching at least a portion of a frequency range of the output of the speaker corresponding to an alarm tone, the resonator selectively increasing a sound pressure level of a given output that includes the alarm tone, the increase being at least 6 dB and within a frequency range of 2.5 kHz to 2.7 kHz, the given output includes a peak in frequency amplitude falling within the frequency range of 2.5 kHz to 2.7 kHz.
1. A device comprising: a speaker configured to output sound in the form of speech and an alarm tone, the speaker capable of generating an output within a frequency range of from 400 Hz to 4.0 kHz; and a housing enclosing the speaker and including a plurality of openings within one portion of the housing, the speaker being positioned within the housing to define a front chamber between a diaphragm and the one portion, the front chamber and the plurality of openings being arranged to create a resonator having a resonance frequency within a frequency range of the alarm tone to selectively increase a sound pressure level of a given output that includes the alarm tone.
9. A method for assembling a device, the method comprising: providing a speaker and a housing, the speaker configured to output sound in the form of speech and an alarm tone, and the housing comprising a plurality of openings within one portion, wherein the speaker is capable of generating an output within a frequency range of from 400 Hz to 4.0 kHz; assembling the housing and the speaker to form the device such that the housing encloses the speaker and the speaker is positioned within the housing to define a front chamber between a diaphragm and the one portion; and arranging the front chamber and the plurality of openings to create a resonator having a resonance frequency within a frequency range of the alarm tone to selectively increase a sound pressure level of a given output that includes the alarm tone.
15. A device comprising: a speaker configured to output sound in the form of speech and an alarm tone; and a housing enclosing the speaker and including a plurality of openings within one portion of the housing, the speaker being positioned within the housing to define a front chamber between a diaphragm and the one portion, the front chamber in fluid communication with an outside environment via the plurality of openings within the one portion of the housing but being otherwise acoustically sealed, the front chamber and the plurality of openings being arranged to create a resonator having a resonance frequency within a frequency range of the alarm tone to selectively increase a sound pressure level of a given output that includes the alarm tone.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1, 6, 8-9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isberg (US 2007/0280497) in view of Bennett (US 4349083) in further view of Loeb (US 4698619).
Regarding claim 1, Isberg teaches A device comprising: a speaker configured to output sound (Isberg figure 4, speaker transducer 11) in the form of an alarm tone (Isberg figure 4, and ¶0027, “alerting signal”); and a housing enclosing the speaker and including a plurality of openings within one portion of the housing (Isberg figure 4, and ¶0027, “alerting signal”), the speaker being positioned within the housing to define a front chamber between a diaphragm and the one portion (Isberg figure 4, cavity 14 between speaker transducer 11 and sound openings 12), the front chamber and the plurality of openings being arranged to create a resonator having a resonance frequency within a frequency range of the alarm tone to selectively increase a sound pressure level of a given output that includes the alarm tone (Isberg figure 4, cavity 14 between speaker transducer 11 and sound openings 12), however does not explicitly teach output sound in form of speech, the speaker capable of generating an output within a frequency range of from 400 Hz to 4.0 kHz.
Bennett teaches the speaker capable of generating an output within a frequency range of from 400 Hz to 4.0 kHz (Bennett figure 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Bennett to improve the known device of Isberg to achieve the predictable result of increasing the audibility of high frequency audio.
Loeb teaches output sound in form of speech (Loeb Col 2 lines 1-10, “speech alarm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Loeb to improve the known device of Isberg in view of Bennett to achieve the predictable result of further notifying the user of a message via speech.
Regarding claim 6, Isberg in view of Bennett in further view of Loeb teaches wherein the increase of the sound pressure level of the given output is at least 10 dB (Bennett figure 8 and Col 4 lines 58-65, “at high frequencies in the hearing aid analyzer by 10-20 decibel over the conventional mold and 20-60 Db in the ear canal”).
Regarding claims 8 and 14, Isberg in view of Bennett in further view of Loeb teaches wherein the increase of the sound pressure level of the given output is at least 6 dB (Bennett figure 8 and Col 4 lines 58-65, “at high frequencies in the hearing aid analyzer by 10-20 decibel over the conventional mold and 20-60 Db in the ear canal”).
Regarding claim 9, Isberg teaches A method for assembling a device, the method comprising: providing a speaker (Isberg figure 4, speaker transducer 11) and a housing (Isberg figure 4, housing part 10), the speaker configured to output sound in the form an alarm tone (Isberg figure 4, and ¶0027, “alerting signal”), and the housing comprising a plurality of openings within one portion (Isberg figure 4, speaker transducer 11 and sound openings 12), assembling the housing and the speaker to form the device such that the housing encloses the speaker and the speaker is positioned within the housing to define a front chamber between a diaphragm and the one portion (Isberg figure 4, cavity 14 between speaker transducer 11 and sound openings 12); and arranging the front chamber and the plurality of openings to create a resonator having a resonance frequency within a frequency range of the alarm tone to selectively increase a sound pressure level of a given output that includes the alarm tone (Isberg ¶0027, “By proper dimensioning of the cavities 14, 24 and the corresponding tubes 15, 25 it is thus possible to tune the resonance frequency of the Helmholtz resonators to a frequency of the alerting signal or to a frequency band comprising such frequency, which will be amplified by the Helmholtz resonators”), however does not explicitly teach output sound in the form of speech, wherein the speaker is capable of generating an output within a frequency range of from 400 Hz to 4.0 kHz.
Bennett teaches the speaker capable of generating an output within a frequency range of from 400 Hz to 4.0 kHz (Bennett figure 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Bennett to improve the known device of Isberg to achieve the predictable result of increasing the audibility of high frequency audio.
Loeb teaches output sound in form of speech (Loeb Col 2 lines 1-10, “speech alarm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Loeb to improve the known device of Isberg in view of Bennett to achieve the predictable result of further notifying the user of a message via speech.
Claim(s) 2, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isberg (US 2007/0280497) in view of Bennett (US 4349083) in further view of Loeb (US 4698619) in further view of Shimada (JP 2011186844).
Regarding claims 2 and 10, Isberg in view of Bennett in further view of Loeb does not explicitly teach wherein the output of the speaker corresponding to the alarm tone falls within a range from 2.0 kHz to 4.0 kHz.
Shimada teaches wherein the output of the speaker corresponding to the alarm tone falls within a range from 2.0 kHz to 4.0 kHz (Shimada ¶0033, “the alarm device of this embodiment has improved sound pressure in the frequency band around 3 kHz”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Shimada to improve the known device of Isberg in view of Bennett in further view of Loeb to achieve the predictable result of the desired frequency response of the alarm tone.
Claim(s) 3, 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isberg (US 2007/0280497) in view of Bennett (US 4349083) in further view of Loeb (US 4698619) in further view of Morris (US 2014/0016813).
Regarding claims 3 and 11,Isberg in view of Bennett in further view of Loeb does not explicitly teach wherein the speaker comprises an electrodynamic speaker.
Morris teaches wherein the speaker comprises an electrodynamic speaker (Morris figure 2 and ¶0015, “electrodynamic transducer”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Morris to improve the known device of Isberg in view of Bennett in further view of Loeb to achieve the predictable result of alerting the user of changes.
Regarding claim 7, Isberg in view of Bennett in further view of Loeb in further view of Morris teaches a security alarm speaker (Morris ¶0003, “alarm tones” and ¶0015).
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isberg (US 2007/0280497) in view of Bennett (US 4349083) in further view of Loeb (US 4698619) in further view of Burau (US 11893878).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Isberg in view of Bennett in further view of Loeb does not explicitly teach wherein the given output having the increased sound pressure level comprises a peak output of the device within the frequency range of the output of the speaker corresponding to the alarm tone.
Burau teaches wherein the given output having the increased sound pressure level comprises a peak output of the device within the frequency range of the output of the speaker corresponding to the alarm tone. (Burau Col 8 lines 1-10, “The speaker may be configured to provide an alert having a peak sound pressure level”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Burau to improve the known device of Isberg in view of Bennett in further view of Loeb to achieve the predictable result of ensuring the alert is heard.
Claim(s) 5 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isberg (US 2007/0280497) in view of Bennett (US 4349083) in further view of Loeb (US 4698619) in further view of Grodinsky (US 3778551).
Regarding claim 5, Isberg in view of Bennett in further view of Loeb does not explicitly teach wherein the front chamber is in fluid communication with an outside environment via the plurality of openings within the one portion of the housing but is otherwise acoustically sealed.
Grodinsky teaches wherein the front chamber is in fluid communication with an outside environment via the plurality of openings within the one portion of the housing but is otherwise acoustically sealed (Grodinsky Col 2 lines 1-5, “substantially sealed except for means that defines openings 18 and 19 at the front of the speakers”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Grodinsky to improve the known device of Isberg in view of Bennett in further view of Loeb to achieve the predictable result of a desired frequency response of the speaker.
Regarding claim 13, Isberg in view of Bennett in further view of Loeb does in further view of Grodinsky teaches acoustically sealing the front chamber such that acoustic waves generated by the speaker are directed only through the plurality of openings (Grodinsky Col 2 lines 1-5, “substantially sealed except for means that defines openings 18 and 19 at the front of the speakers”).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isberg (US 2007/0280497) in view of Tsuchihashi (US 2022/0046351) in further view of Loeb (US 4698619).
Regarding claim 15, Isberg teaches A device comprising: a speaker configured to output sound in the form of an alarm tone (Isberg figure 4, and ¶0027, “alerting signal”); and a housing enclosing the speaker and including a plurality of openings within one portion of the housing (Isberg figure 4, speaker transducer 11, sound openings 12 and tube 15), the speaker being positioned within the housing to define a front chamber between a diaphragm and the one portion (Isberg figure 4, cavity 14 between speaker transducer 11 and sound openings 12), the front chamber in fluid communication with an outside environment via the plurality of openings (Isberg figure 4, sound openings 12 and tube 15) within the one portion of the housing but being otherwise acoustically sealed (Isberg figure 4, cavity 14), the front chamber and the plurality of openings being arranged to create a resonator having a resonance frequency within a frequency range of the alarm tone (Isberg ¶0027, “By proper dimensioning of the cavities 14, 24 and the corresponding tubes 15, 25 it is thus possible to tune the resonance frequency of the Helmholtz resonators to a frequency of the alerting signal or to a frequency band comprising such frequency, which will be amplified by the Helmholtz resonators” and ¶0010 “Helmholtz resonator with a cavity having an opening to the ambient air, where the resonance frequency is determined by the volume of air in the cavity in combination with the acoustic mass of the air in the opening,” the openings 12 affects the resonance frequency) to selectively increase a sound pressure level of a given output that includes the alarm tone (Isberg ¶0027, “By proper dimensioning of the cavities 14, 24 and the corresponding tubes 15, 25 it is thus possible to tune the resonance frequency of the Helmholtz resonators to a frequency of the alerting signal or to a frequency band comprising such frequency, which will be amplified by the Helmholtz resonators”), however does not explicitly teach output in the form of speech and the front chamber and the plurality of openings being arranged to create a resonator having a resonance frequency within a frequency range of the alarm tone.
Tsuchihashi teaches the front chamber and the plurality of openings being arranged to create a resonator having a resonance frequency within a frequency range of the alarm tone (Tsuchihashi ¶0029-0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Tsuchihashi to improve the known device of Isberg to achieve the predictable result of reproducing the desired frequency of audio.
Loeb teaches output sound in form of speech (Loeb Col 2 lines 1-10, “speech alarm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Loeb to improve the known device of Isberg in view of Tsuchihashi to achieve the predictable result of further notifying the user of a message via speech.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isberg (US 2007/0280497) in view of Tsuchihashi (US 2022/0046351) in further view of Loeb (US 4698619) in further view of Shimada (JP 2011186844).
Regarding claim 16, Isberg in view of Tsuchihashi in further view of Loeb does not explicitly teach wherein the output of the speaker corresponding to the alarm tone falls within a range from 2.0 kHz to 4.0 kHz.
Shimada teaches wherein the output of the speaker corresponding to the alarm tone falls within a range from 2.0 kHz to 4.0 kHz (Shimada ¶0033, “the alarm device of this embodiment has improved sound pressure in the frequency band around 3 kHz”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Shimada to improve the known device of Isberg in view of Tsuchihashi in further view of Loeb to achieve the predictable result of the desired frequency response of the alarm tone.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isberg (US 2007/0280497) in view of Tsuchihashi (US 2022/0046351) in further view of Loeb (US 4698619) in further view of Morris (US 2014/0016813).
Regarding claim 17, Isberg in view of Tsuchihashi in further view of Loeb does not explicitly teach wherein the speaker comprises an electrodynamic speaker.
Morris teaches wherein the speaker comprises an electrodynamic speaker (Morris figure 2 and ¶0015, “electrodynamic transducer”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Morris to improve the known device of Isberg in view of Tsuchihashi in further view of Loeb to achieve the predictable result of alerting the user of changes.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isberg (US 2007/0280497) in view of Tsuchihashi (US 2022/0046351) in further view of Loeb (US 4698619) in further view of Burau (US 11893878).
Regarding claims 18, Isberg in view of Tsuchihashi in further view of Loeb does not explicitly teach wherein the output of the speaker comprises a peak output of the device within the frequency range of the output of the speaker corresponding to the alarm tone.
Burau teaches wherein the output of the speaker comprises a peak output of the device within the frequency range of the output of the speaker corresponding to the alarm tone (Burau Col 8 lines 1-10, “The speaker may be configured to provide an alert having a peak sound pressure level”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Burau to improve the known device of Isberg in view of Tsuchihashi in further view of Loeb to achieve the predictable result of ensuring the alert is heard.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isberg (US 2007/0280497) in view of Tsuchihashi (US 2022/0046351) in further view of Loeb (US 4698619) in further view of Bennett (US 4349083).
Regarding claim 19, Isberg in view of Tsuchihashi in further view of Loeb does not explicitly teach wherein the increase of the sound pressure level of the given output is at least 6 dB.
Bennet teaches wherein the increase of the sound pressure level of the given output is at least 6 dB (Bennett figure 8 and Col 4 lines 58-65, “at high frequencies in the hearing aid analyzer by 10-20 decibel over the conventional mold and 20-60 Db in the ear canal”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Bennett to improve the known device of Isberg in view of Tsuchihashi in further view of Loeb to achieve the predictable result of increasing the audibility of high frequency audio.
Regarding claim 20, Isberg in view of Tsuchihashi in further view of Loeb in further view of Bennett teaches wherein the increase of the sound pressure level of the given output is at least 10 dB (Bennett figure 8 and Col 4 lines 58-65, “at high frequencies in the hearing aid analyzer by 10-20 decibel over the conventional mold and 20-60 Db in the ear canal”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NORMAN YU whose telephone number is (571)270-7436. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571-272-7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Va. 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for
informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Arlington, VA 22314
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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NORMAN YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights