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 .
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.
Claim 8 is 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 8, the claim limitation “the wire mesh is comprised of a plurality of overlapping layers of wire mesh” violates the written description requirement. According to the specification, [0021], “the wire mesh is made from a plurality of layers of wire”. This is not the same as what is claimed. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 8 is 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.
Regarding claim 8, the claim limitation “the wire mesh is comprised of a plurality of overlapping layers of wire mesh” renders the claim indefinite, as it is not in accordance with the specification. In the interest of compact prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted as a wire mesh created via a product by process approach, as the specification does not present any reasoning as to the benefit of this composition.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frank, US 2113219.
Regarding claim 1, Frank discloses: A magnet device (Fig. 1, unlabeled microphone) comprising: a member (Fig . 1, items 10-27) comprised of a base (Fig . 1, permanent magnet 10), a support (Fig . 1, pole pieces 12-13) and a topper (Fig . 1, pole- piece yoke generally indicated at 16 comprising the secondary pole-pieces 17 and 18 and the magnetic connecting members 19 and 23); and a wire mesh that encloses the member (Fig. 1, shows unlabeled wire mesh cover not attached).
Regarding claim 2, Frank further discloses: the member (Fig . 1, items 10-27) is comprised of a magnetic material (see claims 3-5).
Regarding claim 3, Frank further discloses: the base (Fig . 1, permanent magnet 10) is comprised of a magnetic material.
Regarding claim 4, Frank further discloses: the support (Fig . 1, pole pieces 12-13) is comprised of a magnetic material (Col. 2, line 45, “appropriate high-permeability iron”).
Regarding claim 5, Frank further discloses: the topper is comprised of a magnetic material (Fig . 1, pole- piece yoke generally indicated at 16 comprising the secondary pole-pieces 17 and 18 and the magnetic connecting members 19 and 23).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Frank.
Regarding claim 6, Frank discloses the device of claim 1.
Frank does not explicitly disclose: the wire mesh is comprised of a magnetic metal material.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to select a magnetic metal material to build the wire mesh from, as it has been held that selecting an appropriate material for construction is within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner notes that internet search reveals that commercial microphones are often constructed with a stainless steel mesh, which can be magnetic.
Claims 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank in view of McMannis.
Regarding claim 7, Frank discloses: A magnet device (Fig. 1, unlabeled microphone) comprising: a magnetic member (Fig . 1, items 10-27) comprised of a magnetic base (Fig . 1, permanent magnet 10), a magnetic support (Fig . 1, pole pieces 12-13), and a magnetic topper (Fig . 1, pole- piece yoke generally indicated at 16 comprising the secondary pole-pieces 17 and 18 and the magnetic connecting members 19 and 23); a wire mesh that encloses the magnetic member (Fig. 1, shows unlabeled wire mesh cover not attached).
Frank does not explicitly disclose: a telescoping arm.
McManis discloses: a telescoping arm ([0045], “The rod (102) comprises a plurality of sections (104a, 104b, 104c, 104d) that are slidably engaged to provide telescopic extension and retraction”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the telescoping arm of McManis in combination with the device of Frank, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. The benefit of this alteration is that it allows for the microphone to alter its location and height. The Examiner notes that the use of a microphone on a telescoping arm is nearly as old as the microphone itself. Further, the McManis device can be used to mount a camera which includes a microphone [0057].
Regarding claim 8, the modified Frank further discloses: the wire mesh is comprised of a plurality of overlapping layers of wire mesh (This claim represents a Product by Process Claim. According to MPEP 2113 “Product-by-Process Claims [R-08.2017]”, III. THE USE OF 35 U.S.C. 102/103 REJECTIONS FOR PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE COURTS Image; "[T]he lack of physical description in a product-by-process claim makes determination of the patentability of the claim more difficult, since in spite of the fact that the claim may recite only process limitations, it is the patentability of the product claimed and not of the recited process steps which must be established. We are therefore of the opinion that when the prior art discloses a product which reasonably appears to be either identical with or only slightly different than a product claimed in a product-by-process claim, a rejection based alternatively on either section 102 or section 103 of the statute is eminently fair and acceptable. As a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith." In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972)..
Regarding claim 9, the modified Frank further discloses: the wire mesh removably attaches to the magnetic member (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Frank further discloses: an O-ring (Page 2, col. 1, line 1, “The ribbons are supported by, and connected to, the clamps 21, 22, 23 and 24, which are respectively insulated from the rest of the structure by the insulating members, preferably of Bakelite, hard rubber, or the like, 25, 26, 27 and 28” – the Examiner notes that while it is not explicitly stated that the insulators are “O-rings”, it is common knowledge that rubber insulators often take the form of circular O-rings between otherwise conductive parts).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Frank further discloses: the magnetic member (Fig . 1, items 10-27) attaches to the telescoping arm ([0045], “The rod (102) comprises a plurality of sections (104a, 104b, 104c, 104d) that are slidably engaged to provide telescopic extension and retraction”).
Regarding claim 12, Frank discloses: A magnet device (Fig. 1, unlabeled microphone) comprising: a magnetic member (Fig . 1, items 10-27) comprised of a magnetic base (Fig . 1, permanent magnet 10), a magnetic support (Fig . 1, pole pieces 12-13), and a magnetic topper (Fig . 1, pole- piece yoke generally indicated at 16 comprising the secondary pole-pieces 17 and 18 and the magnetic connecting members 19 and 23); a wire mesh that encloses the magnetic member (Fig. 1, shows unlabeled wire mesh cover not attached).
Frank does not explicitly disclose: a telescoping arm, a button, a battery, and a light
McManis discloses: a telescoping arm ([0045], “The rod (102) comprises a plurality of sections (104a, 104b, 104c, 104d) that are slidably engaged to provide telescopic extension and retraction”), a button ([0055], “which further enables the on/off/control button to function for external charging.”); a battery ([0012], “the rod includes a battery); and a light
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the telescoping arm of McManis in combination with the device of Frank, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. The benefit of this alteration is that it allows for the microphone to alter its location and height. The Examiner notes that the use of a microphone on a telescoping arm is nearly as old as the microphone itself. Further, the McManis device can be used to mount a camera which includes a microphone [0057].
Regarding claim 13, the modified Frank further discloses: the battery supplies power to the light ([0056], “The illumination portion (304) is operatively connected to the battery, so as to receive power therefrom.”).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Frank further discloses: the battery is comprised of a charging port ([0016], “charging port”).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Frank further discloses: the charging port is comprised of a USB port ([0016], “The charging port of the rod comprises a USB port.”).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Frank further discloses: a rotator (see Examiner Illustration 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
512
686
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Illustration 1
Regarding claim 17, the modified Frank further discloses: the rotator is comprised of a rotary joint, a swivel joint, a straight-through joint, a right-angle joint or an offset joint (see Examiner Illustration 1).
Regarding claim 18, the modified Frank further discloses: the rotator attaches the magnetic member to the telescoping arm (see Examiner Illustration 1).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Frank further discloses: telescoping arm rotates 360 degrees around the magnetic member via the rotator (see Examiner Illustration 1).
Regarding claim 20, the modified Frank further discloses: the light is comprised of an LED light ([0015] “In one exemplary embodiment, the illumination portion comprises one or more light emitting diodes”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2095. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 0730-1730.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 571-270-1926. 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 JEREMY LEEDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731