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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claim(s) have 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.
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) 1-4, 9, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 108712708 A) in view of Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 Bl).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen et al. (CN 108712708 A) discloses a communications device (Para. 0045; Fig. 1) comprising:
a system housing defining a back panel (System housing 6 with back panel 8; Fig. 6);
a sound-permeable screen coupled to the system housing and the back panel (Screen 4 coupled housing 6 and perpendicular to back panel 8; Para. 0058; Fig. 6);
a microphone disposed within the system housing between the sound-permeable screen and the back panel (Microphone 7 within 6 between screen 4 and back panel 8; Para. 0046; Fig. 6);
a loudspeaker (3; Fig. 3);
a loudspeaker housing configured to attach the loudspeaker to the back panel of the system housing (Speaker housing 2 attaches speaker 3 to back panel 8 through 1; Fig. 1,3);
a fabric backing adjacent to the sound-permeable screen (Backing 5 of 2 and 922 of 92 abuts to screen 4; Para. 0043,0057; Fig. 1,9); and
a fabric retainer attached to the back panel, the fabric retainer positioned between the back panel of the system housing and the fabric backing, the fabric retainer configured to cause the fabric backing to be held against the sound-permeable screen (Fabric retainer 91 attached to back panel 8, through 912 connecting to 7 on 8, fabric retainer 91 between back panel 8 and fabric backing 92, configured to cause fabric backing 922 of 92 to be held against screen 4; Para. 0050-0051,0057; Fig. 6,9-10).
Chen et al. fails to explicitly disclose a sound-permeable screen coupled to the system housing opposite the back panel (Screen 4 coupled housing 6 perpendicular to back panel 8; Fig. 6). However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of space constrains within the device, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Chen et al. further fails to explicitly disclose a microphone) array. However, Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 Bl) teaches a microphone array (Stanley: Radial microphones 804; Col. 12, Lines 15-35; Fig. 8). Stanley et al. and Chen et al. are in similar fields comprising smart devices. Modifying Chen et al. with teachings of Stanley et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a microphone array for the purpose of triangulating the location of any audio detected (Stanley: Col. 12, Lines 30-35).
Regarding Claim 2, Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. discloses the communications device of claim 1, wherein the loudspeaker housing further comprises a plurality of loudspeaker housing mounts (Loudspeaker housing 2 with guide protrusions/mounts 24; Para. 0035,0037; Fig. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 3, Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. discloses the communications device of claim 2, wherein the loudspeaker housing further comprises: a first half; a second half (First half 22 and second half 23; Para. 0035; Fig. 2-3). Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. fails to explicitly disclose a gasket between the first half and the second half. However, Chen et al. teaches in another location a gasket between two components (Gasket 5 between 211 of 2 and 62 of 6; Fig. 1-2,5). Therefore, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a gasket between the first half and the second half for the purpose of sealing the loudspeaker housing so that sound does not spread to the surroundings (Para. 0043).
Regarding Claim 4, Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. discloses the communications device of claim 3, wherein the gasket is configured to dampen vibrations and to be an acoustic seal between the first half and the second half of the loudspeaker housing (Gasket 5 has sound absorption effect; Para. 0043).
Regarding Claim 9, Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. discloses the communications device of claim 1, wherein the fabric retainer is configured to be elastically deformed between the back panel and the fabric backing, causing the fabric backing to be held against the sound-permeable screen (In structure of fabric retainer 91 of 9 as a silicone sealing element with elasticity and fabric backing 92 tightly fit to screen 4 ; Para. 0052,0057; Fig. 6,9).
Regarding Claim 33, Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. discloses the communications device of claim 1, wherein the loudspeaker housing defines a protrusion extending outwardly from the loudspeaker housing (2 comprising protrusion 24-26; Para. 0040-0041; Fig. 1-3), wherein the protrusion is configured to support the loudspeaker (24 supports speaker 3, since 3 is inside loudspeaker housing 2; Fig. 3), and wherein the back panel defines a loudspeaker opening sized to receive the protrusion and the loudspeaker such that the loudspeaker is positioned through the back panel and into the system housing (Back panel 1 defines opening 11 for loudspeaker 3, since 3 is inside loudspeaker housing 2, to receive protrusions 24-26 and loudspeaker 3 such that 3 is positioned through 11 of back panel 1 into system housing 6, Para. 0040-0041; Fig. 1-4).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 108712708 A) in view of Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 Bl) and in view of Swist (US 8,662,247 B1).
Regarding Claim 5, Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. discloses the communications device of claim 2. Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of loudspeaker housing mounts (Loudspeaker housing 2 with guide protrusions/mounts 24; Para. 0035,0037; Fig. 1-3) comprises: a first threaded end; a second threaded end; and an elastomeric center connecting the first threaded end and the second threaded end. However, Swist (US 8,662,247 B1) teaches wherein each of the plurality of mounts comprises: a first threaded end; a second threaded end; and an elastomeric center connecting the first and second threaded ends (Swist: Mounts of Fig. 6 with first threaded end 110 and second threaded end 112 rubber/elastic center 20; Col. 5, Lines 1-13; Col. 6, Lines 1-25. Plurality shown in Fig. 4-5). Swist, Stanley et al., and Chen et al. are in similar fields comprising speakers mounted to a device. Modifying Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. with teachings of Swist would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a first threaded end; a second threaded end; and an elastomeric center connecting the first threaded end and the second threaded end for the purpose of fastening adjacent components together while isolating vibrations between each component (Swist: Col. 5, Lines 1-13).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 108712708 A) in view of Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 Bl), Swist (US 8,662,247 B1), and Cheng (CN 110571575 A).
Regarding Claim 6, Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Swist disclose the communications device of claim 5. Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Swist fail to explicitly disclose the wherein at least one of the first threaded end and the second threaded end (Swist Fig. 6: First threaded end 110 and second threaded end 112) comprises an anti-rotation shoulder configured to prevent rotation of each of the plurality of loudspeaker housing mounts when the anti-rotation shoulder is engaged within a correspondingly configured hole. However, Cheng (CN 110571575 A) teaches wherein at least one of the first end and the second end comprises an anti-rotation shoulder configured to prevent rotation when the anti-rotation shoulder is engaged within a correspondingly configured hole (Cheng: End 300 comprises anti-rotation shoulder 330 engaged with hole 130; Para. 0055,0059; Fig. 3-5,7). Cheng, Swist, Stanley et al., and Chen et al. are in similar fields comprising electronic devices with Cheng and Swist comprising mounts. Modifying Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Swist with teachings of Cheng would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein an anti-rotation shoulder configured to prevent rotation of each of the plurality of loudspeaker housing mounts when the anti-rotation shoulder is engaged within a correspondingly configured hole for the purpose of restricting torsional force and foolproof assembly (Cheng: Para. 0063).
Regarding Claim 7, Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al., Swist, and Cheng disclose the communications device of claim 6. Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al., Swist, and Cheng fail to explicitly disclose wherein the anti-rotation shoulder comprises (Cheng’s anti rotation shoulder 330 and corresponding hole 130 are “D” shaped; Para. 0063,0066; Fig. 11) a square cross-section and the correspondingly configured hole defines a square opening. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Cheng.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 108712708 A) in view of Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 Bl) and Ishibashi et al. (US 2007/0165897 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. discloses the communications device of claim 1. Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. fails to explicitly disclose further comprising: a frame defining a plurality of slots configured to secure the sound-permeable screen,
wherein the sound-permeable screen comprises edges that are secured within the plurality of slots, and wherein the edges further define raised dimples configured to form an interference fit with the plurality of slots when the sound-permeable screen is secured within the plurality of slots.
However, Ishibashi et al. (US 2007/0165897 A1) teaches further comprising: a frame defining a plurality of slots configured to secure the sound-permeable screen, wherein the sound-permeable screen comprises edges that are secured within the plurality of slots (Ishibashi: Frame 12B with plurality of grooves/slots 1222 to secure screen 84. Screen 84 with edges 8406 secured within slots 1222; Para. 0077-0080, Fig. 4-5).
Ishibashi et al., Stanley et al., and Chen et al. are in similar fields comprising electronic devices with sound grilles. Modifying Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. with teachings of Ishibashi et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further comprise: a frame defining a plurality of slots configured to secure the sound-permeable screen, wherein the sound-permeable screen comprises edges that are secured within the plurality of slots for the purpose of quick assembly.
Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Ishibashi et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the edges further define raised dimples configured to form an interference fit with the plurality of slots when the sound-permeable screen is secured within the plurality of slots. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield the predictable results of improving reliability of fit between the frame and sound-permeable screen.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 108712708 A) in view of Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 B1) and Leschka et al. (US 2021/0306750 A).
Regarding Claim 11, Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. discloses the communications device of claim 1. Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. fails to explicitly disclose further comprising; a Power over Ethernet (PoE) power supply, wherein the communications device is configured to differentiate between the PoE power supply and a PoE+ power supply and to disable the loudspeaker if the communications device is connected to the PoE power supply.
However, Leschka et al. (US 2021/0306750 A) discloses further comprising; a Power over Ethernet (PoE) power supply (Leschka: Loudspeakers with PoE; Para. 0004). Leschka et al., Stanley et al., Chen et al. and are in similar fields comprising electrical devices with loudspeakers. Modifying Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. with teachings of Leschka et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the communication device further comprises a Power over Ethernet (PoE) power supply for the purpose of being convenient to install without requiring additional power supplies as from an electrical outlet (Leschka: Para. 0004).
Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Leschka et al. fails to explicitly disclose the wherein the communications device is configured to differentiate between the PoE power supply and a PoE+ power supply and to disable the loudspeaker if the communications device is connected to the PoE power supply. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of powering a speaker requiring higher wattage than provided by PoE (Leschka: PoE limited to 1.92A; Para. 0004-0005).
Claim(s) 13-15, 18, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 108712708 A) in view of Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 B1) and Svendsen (US 9,209,767 Bl).
Regarding Claim 13, Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. discloses the communications device of claim 1. Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. fails to explicitly disclose a loudspeaker amplifier circuit, wherein the loudspeaker amplifier circuit further comprises a current-limitation circuit configured to prevent an average power drawn by the communications device from exceeding a power budget. However, Svendsen (US 9,209,767 Bl) teaches wherein a loudspeaker amplifier circuit further comprises a current-limitation circuit configured to prevent an average power drawn by the communications device from exceeding a power budget (Svendsen’s circuit of Fig. 2: Current sensing 208 limits input current to 206 to n; Col. 5, Lines 54-67; Col. 6, Lines 1-20). Svendsen, Stanley et al., Chen et al. and are in similar fields comprising electrical devices with loudspeakers. Modifying Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. with teachings of Svendsen would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a loudspeaker amplifier circuit for the purpose of driving the loudspeaker (Svendsen: Col. 4, Lines 50-55), wherein the loudspeaker amplifier circuit further comprises a current-limitation circuit configured to prevent an average power drawn by the communications device from exceeding a power budget for the purpose of extending battery life (Svendsen: Col. 4, Lines 1-26).
Regarding Claim 14, Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Svendsen discloses the communications device of claim 13, wherein the loudspeaker amplifier circuit is configured to provide temporary peak power exceeding the power budget (Svendsen: Charge is stored in boost capacitor 214 to provide output peaks at power levels substantially above average power; Col. 6, Lines 20-50; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 15, Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Svendsen discloses the communications device of claim 13, wherein the loudspeaker amplifier circuit comprises a peak supply capacitor (In structure of Svendsen’s 214: Charge is stored in boost capacitor 214 to provide output peaks at power levels substantially above average power; Col. 6, Lines 20-50; Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 18, Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Svendsen discloses the communications device of claim 15. Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Svendsen fails to explicitly disclose further comprising; a digital signal processor within the system housing, wherein a designated amount of required signal processing is performed in the digital signal processor. However, Svendsen further teaches a digital signal processor within the system housing, wherein a designated amount of required signal processing is performed in the digital signal processor (Svendsen: Audio processor 118 processes digital audio signals within radio device 100; Col. 3, Lines 55-67; Col. 4, Lines 11-25; Fig. 1). Modifying Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Svendsen with additional teachings of Svendsen would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further comprise a digital signal processor within the system housing for the purpose of decoding, filtering, and amplification to produce analog audio signals to be output through the speaker (Svendsen: Col. 4, Lines 1-5).
Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Svendsen fails to explicitly disclose wherein a designated amount of required signal processing is performed in the digital signal processor. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of limiting current drawn by a battery, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the Art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 30, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 13. Claim 30 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 13; detailed discussion is omitted for brevity.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 108712708 A) in view of Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 B1) and Abraham et al. (US 9,565,493).
Regarding Claim 16, Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. discloses the communications device of claim 1. Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the microphone array (Stanley: Radial microphones 804; Col. 12, Lines 15-35; Fig. 8) comprises a beamforming microphone array.
However, Abraham et al. (US 9,565,493) teaches wherein the microphone array comprises a beamforming microphone array (Abraham: In structure of array 104 with microphones 106 described as beam steering using audio processing for output; Col. 9, Lines 1-30; Col. 7, Lines 20-35; Fig. 5). Abraham et al., Stanley et al., Chen et al. and are in similar fields comprising electrical devices with microphones. Modifying Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. with teachings of Abraham et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the microphone array comprises a beamforming microphone array for the purpose of listening “for signals coming from a signal direction and reject unwanted noise and/or interference sounds” (Abraham: Col. 9, Lines 15-20).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 108712708 A) in view of Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 B1), Svendsen (US 9,209,767 Bl), and Abraham et al. (US 9,565,493).
Regarding Claim 17, Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Svendsen discloses the communications device of claim 15. Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Svendsen fail to explicitly disclose wherein the microphone array (Stanley: Radial microphones 804; Col. 12, Lines 15-35; Fig. 8) comprises concentric rings of microphones.
However, Abraham et al. (US 9,565,493) teaches wherein the microphone array comprises concentric rings of microphones (Abraham: microphone array 104 with microphones 106b; Col. 9, Lines 4-40; Fig. 5). Abraham et al, Svendsen, Stanley et al., Chen et al. and are in similar fields comprising electrical devices. Modifying Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Svendsen with teachings of Abraham et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the microphone array comprises concentric rings of microphones for the purpose of removing “grating lobes and thereby, produce an improved beamwidth with a near constant frequency response across” a wide range of frequencies (Abraham: Col. 9, Lines 50-56 ).
Claim(s) 19-23 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 108712708 A) in view of Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 B1) and Mason et al. (US 6,944,312).
Regarding Claim 19, please note the rejection as set forth above with respect to claim 1. Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 and wherein the loudspeaker and the two-dimensional microphone array are disposed in different planes (See loudspeaker 3 on vertical plane in Fig. 3 and microphone 7on a horizontal plane in Fig. 6).
Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. fails to explicitly disclose the loudspeaker mounted in a corner of the system housing. However, Mason et al. (US 6,944,312) teaches a loudspeaker mounted in a corner of the system housing, (Mason: See speaker 50 in corner of housing 10 in Fig. 1,4. Col. 2, Lines 60-67). Mason et al., Stanley et al., and Chen et al. are in similar fields comprising speaker devices. Modifying Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. with teachings of Mason et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill wherein the loudspeaker mounted in a corner of the system housing for the purpose of placing the loudspeaker in the housing’s available space.
Regarding Claim 20, Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Mason et al. disclose the communications device of claim 19. Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Mason et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the system housing is compatible with a drop ceiling grid.
However, Mason et al. further teaches system housing is compatible with a drop ceiling grid (Mason: Housing 10 mounts directly on ceiling tile framework as a square tile on square framework; Col. 2, Lines 45-67;Fig. 1). Modifying Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Mason et al. with additional teachings of Mason et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the system housing is compatible with a drop ceiling grid for the purpose of not requiring additional frame support during installation and to blend within the ceiling (Col. 2, Lines 52-60).
Regarding Claim 21, Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Mason et al. disclose the communications device of claim 20, wherein the system housing comprises a square shape configured for mounting in a square opening in the drop ceiling grid (Mason: Housing 10 mounts directly on ceiling tile framework as a square tile on square framework; Col. 2, Lines 45-67;Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 22, Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Mason et al. disclose the communications device of claim 21, wherein the two-dimensional microphone array comprises a substrate (Microphone 7 on substrate 8; Fig. 6). Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Mason et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the two-dimensional microphone array comprises a circular substrate. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of fit requirements within the system housing, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Chen et al.
Regarding Claim 23, Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Mason et al. disclose the communications device of claim 22, wherein the loudspeaker is positioned at least partially within the system housing (Loudspeaker 3 entirely within 2 of system housing 6; Fig. 3,6).
Regarding Claim 27, Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Mason et al. disclose the communications device of claim 19, wherein the two-dimensional microphone array comprises a plurality of microphone elements arranged in at least one circular ring (Stanley: See radially arranged microphones 804; Fig. 8, 11C).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 108712708 A) in view of Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 B1), Mason et al. (US 6,944,312), and Svendsen (US 9,209,767 Bl).
Regarding Claim 24, Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Mason et al. disclose the communications device of claim 23. Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Mason et al. fails to explicitly disclose further comprising; a digital signal processor within the system housing, wherein a designated amount of required signal processing is performed in the digital signal processor. However, Svendsen further teaches a digital signal processor within the system housing (Svendsen: Audio processor 118 processes digital audio signals within radio device 100; Col. 3, Lines 55-67; Col. 4, Lines 11-25; Fig. 1). Svendsen, Mason et al., Stanley et al., Chen et al. and are in similar fields comprising electrical devices with loudspeakers. Modifying Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Mason et al. with teachings of Svendsen would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further comprise a digital signal processor within the system housing for the purpose of decoding, filtering, and amplification to produce analog audio signals to be output through the speaker (Svendsen: Col. 4, Lines 1-5).
Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al., Mason et al., and Svendsen fails to explicitly disclose wherein a designated amount of required signal processing is performed in the digital signal processor. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of limiting current drawn by a battery, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the Art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 108712708 A) in view of Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 B1), Mason et al. (US 6,944,312), and Kohen (US 11,460,184).
Regarding Claim 26, Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Mason et al. disclose the communications device of claim 21. Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Mason et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the system housing is further compatible with mounting by at least one of a VESA pole and suspension cables. However, Kohen (US 11,460,184) teaches wherein the system housing is further compatible with mounting by at least one of a VESA pole and suspension cables (Kohen: See cables 646 for mounting lamps; Fig. 35,13). Kohen, Mason et al., Stanley et al., and Chen et al. are in similar fields comprising speaker devices. Modifying Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al., Mason et al. with teachings of Kohen would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the system housing is further compatible with mounting by at least one of a VESA pole and suspension cables for the purpose of being a commonly used method of ceiling installation.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 108712708 A) in view of Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 B1), Mason et al. (US 6,944,312), and Abraham et al. (US 9,565,493).
Regarding Claim 28, Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Mason et al. disclose the communications device of claim 27, wherein the plurality of microphone elements are arranged, on a substrate (Microphone 7 on substrate 8; Fig. 6). Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Mason et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of microphone elements are arranged, on a substrate, in a number of concentric, nested rings of varying sizes, each ring comprising a subset of the plurality of microphone elements positioned at predetermined intervals along a circumference of the ring.
However, Abraham et al. teaches wherein the plurality of microphone elements are arranged, on a substrate, in a number of concentric, nested rings of varying sizes, each ring comprising a subset of the plurality of microphone elements positioned at predetermined intervals along a circumference of the ring (See Abraham Fig. 5: microphone array 104 with microphones 106b; Col. 9, Lines 4-40). Abraham et al., Mason et al., Stanley et al., and Chen et al. are in similar fields comprising electrical devices with microphones. Modifying Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Mason et al. with teachings of Abraham et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the plurality of microphone elements are arranged, on a substrate, in a number of concentric, nested rings of varying sizes, each ring comprising a subset of the plurality of microphone elements positioned at predetermined intervals along a circumference of the ring for the purpose of removing “grating lobes and thereby, produce an improved beamwidth with a near constant frequency response across” a wide range of frequencies (Abraham: Col. 9, Lines 50-56 ).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 108712708 A) in view of Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 B1), Mason et al. (US 6,944,312), and Ushioda (US 10,951,748 B2).
Regarding Claim 29, Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Mason et al. disclose the communications device of claim 19. Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Mason et al. fail to explicitly disclose wherein the loudspeaker is positioned between at least two microphone elements of the two-dimensional microphone array. However, Ushioda (US 10,951,748 B2) teaches wherein the loudspeaker is positioned between at least two microphone elements of the two-dimensional microphone array (Ushioda: Speakers 20L, 20R, 21L, 21R between microphones 22; Col. 5, Lines 55-67; Col. 6, Lines 25-45; Fig. 2, 5). Ushioda, Mason et al., Stanley et al., and Chen et al. are in similar fields comprising electrical devices with loudspeakers. Modifying Chen et al. as modified by Stanley et al. and Mason et al. with teachings of Ushioda would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the loudspeaker is positioned between at least two microphone elements of the two-dimensional microphone array for the purpose of optimally arranging the microphone array and loudspeaker into a compact form (Ushioda: Col. 8, Lines 45-55).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31-32 and 34-35 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-10827242-B2, US-20230109738-A1, US-4799264-A, US-5619585-A, US-5699438-A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER B OLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3041. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am -4:00pm.
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.
/JENNIFER B OLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/DEDEI K HAMMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights