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
The amendment filed 04/29/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 2-12. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants arguments to claim 1, applicant states “Chen merely teaches adjusting the air pulse density to modify the sound pressure level (SPL), but fails to teach or suggest adjusting the operating frequency”, examiner respectfully disagrees. Chen teaches “the amplitude adjustment of the audible sound is achieved by controlling the air pulse density of the second sound wave. and frequency adjustment to achieve audio playback.” and Chen also teaches “the frequency change of the audible sound is adjusted by the air pulse density of the second sound wave. Changes in the amplitude of the audible sound are produced, and therefore the frequency of the audible sound can be adjusted by adjusting the air pulse density of the second sound wave.”. Thus, Chen properly teaches the limitation in question of adjusting an operating frequency (frequency adjustment). (See Page.3, lines 28-30, Page.4, lines 15-18 of Chen)
Further regarding applicants arguments to claim 1, applicant states “In contrast, Chen merely teaches increasing the SPL by adjusting air pulse density, but fails to teach controlling the SPL to fall within a specific range.”, examiner respectfully disagrees. Chen teaches adjusting the sound pressure level (the sound-generating device 100 can adjust the sound pressure level) to a desired range and broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “a specific range” encompasses any range since applicant does not properly define what is included or excluded by the claimed specific range, thus Chen properly teaches the limitation as written. (See Page.4, lines 40-51, Page.22, lines 10-12 of Chen)
Applicant's arguments with respect to newly added limitation of claim(s) 1 has been considered but is moot in view of the references cited in the most current rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 CFR 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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (WO 2023198005 A1, all citations provided from machine translation attached) in view of Liang (US 10425732 B1) and Liang, will now be referred to as Liang 896 (KR 20230165896 A, all citations provided from machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches adjusting an operating frequency (The pulsed air pulse density is adjusted to achieve a higher low-frequency sound pressure level) of an air-pulse generating device (30), such that a sound pressure level (SPL) of the air-pulse generating device is within a specific range (the sound pressure level of the audible sound changes with the change of the air pulse density of the second sound wave). (Page.11, lines 29-35, Page.4, lines 13-18 and lines 39-47, Page.3, lines 28-30, Page.4, lines 40-51, Figs.1, 4)
Chen also teaches wherein the sound producing module (100) comprises the air-pulse generating device (30) configured to produce sound (sound wave) via generating a plurality of air pulses (multiple air pulses) at a pulse rate (pulse rate) corresponding to the operating frequency. (Page.5, Lines 1-8, Page.14, Figs.1, 4)
Chen also teaches wherein the operating frequency is a frequency of a driving signal for driving the air-pulse generating device. (Page.4, lines 41-47, Page.15, lines 49-51, Page.16, lines 1-2)
Chen does not explicitly teach a calibration method, configured to calibrate a sound producing module and demodulation frequency.
Liang teaches a calibration method, configured to calibrate a sound producing module. (Col.16, lines 19-33, Claims 17-18)
Liang 896 teaches demodulation frequency. (Page.3, lines 2-8, Page.4, lines 32-36)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Chen to incorporate a calibration method, configured to calibrate a sound producing module as taught by Liang in order to generate the driving voltage according to the middle value, so as to fully utilize a dynamic range of the sound producing device and further modify Chen to incorporate demodulation frequency as taught by Liang 896 in order to lower the required driving voltage and power consumption and improve sound quality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights