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
Claims 1-7, 9-24, and 26-32 are pending. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed August 19th, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(l) as being anticipated by Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 Bl) and 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 Bl) in view of Leschka et al. (US 2021/0306750 A). have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the same prior art Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 Bl) using a different back panel, loudspeaker, and loudspeaker housing details. Due to amendment, the rejection of all claims has been withdrawn and updated.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Stanley et al. discloses a communications device (100; Fig. 1) comprising:
a system housing defining a back panel (Housing of Fig. 2A with back panel 230; Fig. 14A-B;
a sound-permeable screen coupled to the system housing opposite the back panel (Sound 1118 exits through vents/screen 1120; Col. 14, Lines 18-30; Fig. 11C,13A. 1120 opposite back panel 230; Fig. 2A,11c);
a microphone array disposed within the system housing between the sound-permeable screen and the back panel (Radial microphones 804; Col. 12, Lines 15-35; Fig. 8. Microphones of sensor array 2320; Col. 23, Lines 30-50; Fig. 23. See microphones 804 between screen 1120 and back panel 230; Fig. 2A,8,11C);
a loudspeaker (202; Col. 7, Lines 25-55; Fig. 3-4,6-7);
a loudspeaker housing configured to attach the loudspeaker to the back panel of the system housing (Loudspeaker housing 204 attaches loudspeaker 202 to back panel 230; Col. 7, Lines 45-67; Fig. 2A,3-4,6-7), wherein the loudspeaker housing is further configured to minimize acoustic coupling between the loudspeaker and the microphone array (In structure as microphones away from loudspeaker; Fig. 2A,8);
a fabric backing adjacent to the sound-permeable screen (Fabric 1700 attaches to 1126 being a screen; Col. 18, Lines 30-67; Fig. 13A-B,17C); and
a fabric retainer positioned between the back panel of the system housing and the fabric backing (Retainer 1714 between back panel 230 and fabric backing 1700; Fig. 2A,17B), the fabric retainer configured to cause the fabric backing to be held against the sound-permeable screen (When installed, drawstrings/fabric retainer 1714 is wrapped 1502/1503 to hold fabric backing 1700 against screen 1126; Col. 19, Lines 1-25; Col. 16, Lines 15-30; Fig. 15,17A-D).
Regarding Claim 2, Stanley et al. discloses the communications device of claim 1 wherein the loudspeaker housing further comprises a plurality of loudspeaker housing mounts (Fasteners 316/504; Col. 9, Lines 60-67; Col. 10, Lines 1-15 Fig. 4-6).
Regarding Claim 9, 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 (Fabric retainer 1714 is tightened/deformed around 1502/1503 to hold fabric 1700 against screen 1126; Col. 19, Lines 1-25; Col. 16, Lines 15-30; Fig. 15,17A-D. 1714 above back panel 230 of Fig. 2A).
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) 3-4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 B1).
Regarding Claim 3, Stanley et al. discloses the communications device of claim 2 wherein the loudspeaker housing further comprises:
a first half (Leftward of 314; Fig. 2A,6-7);
a second half (Rightward of 314; Fig. 2A, 6-7).
Stanley et al. fails to explicitly disclose a gasket between the first half and the second half. However, Stanley et al. teaches in another location a gasket between two components (Seal/gasket 1124 between first half 1126 and second half 208; Col. 14, Lines 50-67; Col. 15, Lines 10-15; Fig. 12C,19-20). Therefore, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein a gasket between the first half and the second half for the purpose of preventing vibration between adjacent components (Col. 14, Lines 54-60).
Regarding Claim 4, 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 (Follows from seal/gasket 1124 prevents “buzzing” between 1126 and 208 and seals back volume of 802; Col. 14, Lines 54-60; Fig. 19).
Regarding Claim 10, Stanley et al. discloses the communications device of claim 1, further comprising a frame defining a plurality of slots configured to secure the sound-permeable screen (Frame 208 with slots 1304,1306,1308,1312,1314 to secure screen 1126; Col. 15, Lines 10-45; Fig. 13A);
wherein the sound-permeable screen comprises edges that are secured within the plurality of slots (Screen 1126 with edges 1302,1310,1316 thread segment against slots 1304,1306,1308,1312,1314; Fig. 13A).
the edges further configured to form an interference fit with the plurality of slots when the sound-permeable screen is secured within the plurality of slots (Edge 1316 locks against slot 1314’s locking surface 1312; Fig. 13B. Locking surface being a friction/interference fit, having a rough surface as raised dimples).
Stanley et al. fails to explicitly disclose 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 (Stanley teaching the opposite, the slot having dimples instead of the edges). 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 that reversal of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 B1) in view of Thomas (US 2013/0056613A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Stanley et al. discloses the communications device of claim 2 wherein each of the plurality of loudspeaker housing mounts (316/504; Fig. 4-6) comprises:
a first threaded end (316 attached to 204; Fig. 5B);
a second end (504 attached to 228; Fig. 5B).
Stanley et al. fails to explicitly disclose the second end as threaded and an elastomeric center connecting the first and second threaded ends. However, Thomas 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 (Thomas: Upper/lower posts 16/34 with threads 30/36 connected by elastomeric grommets center 20; Para. 0010; Fig. 3). Thomas and Stanley et al. are in similar fields comprising threaded fasteners. Modifying Stanley et al. with teachings of Thomas 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 second threaded end and an elastomeric center connecting the first and second threaded ends for the purpose of being a widely used method of fastening components together and absorbing vibrations (Thomas: Para. 0020).
Regarding Claim 6, Stanley et al. as modified by Thomas disclose the communications device of claim 5. Stanley et al. as modified by Thomas fail to explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the first threaded end and the second threaded end 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 (Thomas: Upper/lower posts 16/34 with threads 30/36 connected by elastomeric grommets center 20; Para. 0010; Fig. 3). However, Stanley et al. teaches in another location wherein at least one of the first threaded end and the second threaded end 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 (First threaded end screw 1004 with 1010 of 1002 being anti-rotation shoulder engaged with hole 1008; Col. 13, Lines 30-50; Fig. 10A-B). Therefore, 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 securing components together (Col. 13, Lines 30-50).
Regarding Claim 7, Stanley et al. as modified by Thomas discloses the communications device of claim 6 wherein the anti-rotation shoulder comprises a cross-section and the correspondingly configured hole defines an opening (Shoulder 1010 with U-shape corresponding to hole 1008 with U-shape; Fig. 10B). Stanley et al. as modified by Thomas fails to explicitly disclose the cross-section and opening as a square. 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 Stanley et al.
Claim(s) 11-15,18,30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 B1) in view of Leschka et al. (US 2021/0306750 A).
Regarding Claim 11, Stanley et al. discloses the communications device of claim 1 further comprising a power supply (Power receptacle 220 with power unit 222; Fig. 2A). Stanley et al. fails to explicitly close a Power over Ethernet (PoE) power supply. However, Leschka et al. teaches a Power over Ethernet (PoE) power supply (Leschka: Loudspeakers with PoE; Para. 0004). Leschka et al. and Stanley et al. are in similar fields comprising electrical devices with loudspeakers. Modifying 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).
Regarding Claim 12, Stanley et al. as modified by Leschka et al. discloses the communications device of claim 11. Stanley et al. as modified by 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)
Regarding Claim 13, Stanley et al. discloses the communications device of claim 1 further comprising a loudspeaker amplifier circuit (Amplifier board 228; Col. 8, Lines 1-15;Fig. 9B). Stanley et al. as modified by fails to explicitly disclose 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, Leschka et al. teaches 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 (Leschka: Limiter of Fig. 12 checks if threshold is exceeded after certain time to reduce output; Para. 0053-0054. Examples of 100W for 200ms reduces to 50W; 0055; Fig. 13). Leschka et al. and Stanley et al. are in similar fields comprising electrical devices with loudspeakers. Modifying 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 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 preventing overheating of the loudspeaker (Leschka: Para. 0055, Last 5 lines)
Regarding Claim 14, Stanley et al. as modified by Leschka et al. discloses the communications device of claim 13 wherein the loudspeaker amplifier circuit is configured to provide temporary peak power exceeding the power budget (See citations of Claim 13).
Regarding Claim 15, Stanley et al. as modified by Leschka et al. discloses the communications device of claim 13 wherein the loudspeaker amplifier circuit comprises a peak supply capacitor (Speaker 202 comprises power/peak supply capacitors 404; Col. 12, Lines 35-45;Fig. 9B).
Regarding Claim 18, Stanley et al. as modified by Leschka et al. discloses the communications device of claim 15 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 (Interpreted as a signal processor) (Logic board 1122, part of housing 1122/1100, comprises a processor; Col. 14, Lines 18-35; Fig. 11C. Processor 2302 interprets and relays signals; Col. 14, Lines 18-35; Col. 22, Lines 50-67; Fig. 23).
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 Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 B1) in view of Abraham et al. (US 9,565,493).
Regarding Claim 16, Stanley et al. discloses the communications device of claim 1. Stanley et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the microphone array (Radial microphones 804; Fig. 8,23) comprises a beamforming microphone array (Beamforming techniques of audio exit openings can be applied; Col. 6, Lines 10-20). However, Abraham et al. 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. and Stanley et al. are in similar fields comprising electrical devices with microphones. Modifying 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 Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 B1) in view of Leschka et al. (US 2021/0306750 A) and Abraham et al. (US 9,565,493).
Regarding Claim 17, Stanley et al. as modified by Leschka et al. discloses the communications device of claim 15. Stanley et al. as modified by as modified by Leschka et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the microphone array (804;Fig. 8,23) comprises concentric rings of microphones. However, Abraham et al. 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. and Stanley et al. are in similar fields comprising electrical devices with microphones. Modifying 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 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) 19-24 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 B1) in view of 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 202’s plane in Fig. 7 compared to microphone 804’s plane; Fig. 8).
Stanley et al. fails to explicitly disclose the loudspeaker mounted in a corner of the system housing (Loudspeakers 202; Fig. 7). However, Mason et al. 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. and Stanley et al. are in similar fields comprising speaker devices. Modifying 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, Stanley et al. as modified by Mason et al. discloses the communications device of claim 19. Stanley et al. as modified by Mason et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the system housing is compatible with a drop ceiling grid. 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 Stanley et al. as modified by 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, Stanley et al. as modified by Mason et al. discloses 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, Stanley et al. as modified by Mason et al. discloses the communications device of claim 21 wherein the two-dimensional microphone array comprises a circular substrate (Microphones 804 on substrate 818; Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 23, Stanley et al. as modified by Mason et al. discloses the communications device of claim 22 wherein:
the loudspeaker is positioned at least partially within the system housing (Loudspeaker 202 in Fig. 2A); and
Regarding Claim 24, Stanley et al. as modified by Mason et al. discloses the communications device of claim 23 further comprising a processor within the system housing, wherein a designated amount of required signal processing is performed in the digital signal processor (Logic board 1122, part of housing 1122/1100, comprises a processor; Col. 14, Lines 18-35; Fig. 11C. Processor 2302 interprets and relays signals; Col. 14, Lines 18-35; Col. 22, Lines 50-67; Fig. 23).
Regarding Claim 27, Stanley et al. as modified by Mason et al. discloses 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 (See microphones 804; Fig. 8, 11C ).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 B1) in view of Mason et al. (US 6,944,312) and Abraham et al. (US 9,565,493).
Regarding Claim 28, Stanley et al. as modified by Mason et al. discloses the communications device of claim 27. Stanley et al. as modified by Mason et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of microphone elements are arranged, on a substrate (Microphones 804; Fig. 8), 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., and Stanley et al. are in similar fields comprising electrical devices with microphones. Modifying 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) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 Bl) in view of Mason et al. (US 6,944,312) and Kohen (US 11,460,184).
Regarding Claim 26, Stanley et al. as modified by Mason et al. discloses the communications device of claim 21. Stanley et al. as modified by Mason et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the system housing is further compatible with mounting by at least one of a VESA pole and suspension cables (See cables 646 for mounting lamps; Fig. 35,13). However, Kohen 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., and Stanley et al. are in similar fields comprising speaker devices. Modifying Stanley et al. and 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) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 Bl) in view of Mason et al. (US 6,944,312) and Ushioda (US 10,951,748 B2).
Regarding Claim 29, Stanley et al. as modified by Mason et al. discloses the communications device of claim 19. Stanley et al. as modified by Mason et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the loudspeaker is positioned between at least two microphone elements of the two-dimensional microphone array.
However, Ushioda 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., and Stanley et al. are in similar fields comprising electrical devices with loudspeakers. Modifying Stanley et al. as modified by 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).
Claim(s) 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanley et al. (US 9,930,444 B1) in view of Howard et al. (US 10,841,675).
Regarding Claim 31, Stanley et al. discloses the communications device of claim 1. Stanley et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the fabric retainer comprises:
a plurality of ribs configured to exert pressure on the fabric backing; and
one or more legs connecting the ribs to one or more mounting tabs, the one or more legs comprising a spring portion configured to provide a force to cause the fabric backing to be held against the sound-permeable screen.
However, Howard et al. teaches wherein the fabric retainer (Howard: Spring/retainer 146; Fig. 1B) comprises:
a plurality of ribs configured to exert pressure on the fabric backing (Howard: Ribs 168/170); and
one or more legs connecting the ribs to one or more mounting tabs (Howard: Legs 164 connecting ribs 168 to tabs 166), the one or more legs comprising a spring portion configured to provide a force to cause the fabric backing to be held against the sound-permeable screen (Howard: 146 being a spring, all portions provide spring force to fabric backing 160 of 144 to be held against screen 142. Col. 5, Lines 1-20).
Howard et al. and Stanley et al. are in similar fields comprising electrical speakers. Modifying Stanley et al. with teachings of Howard 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 fabric retainer comprises: a plurality of ribs configured to exert pressure on the fabric backing; and one or more legs connecting the ribs to one or more mounting tabs, the one or more legs comprising a spring portion configured to provide a force to cause the fabric backing to be held against the sound-permeable screen for the purpose of reducing the likelihood of sagging and the resulting flapping… and to alleviate the need for adhesives” (Howard: Col. 4, Lines 35-40; Col. 5, Lines 23-32).
Regarding Claim 32, Stanley et al. as modified by Howard et al. discloses communications device of claim 31 wherein the one or more mounting tabs comprise one or more orientation tabs configured to facilitate positioning of the fabric retainer between the back panel and the fabric backing (Howard: Similar tabs 218 form orientation tabs defined by notch 220 to facilitate orienting with respect to 222 to back panel 116; Col. 6, Lines 10-25; Fig. 2B).
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 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
/FORREST M PHILLIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights