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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/05/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1-9, 11 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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 reasons for the allowability were provided in the previous Office Action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al (CN208820992U) in view of Teichman (US 2024/0048884 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Luo et al a microphone stand (Luo et al; Fig 1) comprising: a support rod (Luo et al; Fig 1; support rod 5) comprising a mounting position for mounting a microphone at a first end portion of the support rod (Luo et al; Fig 1; mounting position 9 at first end of rod 5); a support component for configured support the support rod (Luo et al; Fig 1; support component 7), the support component being movably connected to the support rod (Luo et al; Fig 1; Page 3; lines 15-45; support component 7 movably connected to support rod 5 through rotating bracket 8); and an adjustment system (Luo et al; Fig 1; adjustment system 3) connected to a second end portion of the support rod away from the mounting position (Luo et al; Fig 1; adjustment system 3 connected to second end portion of rod 5), the adjustment system comprising an adjustment rod (Luo et al; Fig 1; adjustment rod 3 to adjust the pitch or height) configured to adjust a pitch angle (Luo et al; Page 4; lines 10-45; adjust pitch angle through adjustment system 3) and a rotation of the support rod relative to the support component (Luo et al; Page 2; lines 35-45; adjust rotation of support rod 5 relative to the support component 8); but do not expressly disclose and to adjust a direction of the microphone by rotating the support rod around an axis of the support rod. However, in the same field of endeavor, Teichman discloses a recording structure comprising and to adjust a direction of the microphone by rotating the support rod around an axis of the support rod (Teichman; Para [0022]; adjust left right interpreted as to adjust a direction of the microphone by rotating the support rod around an axis of the support rod). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the application to use the adjustment rod taught by Teichman to adjust the microphone stand of Luo. The motivation to do so would have been to provide avoidance of the occupational hazards that the weight of the microphone boom and sound equipment (Teichman; Para [0006]).
Regarding claim 2, Luo et al in view of Teichman disclose the microphone stand according to claim 1, wherein the support component comprises a support member (Luo et al; Fig 1; support member 7) and a support ring (Luo et al; Fig 1; support ring 8), the support rod is rotatably arranged in the support ring (Luo et al; Fig 1; support rod 5 arranged in support ring 8), and the support member is movably connected with the support ring (Luo et al; Page 4; lines 10-45).
Regarding claim 4, Luo et al in view of Teichman disclose the microphone stand according to claim 1, further comprising: a microphone mounting assembly provided at the first end portion of the support rod away from the adjustment system (Luo et al; Page 3; lines 30-45; microphone holder 9 located at one end away from adjustment system 3), wherein the microphone mounting assembly is configured to provide the mounting position (Luo et al; Page 3; lines 30-45; microphone holder 9 interpreted as mounting assembly provide mounting position of microphone 10).
Claim(s) 3, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al (CN208820992U) in view of Teichman (US 2024/0048884 A1) and further in view of Cohn (US 10,856,062 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Luo et al in view of Teichman disclose the microphone stand according to claim 2, but do not expressly disclose further comprising: a first connecting piece; and a first locking piece, wherein the first connecting piece is sleeved on the support rod, the first locking piece is sleeved on the first connecting piece to lock the first connecting piece on the support rod, and the support ring is rotatably sleeved on the first connecting piece. However, in the same field of endeavor, Cohn discloses a microphone stand further comprising: a first connecting piece (Cohn; Fig 1; connecting piece 118); and a first locking piece (Cohn; Fig 1; locking mechanism 118b), wherein the first connecting piece is sleeved on the support rod (Cohn; Fig 1; connecting piece 118 sleeved on support rod 122), the first locking piece is sleeved on the first connecting piece to lock the first connecting piece on the support rod (Cohn; col 3; lines 20-40; support arm interpreted as support rod), and the support ring is rotatably sleeved on the first connecting piece (Cohn; col 3; lines 20-40; rotating bracket 118a interpreted as support ring). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the transmission mechanism taught by Cohn as transmission mechanism for the microphone boom taught by Luo. The motivation to do so would have been for better sound recording (Cohn; col 1; lines 40-45).
Regarding claim 7, Luo et al in view of Teichman disclose the microphone stand according to claim 1, wherein the adjustment system comprises: an adjusting rod (Luo et al; Fig 1; adjusting rod 3); and a transmission mechanism (Luo et al; Fig 1; transmission mechanism 6), a first end of the transmission mechanism being movably connected to the adjusting rod, and a second end of the transmission mechanism is movably connected to the support rod (Luo et al; Fig 1; transmission mechanism 6 connected to adjusting rod 3 and support rod 5), but do not expressly disclose a rotation of the adjusting rod around a first axis driving via the transmission mechanism the support rod to rotate around a second axis that is different from the first axis. However, in the same field of endeavor, Cohn discloses a microphone stand further comprising: a rotation of the adjusting rod around a first axis driving via the transmission mechanism the support rod to rotate around a second axis that is different from the first axis (Cohn; col 3; lines 5-15). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the transmission mechanism taught by Cohn as transmission mechanism for the microphone boom taught by Luo. The motivation to do so would have been for better sound recording (Cohn; col 1; lines 40-45).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al (CN208820992U) in view of Teichman (US 2024/0048884 A1) and further in view of Mueller et al (US 2,122,778).
Regarding claim 5, Luo et al in view of Teichman disclose the microphone stand according to claim 4, but do not expressly disclose wherein the microphone mounting assembly comprises: a mounting bracket; and an adjusting bracket, wherein a first end of the mounting bracket is fixed to the support rod, and a second end of the mounting bracket is slidably connected to the adjusting bracket, and the mounting position is arranged on a side of the adjusting bracket away from the mounting bracket. However, in the same field of endeavor, Mueller et al disclose a microphone stand wherein the microphone mounting assembly comprises: a mounting bracket (Mueller et al; Fig 1; mounting bracket 26); and an adjusting bracket (Mueller et al; Fig 1; adjusting bracket 35), wherein a first end of the mounting bracket is fixed to the support rod (Mueller et al; Fig 1; first end of mounting bracket 26 is fixed to support rod 15), and a second end of the mounting bracket is slidably connected to the adjusting bracket (Mueller et al; Fig 1; second end of mounting bracket 26 is connected to adjusting bracket 35), and the mounting position is arranged on a side of the adjusting bracket away from the mounting bracket (Mueller et al; Page 2; lines 40-50). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the microphone mounting taught by Mueller as microphone mounting for the microphone boom taught by Luo. The motivation to do so would have been to eliminate all extraneous vibrations (Mueller et al; Page 1; lines 30-35).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al (CN208820992U) in view of Teichman (US 2024/0048884 A1) and further in view of Jenkins (US 1,942,925).
Regarding claim 6, Luo et al in view of Teichman disclose the microphone stand according to claim 1, but do not expressly disclose further comprising: a counterweight bracket for adding counterweight at the second end portion of the support rod away from the microphone at the first end portion of the support rod, wherein the counterweight bracket, the adjustment system, and the support component are arranged on respective portions of the support rod in turn. However, in the same field of endeavor, Jenkins discloses a microphone stand further comprising: a counterweight bracket (Jenkins; Fig 1; Page 2; lines 105-120; counterweight bracket 71) for adding counterweight at the second end portion of the support rod away from the microphone at the first end portion of the support rod (Jenkins; Fig 1; Page 2; lines 105-120; bracket 71 adds counterweight at second end portion of support rod 55 away from first end of support rod 55) wherein the counterweight bracket, the adjustment system, and the support component are arranged on respective portions of the support rod in turn Jenkins; Fig 1; counterweight bracket 71; adjustment system 17 and support component 23 are arranged on respective portion of support rod 55 in turn). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the counterweight bracket taught by Jenkins as counterweight for the microphone boom taught by Luo. The motivation to do so would have been to provide a strong yet light weight readily collapsible microphone support (Jenkins; Page 1; lines 50-55).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al (CN208820992U) in view of Teichman (US 2024/0048884 A1) and further in view of Cohn (US 10,856,062 B1) and further in view of Eason (US 2004/0135040 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Luo et al in view of Teichman and further in view of Cohn disclose the microphone stand according to claim 7, but do not expressly disclose wherein the transmission mechanism comprises: a transmission frame body and a transmission assembly, the transmission frame body comprising a first connecting part and a second connecting part, the first connecting part being connected with the second connecting part, and an angle being formed at the connection between the first connecting part and the second connecting part, the first connecting part being rotatably sleeved on the adjusting rod, the second connecting part being rotatably sleeved on the support rod, and the adjusting rod being in transmission connection with the support rod via the transmission assembly. However, in the same field of endeavor, Eason discloses a microphone stand wherein the transmission mechanism comprises: a transmission frame body (Eason; Fig 10; connecting part 89) and a transmission assembly, the transmission frame body comprising a first connecting part (Eason; Fig 10; left connecting part 89) and a second connecting part (Eason; Fig 10; right connecting part 89), the first connecting part being connected with the second connecting part (Eason; Fig 10; right connecting part 89 connected with left connecting part 89), and an angle being formed at the connection between the first connecting part and the second connecting part (Eason; Fig 10; right connecting part 89 connected with left connecting part 89 formed a 180 degree angle at the connection), the first connecting part being rotatably sleeved on the adjusting rod (Eason; Fig 10; right connecting part 89 sleeved on adjusting rod 54), the second connecting part being rotatably sleeved on the support rod (Eason; Fig 10; left connecting part 89 sleeved on support rod 81), and the adjusting rod being in transmission connection with the support rod via the transmission assembly (Eason; Fig 10; adjusting rod 54 being in transmission connection with support rod 81 via transmission assembly 101). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the transmission mechanism taught by Eason as transmission mechanism for the microphone boom taught by Luo. The motivation to do so would have been to achieve a preferential yaw isolation for the microphone stand (Eason; Para [0043]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al (CN208820992U) in view of Teichman (US 2024/0048884 A1) and further in view of Cohn (US 10,856,062 B1) and further in view of Eason (US 2004/0135040 A1) and further in view of Mueller et al (US 2,122,778).
Regarding claim 9, Luo et al Luo et al in view of Teichman and further in view of Cohn and further in view of Eason disclose the microphone stand according to claim 8, but do not expressly disclose wherein the transmission assembly comprises a transmission rope and a plurality of pulleys, the plurality of pulleys being movably arranged on two sides of the first connecting part or the second connecting part, respectively, two ends of the transmission rope being sleeved on the support rod and the adjusting rod, respectively, and two sides of a middle part of the transmission rope are sleeved on the plurality of pulleys, respectively. However, in the same field of endeavor, Mueller et al disclose a microphone stand wherein the transmission assembly comprises a transmission rope (Mueller et al; Fig 1; transmission rope 46) and a plurality of pulleys (Mueller et al; Fig 1; pulleys 19 and 20), the plurality of pulleys being movably arranged on two sides of the first connecting part or the second connecting part, respectively (Mueller et al; Fig 1; Page 1; lines 1-25), two ends of the transmission rope being sleeved on the support rod and the adjusting rod, respectively (Mueller et al; Fig 1; Page 1; lines 1-25), and two sides of a middle part of the transmission rope are sleeved on the plurality of pulleys, respectively (Mueller et al; Fig 1; Page 1; lines 1-25). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the microphone mounting taught by Mueller as microphone mounting for the microphone boom taught by Luo. The motivation to do so would have been to eliminate all extraneous vibrations (Mueller et al; Page 1; lines 30-35).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al (CN208820992U) in view of Teichman (US 2024/0048884 A1) and further in view of Gosieski (US 2005/0113058 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Luo et al disclose a recording structure comprising: a microphone (Luo et al; Fig 1; microphone 10); and a microphone stand according to claim 1 (Luo et al in view of Teichman disclose claim 1; Fig 1; microphone stand support microphone 10), the microphone being arranged in a mounting position at a first end portion of the microphone stand (Luo et al; Fig 1; microphone 10 arranged in mounting position at first end portion of support rod 5), but do not expressly disclose a recording device and the recording device being electrically connected with the microphone via the microphone stand. However, in the same field of endeavor, Gosieski discloses a recording structure comprising a recording device (Gosieski; Para [0003]) and the recording device being electrically connected with the microphone via the microphone stand (Gosieski; Para [0003, 0030]). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the application to use the recording device taught by Gosieski to store the sound signals captured by the microphone stand of Luo. The motivation to do so would have been that a performer can manage his or her own performance (Gosieski; Para [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUASSI A GANMAVO whose telephone number is (571)270-5761. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM-5PM.
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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 5712707136. 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.
/KUASSI A GANMAVO/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692