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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s response filed November 17, 2025. Claims 21-39 are pending and an action on the merits is as follows.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-3 and 4, filed November 17, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21 and 39, 27 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 newly found prior art reference(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 21-26, 28-31 and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox (US 7,687,696 B2) in view of Yamada et al. (US 3,724,312).
Claim 21: Fox discloses a device shown in FIG. 1 to comprise a soundboard, where the soundboard (46) is shown in FIG. 9 to comprise a first layer of material (top skin 42) comprising a first area, and a reinforcing material attached via epoxy to the first layer of material (column 7 lines 4-5). The reinforcing material is shown to comprise a laminate layer (inner skin 49) and a shaped core layer (honeycomb core 48). FIG. 9 shows the laminate layer to comprise a flat sheet, and the shaped core layer to comprise a plurality of cells arranged in a repeating pattern (continuous hexagonal cell shapes) (column 6 lines 43-47). The reinforcing material is placed inside a depression (44) of the soundboard (column 7 lines 4-6), and therefore comprises a second area less than the first area. This reference fails to disclose the laminate layer to be a second laminate layer, and the reinforcing material to comprise a first laminate layer parallel to the second laminate layer.
However Yamada et al. teaches a device comprising a soundboard, shown in FIGS. 3 and 4 to comprise a reinforcing material having a first laminate layer (24), a core layer (21) and a second laminate layer (22), where the core is between the first and second laminate layers (column 3 lines 22-28).
Given the teachings of Yamada et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Fox with providing the laminate layer to be a second laminate layer, and the reinforcing material to comprise a first laminate layer parallel to the second laminate layer such that the core layer is between the first and second laminate layers. Doing so would provide “a relatively large flexural rigidity, enabling elastic waves derived from the vibration energy applied thereto to be transmitted through the entire soundboard in good condition, and displaying a full sound-propagating characteristic with respect to tones ranging from a low to a high pitch” as taught in Yamada et al. (column 3 lines 46-52).
Claim 22: Fox modified by Yamada et al. discloses a device where the shaped core is between the first and second laminate layers, as stated above. The second laminate layer faces away from the first layer of material, as shown in FIG. 9 of Fox. The first laminate layer then would contact the first layer of material.
Claim 23: Fox modified by Yamada et al. discloses a device as stated above, where the cells are disclosed in Fox to comprise hexagons (column 6 lines 43-49).
Claim 24: Fox modified by Yamada et al. discloses a device where the reinforcing material includes first and second laminate layers, and is placed inside a depression of the soundboard, as stated above. The first and second laminate layer then would comprise the same shape.
Claim 25: Fox modified by Yamada et al. discloses a device as stated above, where the reinforcing material is shown in FIG. 9 of Fox to include a plurality of tapered point portions near where a neck attaches.
Claim 26: Fox modified by Yamada et al. discloses a device as stated above, where the soundboard is shown in FIG. 9 of Fox to comprise a longitudinal axis, and the reinforcing material is symmetrical across the longitudinal axis.
Claim 28: Fox modified by Yamada et al. discloses a device where the reinforcing material includes first and second laminate layers, and is placed inside a depression of the soundboard, as stated above. The first and second laminate layer then would comprise the same shape. A perimeter of the second laminate layer, and therefore the first laminate layer then would comprise a plurality of peaks and valleys, as is shown in FIG. 9 of Fox.
Claim 29: Fox modified by Yamada et al. discloses a device where the first and second laminate layers are duplicated parts, as stated above. The first and second laminate layers then would have the same shape. The laminate layers and shaped core of the reinforcing material are further shown in FIG. 9 of FOX to have the same shape. These references fail to disclose the first laminate layer to comprise at least six peaks.
However Fox shows a reinforcing material in FIG. 4 to have at least six peaks.
Given the teachings of Fox, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Fox as modified by Yamada et al. with providing the first laminate layer to comprise at least six peaks. Doing so would “give larger glueing surface … [and] extra strength to prevent delaminating of the [shaped core] from either or both of the [first or second laminate layer] under the mechanical load imposed by the tension of the strings onto the neck and the bridge” as taught in Fox (column 7 lines 51-60).
Claim 30: Fox modified by Yamada et al. discloses a device as stated above, but fails to disclose a perimeter of the reinforcing material to be longer than a perimeter of the first layer of material.
However Fox shows a reinforcing material in FIG. 4 having a horseshoe-like shape, and having a longer perimeter than a perimeter of the first layer of material.
Given the teachings of Fox, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Fox as modified by Yamada et al. with providing the reinforcing material to have a horseshoe-like shape such that a perimeter of the reinforcing material is longer than a perimeter of the first layer of material. Doing so would “give larger glueing surface … [and] extra strength to prevent delaminating of the [shaped core] from either or both of the [first or second laminate layer] under the mechanical load imposed by the tension of the strings onto the neck and the bridge” as taught in Fox (column 7 lines 51-60).
Claim 31: Fox modified by Yamada et al. discloses a device where the reinforcing material is placed inside a depression against the soundboard, as stated above. A sound box is shown in FIG. 2 of Fox to comprise a side wall (6), and the first layer of material attached to the sidewall. The depression in which the reinforcing material is placed does not extend to the perimeter of the first layer of material, as shown in FIG. 9, and therefore the reinforcing material does not contacting the side wall.
Claim 37: Fox modified by Yamada et al. discloses a device as stated above, where a central axis of each cell is shown in FIGS. 5 and 9 of Fox to be oriented orthogonal to the first laminate layer.
Claim 38: Fox modified by Yamada et al. discloses a device as stated above, where the first laminate layer is oriented parallel to the soundboard, as shown in FIG. 9 of Fox.
Claim 39: Fox discloses a device shown in FIG. 1 to comprise a soundboard, where the soundboard (46) is shown in FIG. 9 to comprise a first layer of material (top skin 42) comprising a first area, and a reinforcing material attached via epoxy to the first layer of material (column 7 lines 4-5). The reinforcing material is shown to comprise a flat sheet of material oriented parallel to the soundboard comprising a flat layer (inner skin 49) and a shaped core layer (honeycomb core 48). FIGS. 5 and 9 show the shaped core layer to comprise a plurality of cells arranged in a repeating pattern (continuous hexagonal cell shapes) (column 6 lines 43-47), a central axis of each cell to be oriented orthogonal to the flat layer. The reinforcing material is placed inside a depression (44) of the soundboard (column 7 lines 4-6), and therefore comprises a second area less than the first area. This reference fails to disclose the reinforcing material to comprise a second flat layer.
However Yamada et al. teaches a device comprising a soundboard, shown in FIGS. 3 and 4 to comprise a reinforcing material having a first flat layer (22), a core layer (21) and a second flat layer (24), where the core is between the first and second flat layers (column 3 lines 22-28).
Given the teachings of Yamada et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Fox with providing the reinforcing material to comprise a second flat layer. Doing so would provide “a relatively large flexural rigidity, enabling elastic waves derived from the vibration energy applied thereto to be transmitted through the entire soundboard in good condition, and displaying a full sound-propagating characteristic with respect to tones ranging from a low to a high pitch” as taught in Yamada et al. (column 3 lines 46-52).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox (US 7,687,696 B2) modified by Yamada et al. (US 3,724,312) as applied to claims above, further in view of Luttwak (US 7,763,784 B2).
Claim 27: Fox modified by Yamada et al. discloses a device as stated above, but fails to disclose the first layer of material to be asymmetrical across the longitudinal axis.
However Luttwak teaches a device shown in FIG. 9 to include a soundboard (32) (column 6 lines 18-20) having a first layer and comprising a longitudinal axis. FIG. 19A shows a reinforcing material (core pattern 1911) symmetrical across the longitudinal axis, while the first layer is asymmetrical across the longitudinal axis.
Given the teachings of Luttwak, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Fox as modified by Yamada et al. with providing the first layer of material to be asymmetrical across the longitudinal axis while the reinforcing material is symmetrical across the longitudinal axis. Doing so would “advantageously retain the look and feel of a traditional instrument with a symmetrical waist … resulting in a familiar playing experience. In addition … the said acoustic cavity volume can be accomplished with a smaller overall instrument size relative to conventional stringed instruments” as taught in Luttwak (column 12 lines 32-39).
Claims 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox (US 7,687,696 B2) modified by Yamada et al. (US 3,724,312) as applied to claims above, further in view of Kaman et al. (US 4,348,933).
Claim 35: Fox modified by Yamada et al. discloses a device as stated above, but fails to disclose the first laminate layer and the second laminate layer to comprise carbon fiber.
However Kaman et al. teaches a device having a soundboard, where a first laminate layer and a second laminate layer comprise carbon fiber (column 3 lines 54-55).
Given the teachings of Kaman et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed in Fox as modified by Yamada et al. with providing the first laminate layer and the second laminate layer to comprise carbon fiber. Doing so would provide a soundboard that is “made relatively thin while nevertheless have sufficient stiffness to resist the bending loads imposed thereon” as taught in Kaman et al. (column 3 lines 54-59).
Claim 36: Fox modified by Yamada et al. and Kaman et al. discloses a device as stated above, where the first layer of material comprise carbon fiber as shown in Kaman et al. (column 3 lines 54-55).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32-34 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 32: Although the prior art (US 7,687,696 B2) teaches a device shown in FIG. 1 to comprise a soundboard, where the soundboard (46) is shown in FIG. 9 to comprise a first layer of material (top skin 42) comprising a first area, and a reinforcing material attached via epoxy to the first layer of material (column 7 lines 4-5), the reinforcing material is shown to comprise a laminate layer (inner skin 49) and a shaped core layer (honeycomb core 48), the laminate layer is shown in FIG. 9 to comprise a flat sheet, and the shaped core layer to comprise a plurality of cells arranged in a repeating pattern (continuous hexagonal cell shapes) (column 6 lines 43-47), the prior art does not teach nor suggest the reinforcing material to comprise a first layer of reinforcing material, the device to further comprise a second layer of reinforcing material attached to the first layer of reinforcing material, the second layer of reinforcing material comprising a third area, the third area less than the second area. The combinations of the claimed limitations are novel and found to be allowable over prior art. The cited references taken singly or in combination do not anticipate nor make obvious applicant's claimed invention.
Claims 33 and 34 depend from claim 32 and therefore inherit all allowed claim limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER UHLIR whose telephone number is (571)270-3091. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
/Christopher Uhlir/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619 November 20, 2025