DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 10 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the originally claimed invention is directed towards a speaker system, or a device, comprising different devices (i.e., a device comprising “an enclosure”, “an AC voltage source”, “a step down voltage converter”, “an AC to DC converter”, and “a USB power delivery controller”); and the various features of the speaker system are independent and distinct from “a method for retrofitting an existing in-wall or in-ceiling speaker installation to house and power a smart device”.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 10 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/27/2025. These drawings are not acceptable (see the following objection below).
The drawings are objected to because the drawings will not be able to reproduced satisfactorily (see MPEP 37 CFR 1.84(l), 1.84(m) and 1.84(p) - 1.84(r)). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the subject matter of “an enclosure adapter” is not described in the originally filed specification, drawings, and/or original claims. The previously pending subject matter of claim 1 included “an enclosure”, but did seek protection for further limitations on the enclosure. The abstract mentions the same enclosure with no further description. The specification describes “an in-wall speaker enclosure to house and power a smart device” with respect to figure 2, describes “in wall and in ceiling enclosure brackets for any type of device or location” with respect to figure 3, and describes “custom brackets” with respect to figure 4 (see Instant Specification of 3/27/2025, p. 3). The specification does not appear to disclose the subject matter of “an enclosure adapter”, such that it is unclear what the adapter item refers to. Additionally, figure 3 illustrates an “enclosure insert”, an “OEM bracket”, and a ”bracket”, but none of these items appear to describe the claimed “enclosure adapter” and the features thereof. Therefore, the features of claim 1 are not described in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2-9, they are also rejected for the same reason as claim 1, because they depend on claim 1 and seek protection for subject matter including said “enclosure adapter” of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-9 rely on the “enclosure adapter” and associated features thereof of claim 1, and it is not described in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “standard speaker wire having a gauge in the range of approximately 14 AWG to 18 AWG”, but the specification does not disclose this range. The specification only mentions “existing speaker wire (or other low voltage wire)” (see Instant Specification of 3/27/2025, p. 2, first paragraph) and “existing “speaker wire” (16/2 gauge wire as an example)” with respect to figure 2 (see Instant Specification of 3/27/2025, p. 3). Therefore, the features of claim 2 are not described in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “an audio amplifier in the building”, but the specification does not disclose an audio amplifier in a building. Therefore, the features of claim 4 are not described in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “the mounting bracket is further configured to alternatively receive a conventional passive speaker”, but the specification does not describe a conventional passive speaker. The specification mentions “a typical recessed speaker speaker [sic]” (see Instant Specification of 3/27/2025, p. 1), mentions “an in-wall or in-ceiling speaker opening” (see Instant Specification of 3/27/2025, p. 2, first paragraph), and Figure 2 refers to both an “existing speaker hole” and an “in ceiling speaker removed” (see instant Figure 2). However, the subject matter of “a conventional passive speaker” is not described in sufficient detail and furthermore “a mounting bracket” is not mentioned or described in the disclosure. Therefore, the features of claim 6 are not described in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites “a plurality of enclosure adapters, each installed in a separate existing in-wall or in-ceiling speaker opening, and each connected to the AC-to-DC converter via separate pairs of existing low-voltage conductors”. The specification illustrates multiple AC-to-DC converters, each providing a low voltage signal (see instant figure 1), such that the specification does not disclose a single AC-to-DC converter connected to separate pairs of existing low-voltage conductors. Therefore, the features of claim 9 are not described in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s) had possession of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 has 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vishwamitra (US 2006/0072776 A1, previously cited) teaches an amplifier and sub-woofer speaker system to be recessed within a wall (see Vishwamitra, abstract and figures 1-10);
Haase (US 7,535,341 B2, previously cited) teaches a combination speaker and light fixture (see Haase, abstract and figures 1-5);
Linari (US 2016/0156378 A1, previously cited) teaches an electronic smart device holder (see Linari, abstract and figures 1-11);
Lee (US 2018/0115812 A1, previously cited) teaches a portable speaker device, such that it is mountable to a cradle for outdoor and indoor use (see Lee, abstract, figures 10-11, and ¶ 0075-0082);
Lu (US 10,310,464 B1, previously cited) teaches a smart devices kit for recessed light housing (see Lu, abstract and figures 1-20);
Soffer (US 2018/0277086 A1, previously cited) teaches an apparatus for using a mobile phone in security restricted areas (see Soffer, abstract and figures 1-5);
Warren et al. (US 2022/0066730 A1, previously cited and hereafter Warren) teaches a framework for handling sensor data in a smart home system (see Warren, abstract, figures 4-7, and ¶ 0495);
Gomez (US 2020/0211522 A1, previously cited) teaches a system for reducing or eliminating the ability of a smart speaker to hear or react to audible communications (see Gomez, abstract and figures 1-16);
Gribtsov (US 2022/0038799 A1, previously cited) teaches a weather resistant speaker enclosure (see Gribtsov, abstract and figures 1-15);
Ibey (US 2003/0220705 A1) teaches an audio distribution system that transmits power and audio signals over a local area network (see Ibey, abstract and figures 1, 7, and 9);
Merrey et al. (US 2007/0223722 A1 and hereafter Merrey) teaches a digital power link audio distribution system (see Merrey, abstract, figures 1-4, and ¶ 0003 and 0018-0019); and
Tschirpke (US 8,446,737 B1) teaches an in-wall mounted housing for electronic components (see Tschirpke, abstract and figures 1-17).
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 Daniel R Sellers whose telephone number is (571)272-7528. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-4:00.
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, Fan S Tsang can be reached at (571)272-7547. 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.
/Daniel R Sellers/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights