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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Austria on 09/21/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the ATA 60245/2021 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “25” has been used to designate both jack plugs/sockets and selector switches (see Figures 1B and 4B, and page 6 of the Specification).
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. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
There are some discrepancies regarding reference numbers in the Specification.
On page 5, section 3), 16 and 17 are referred to as tone control modules, while on page 7, section 4), 16 and 17 are referred to as equalizer modules.
On page 7, section 3), references numbers 43, 44, 45 and 47 are initially cited without reference to which element they refer. Later in that same section, reference numbers 43, 44, 45 and 47 are referenced as jack plugs. Please clarify whether the initial citing of reference numbers 43, 44, 45 and 47 also refers to jack plugs.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. As can be seen, in particular, in claims 1 and 10, the omitted elements are: there is correlation to the modules and the configuration of the elements within the system is unclear.
Claim 1, please clarify whether “compatible modules”, “plurality of tone modules”, and “plurality of modules” are related or completely different and separate elements, and how they are configured within the system.
Claim 1, line 3, the phrasing “a modding structure of a plurality of inserts, inputs and outputs connections” appears grammatical indefinite.
Further in lines 3-4, “a modding structure of a plurality of inserts, inputs and outputs connections for compatible modules, to reconfigure the electronic circuit” is indefinite. Please clarify what the Applicant intends by this limitation, given the phrasing is unclear.
Further, in line 4, please clarify to which components the “component values” refer, and whether these components are part of the system.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the electronic circuit", “the physical changing”, “the sound”, “the intervention” and “the signal path” in lines 4-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, given there is no previous mention of such elements.
Please clarify what the Applicant intends by “intervention” and ”signal path” in relation to the elements of the system.
Please clarify what the Applicant intends by “shaping the tone by other sound design methods that are not part of the signal path”. This limitation is indefinite with regards to the other elements of the system claim, given it is unclear how the signal path relates to the system, or how such sound design methods can be part of a signal path.
Claim 2 recites the limitations "the chassis", “the shortening”, “the patch cables”, “the shape and size”, and “the cross-section” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, given there is no previous mention of such elements.
Claim 2, “orifice is optimized as required” is indefinite given it is unclear for what purpose, reason or requirement, the orifice is optimized.
Claim 2, the recitation “used for interference suppression” is indefinite, given it is unclear in what capacity the shields are used within the system, or how they relate to the rest of the elements int eh system, and what element is having interference suppressed.
Claims 3-6, it has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to/for" perform(ing) a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
Claims 3-6 recite the limitation "said orifice-cable-tray". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, given there is no mention of an orifice-cable-tray in preceding claim 1.
Claim 7, please clarify whether the compatible modules (line 3) are the same as, related to, or different from, the compatible modules recited in preceding claim 1.
Similarly, please clarify whether, the “modding structure”, “inserts”, “inputs and outputs connections” are also the same as, related to, or different from, the previously recited elements of the same name.
Lines 2-3, “a modding structure of a plurality of inserts, inputs and outputs connections” is grammatically indefinite as discussed above in claim 1.
Line 4, please clarify whether “modding modules” are related to any of the other modules recited.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "the shortening", “the patch cables”, “the shape and size”, and “the cross-section” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim, given there is no mention of such elements in preceding claim 1.
Claim 7, lines 7, “optimized as required”, and “used for interference suppression” are indefinite for similar reasons as discussed above in claim 2.
Claim 8, please clarify which “said modding structure” is being referenced, the modding structure of preceding claim 1 or preceding claim 7.
Claim 8, please clarify how the active equalizers are related to the system and the elements within.
Claim 9 as a whole, is grammatically indianite. Please clarify what the Applicant intends by this limitation (in particular, “said apparatus includes, … switches … connection of the tone modules switches, bypass functions”), and please consider revising the phrasing to make the limitation clearer.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the tone modules switches" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, given there is no previous mention of the tone modules having switches.
Claim 10 is rejected for similar reasons as outlined above in claim 1.
Further in claim 10, please address the double recitation of the (line 3, “the the signal path”).
Claim 10, along with the other terms discussed above in claim 1, recites the limitation "the tone" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, given there is no previous mention of a tone.
Lastly, in claim 10, please clarify why other methods are recited as being used instead of the claimed method. This recitation of other methods within a method is indefinite.
Claim 11 is rejected for similar reasons as discussed above in claim 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the US patent application publication to Brandt et al. (US 2014/0270214).
In terms of claim 1, Brandt et al. teaches a modular system comprising a modding structure including a plurality of inserts, inputs and outputs, compatible with electronic modules internal and external to the modular system (see Figure 1 and paragraphs [0021]-[0030]).
As for claim 2, Brandt et al. teaches orifices, or internal ports (124, 126, 128, 130, see paragraph [0024]), wherein the types of plugs and jacks Brandt recites as connected to said orifices (internal ports) are known shield plugs and jacks.
As for claims 3-6, Brandt et al. teaches the system connected to, inputting from or outputting to, electronic instruments, amplifiers, and other sound equipment (see paragraphs [0020] and [0023]).
In terms of claims 10 and 11, the same reasoning applied in the rejection of apparatus claims 1 and 2, mutatis mutandis, applies to the subject-matter of method claims 10 and 11, given the apparatus is considered inseparable from the method of using the apparatus.
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.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt et al. in view of the US patent application publication to Fryette et al. (US 2019/0051273).
As for claim 7, Brandt et al. again teaches all the similar elements of the system discussed above in claim 2 and 3, further teaching the use of a multiplier, or specific type of multiplier, such as a mixer or mixing module (see paragraphs [0022], [0028], [0030] and [0033]). Brandt et al. again teaches the use of known shielded jacks and plug, but fails to explicitly teach the use of metal and ferrite shields.
Fryette et al. teaches a similar modular system for tone shaping, wherein metal shields (62) are provided (see Figure 4 and paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to use metal in certain elements for shielding purposes, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended problem(s) to be solved and the criteria of the objectives to be met. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Further, it would have been obvious to implement metal shielding in Brandt et al. to reduce hum, as disclosed by Fryette et al.
As for claim 8, Brandt et al. teaches DC input and power supply connections (see paragraphs [0008] and [0029]). Therefore, obviousness stands for the reasons cited above.
As for claim 9, Brandt et al. teaches the use of multiple switches (see paragraph [0025]). Therefore, obviousness stands for the reasons cited above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the Notice of References Cited provided by the Examiner, in particular, the US patent application publications to Hummel (US 2016/0240178), Tillman (US 2016/0301488), and McHale (US 2018/0144731).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christina Schreiber whose telephone number is (571)272-4350. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at 571-270-7938. 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.
/CHRISTINA M SCHREIBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837 11/24/2025