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
This is in response to applicant's amendment which was filed on 3/30/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 8, 15 have been amended. Claim 14 has been cancelled. Claims 21-22 has been added. Claims 1-13, 15-22 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 8, and 15 being independent.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wiederholt (US 2014/0153739).
Regarding claim 1, Wiederholt teaches A microphone capsule suspension assembly, comprising: a body (Wiederholt figure 1, housing portion 20, bars 21, housing 30) comprising:
a central portion having an inner surface and an outer surface (Wiederholt figure 1, and ¶0022, “transducer housing 10” is supported by the first and second ends 11-12 on the inside and bars 21 on the outside), wherein the inner surface defines an internal region that is configured to support a microphone capsule (Wiederholt figure 1, and ¶0022, “decoupling unit 40 is fixed to a first housing portion 20 and accommodates the microphone capsule so that it is possible to implement solid-borne sound decoupling. Optionally both the first and also the second end 11, 12 of the microphone capsule can be fixed at or to the decoupling unit 40”);
an upper extension extending from an upper portion of the outer surface of the central portion in a radial direction (Wiederholt figure 2, decoupling unit 40 extends radially on the outside where the bars 21 in the top half of the device); and
a lower extension extending from a lower portion of the outer surface of the central portion in the radial direction (Wiederholt figure 2, decoupling unit 40 extends radially on the outside where the bars 21 in the bottom half of the device),
wherein the upper extension and lower extension are spaced apart in a direction that is parallel to a central axis (Wiederholt figures 1-2), the upper extension and lower extension each comprise a wall that has a first wall thickness (Wiederholt figure 3, second ends 42c-47c of each arm) and comprises an array of indentions that have a second wall thickness formed therein (Wiederholt figure 3, ¶0025, the walls around holes of shape-changing portions 42b-47b), and the first wall thickness is greater than the second wall thickness (Wiederholt figure 3, ¶0025, the second ends 42c-47c are thicker than the walls around holes of shape-changing portions 42b-47b).
Regarding claim 2, Wiederholt teaches wherein a plurality of upper protrusions extend from an outer surface of the upper extension and are aligned in a circular array coaxial to a center axis of the body (Wiederholt figure 2, and ¶0024, bars 21 protrude the opening of the upper decoupling unit 40).
Regarding claim 3, Wiederholt teaches wherein a plurality of lower protrusions extend from an outer surface of the lower extension and are aligned in a circular array coaxial to the center axis of the body (Wiederholt figure 2, and ¶0024, bars 21 protrude the opening of the lower decoupling unit 40).
Regarding claim 4, Wiederholt teaches wherein the plurality of upper protrusions are offset from the plurality of upper indentions and the plurality of lower protrusions are offset from the plurality of lower indentions (Wiederholt figures 2-3, and ¶0024, bars 21 are offset from inner hole 42b-46b).
Regarding claim 5, Wiederholt teaches wherein the array of indentions are segmented and radially disposed along the inner surface of the upper extension and comprise a thickness less than a thickness of the upper extension (Wiederholt figure 3, holes 42a-47a are less thick than holes 42b-47b).
Regarding claim 7, Wiederholt teaches the upper extension and lower extension each further comprising a plurality of spokes having the first wall thickness between the array of indentions and wherein a ratio of a surface area of the indentions in each of the upper and lower extensions to a surface area of the spokes is 2:1 or less (Wiederholt, hole 42a vs second end 42c).
Regarding claim 21, Wiederholt teaches wherein a first surface of the wall of the lower extension is configured to form a seal with a portion of a suspension supporting element of the microphone capsule suspension assembly (Wiederholt figure 3, 42c is integrally formed with the center ring surrounding receiving portion 41 and therefore is sealed with the center ring).
Regarding claim 22, Wiederholt teaches wherein the array of indentions formed within the lower extension are formed on a second surface of the wall, which is opposite to the first surface (Wiederholt figure 3, 42c is integrally formed with the center ring surrounding receiving portion 41 and therefore is sealed with the center ring. The opposite side of said center ring is the shape changing portion 42b).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiederholt (US 2014/0153739) in view of Eveleigh (US 2020/0337186).
Regarding claim 6, Wiederholt does not explicitly teach wherein the body comprises a material with a Shore A hardness of between about 30 and about 40.
Eveleigh teaches wherein the body comprises a material with a Shore A hardness of between about 30 and about 40 (Eveleigh ¶0081).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Eveleigh to improve the known microphone capsule of Wiederholt to achieve the predictable result of adjusting the durability of the device.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiederholt (US 2014/0153739) in further view of Tardo (US 5033093).
Regarding claim 8, Wiederholt teaches A microphone assembly, comprising: a microphone body assembly (Wiederholt figure 1, housing portion 20, bars 21, housing 30); a microphone capsule suspension assembly configured to be coupled to the microphone body assembly (Wiederholt figure 1, decoupling unit 40 connected to transducer 10), the microphone capsule suspension assembly comprising: a body (Wiederholt figure 1, housing portion 20, bars 21, housing 30) comprising: a central portion having an inner surface and an outer surface (Wiederholt figure 1, and ¶0022, “transducer housing 10” is supported by the first and second ends 11-12 on the inside and bars 21 on the outside), wherein the inner surface defines an internal region that is configured to support a microphone capsule (Wiederholt figure 1, and ¶0022, “decoupling unit 40 is fixed to a first housing portion 20 and accommodates the microphone capsule so that it is possible to implement solid-borne sound decoupling. Optionally both the first and also the second end 11, 12 of the microphone capsule can be fixed at or to the decoupling unit 40”); an upper extension extending from an upper portion of the outer surface of the central portion in a radial direction (Wiederholt figure 2, decoupling unit 40 extends radially on the outside where the bars 21 in the top half of the device); and a lower extension extending from a lower portion of the outer surface of the central portion in the radial direction (Wiederholt figure 2, decoupling unit 40 extends radially on the outside where the bars 21 in the bottom half of the device), wherein the upper extension and lower extension are spaced apart in a direction that is parallel to a central axis (Wiederholt figures 1-2), the upper extension and lower extension each comprise a wall that has a first wall thickness (Wiederholt figure 3, second ends 42c-47c of each arm) and comprises an array of indentions that have a second wall thickness formed therein (Wiederholt figure 3, ¶0025, the walls around holes of shape-changing portions 42b-47b), and the first wall thickness is greater than the second wall thickness; and a dynamic microphone capsule disposed within the internal region of the body (Wiederholt figure 3, ¶0025, the second ends 42c-47c are thicker than the walls around holes of shape-changing portions 42b-47b), however does not explicitly teach a microphone capsule suspension assembly configured to be coupled to the microphone body assembly by a clamp assembly.
Tardo teaches connecting a microphone capsule suspension assembly configured to be coupled to the microphone body assembly by a clamp assembly (Tardo figures 3 and 5, Col 4 lines 41-46, “The cover 46 has an internal ledge 48 which clamps the edge 10 of the larger circular body peripherally against the housing face 50,” it would have been obvious to use the clamping technique of Tardo to connect the microphone body to the suspension assembly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known clamping technique of Tardo to connect the suspension assembly to the microphone body of Wiederholt to achieve the predictable result of a more secured connection between components in the microphone assembly.
Regarding claim 9, Wiederholt in view of Tardo teaches wherein the microphone capsule suspension assembly is coupled to the microphone body assembly (Wiederholt figures 1-2, top and bottom sound decoupling unit 40 coupled with bars 21) using an upper (Wiederholt figures 1-2, top sound decoupling unit 40) clamp (Tardo figures 3 and 5, Col 4 lines 41-46, “clamps) and a lower (Wiederholt figures 1-2, bottom sound decoupling unit 40) clamp (Tardo figures 3 and 5, Col 4 lines 41-46, “clamps) of the clamp assembly.
Regarding claim 12, Wiederholt in view of Tardo teaches wherein the microphone capsule suspension assembly acoustically separates a housing of the microphone body assembly from the dynamic microphone (Wiederholt figures 1-2 and ¶0022, “The decoupling unit 40 is fixed to a first housing portion 20 and accommodates the microphone capsule so that it is possible to implement solid-borne sound decoupling”).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiederholt (US 2014/0153739) in view of Tardo (US 5033093) in further view of Barna (US 2015/0210224).
Regarding claim 10, Wiederholt in view of Tardo does not explicitly teach wherein the lower clamp comprises a recessed upper edge and recessed lower edge, the microphone capsule suspension assembly coupled to the recessed upper edge and the recessed lower edge.
Barna teaches wherein the lower clamp comprises a recessed upper edge and recessed lower edge, the microphone capsule suspension assembly coupled to the recessed upper edge and the recessed lower edge (Barna figure 2, snap-type connections 34 and latch slots 38, guide slot 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Barna to improve the known microphone assembly of Wiederholt in view of Tardo to achieve the predictable result of locking components in place.
Regarding claim 11, Wiederholt in view of Tardo in further view of Barna teaches wherein the upper clamp is configured to fit over the microphone capsule suspension assembly and engage with a plurality of angled protrusions of the lower clamp to secure the microphone capsule suspension assembly to the upper clamp and the lower clamp (Barna figure 2, snap-type connections 34 and latch slots 38, guide slot 40).
Claim(s) 13, 15-16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiederholt (US 2014/0153739) in further view of Tardo (US 5033093) in further view of Akkil (US 2024/0281078).
Regarding claim 13, Wiederholt in view of Tardo does not explicitly teach wherein the microphone body assembly comprises a scroll wheel protruding through a wheel aperture of a housing of the microphone body assembly, the scroll wheel being acoustically separated from the dynamic microphone capsule by the microphone capsule suspension assembly.
Akkil teaches wherein the microphone body assembly (Akkil figure 3, housing of remote control 240) comprises a scroll wheel protruding through a wheel aperture of a housing of the microphone body assembly (Akkil figure 3, scroll wheel 340, it is inherent that a scroll wheel would have an aperture that allows the wheel to rotate), the scroll wheel being acoustically separated from the dynamic microphone capsule by the microphone capsule suspension assembly (Akkil figure 3, microphone 310 is separated from scroll 340 via housing of remote control 240).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Akkil to improve the known microphone assembly of Wiederholt in view of Tardo to achieve the predictable result of a more convenient user input to adjust the device.
Regarding claim 15, Wiederholt teaches A microphone body assembly, comprising: a housing (Wiederholt figure 1, housing portion 20, bars 21, housing 30); the microphone capsule suspension assembly comprising: a central portion having an inner surface and an outer surface (Wiederholt figure 1, and ¶0022, “transducer housing 10” is supported by the first and second ends 11-12 on the inside and bars 21 on the outside), wherein the inner surface defines an internal region that is configured to support a microphone capsule (Wiederholt figure 1, and ¶0022, “decoupling unit 40 is fixed to a first housing portion 20 and accommodates the microphone capsule so that it is possible to implement solid-borne sound decoupling. Optionally both the first and also the second end 11, 12 of the microphone capsule can be fixed at or to the decoupling unit 40”); an upper extension extending from an upper portion of the outer surface of the central portion in a radial direction (Wiederholt figure 2, decoupling unit 40 extends radially on the outside where the bars 21 in the top half of the device); and a lower extension extending from a lower portion of the outer surface of the central portion in the radial direction (Wiederholt figure 2, decoupling unit 40 extends radially on the outside where the bars 21 in the bottom half of the device), wherein the upper extension and lower extension are spaced apart in a direction that is parallel to a central axis (Wiederholt figures 1-2), the upper extension and lower extension each comprise a wall that has a first wall thickness (Wiederholt figure 3, second ends 42c-47c of each arm) and comprises an array of indentions that have a second wall thickness formed therein (Wiederholt figure 3, ¶0025, the walls around holes of shape-changing portions 42b-47b), and the first wall thickness is greater than the second wall thickness (Wiederholt figure 3, ¶0025, the second ends 42c-47c are thicker than the walls around holes of shape-changing portions 42b-47b), however does not explicitly teach a wheel aperture formed on a first side of the housing; a scroll wheel protruding through the wheel aperture; a microphone capsule suspension assembly positioned on the housing and disposed between the scroll wheel and a dynamic microphone capsule, and a clamp assembly configured to secure the microphone capsule suspension assembly to the housing.
Tardo teaches a clamp assembly configured to secure the microphone capsule suspension assembly to the housing (Tardo figures 3 and 5, Col 4 lines 41-46, “The cover 46 has an internal ledge 48 which clamps the edge 10 of the larger circular body peripherally against the housing face 50,” it would have been obvious to use the clamping technique of Tardo to connect the microphone body to the suspension assembly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known clamping technique of Tardo to connect the suspension assembly to the microphone body of Wiederholt to achieve the predictable result of a more secured connection between components in the microphone assembly.
Akkil teaches a wheel aperture (Akkil figure 3, scroll wheel 340, it is inherent that a scroll wheel would have an aperture that allows the wheel to rotate) formed on a first side of the housing (Akkil figure 3, housing of remote control 240); a scroll wheel protruding through the wheel aperture (Akkil figure 3, scroll wheel 340, it is inherent that a scroll wheel would have an aperture that allows the wheel to rotate); a microphone capsule suspension assembly positioned on the housing and disposed between the scroll wheel and a dynamic microphone capsule (Akkil figure 3, microphone 310 is separated from scroll 340 via housing of remote control 240).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Akkil to improve the known microphone assembly of Wiederholt in view of Tardo to achieve the predictable result of a more convenient user input to adjust the device.
Regarding claim 16, Wiederholt in view of Tardo in further view of Akkil teaches wherein the clamp assembly comprises an upper (Wiederholt figures 1-2, top sound decoupling unit 40) clamp (Tardo figures 3 and 5, Col 4 lines 41-46, “clamps) and a lower (Wiederholt figures 1-2, bottom sound decoupling unit 40) clamp (Tardo figures 3 and 5, Col 4 lines 41-46, “clamps).
Regarding claim 20, Wiederholt in view of Tardo in further view of Akkil teaches wherein the scroll wheel is aligned with the microphone capsule suspension assembly such that the direction the scroll wheel rotates is coaxial to a longitudinal center axis of the microphone capsule suspension assembly (Akkil figure 3, and ¶0067, “up and down actions,” and the device extends vertically).
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wiederholt (US 2014/0153739) in further view of Tardo (US 5033093) in further view of Akkil (US 2024/0281078) in further view of Barna (US 2015/0210224).
Regarding claim 17, Wiederholt in view of Tardo in further view of Akkil does not explicitly teach wherein the lower clamp comprises a recessed upper edge configured to receive an upper lip of the microphone capsule suspension assembly and a recessed lower edge configured to receive a lower lip of the microphone capsule suspension assembly.
Barna teaches wherein the lower clamp comprises a recessed upper edge configured to receive an upper lip of the microphone capsule suspension assembly and a recessed lower edge configured to receive a lower lip of the microphone capsule suspension assembly (Barna figure 2, snap-type connections 34 and latch slots 38, guide slot 40).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Barna to improve the known microphone assembly of Wiederholt in view of Tardo in further view of Akkil to achieve the predictable result of locking components in place.
Regarding claim 18, Wiederholt in view of Tardo in further view of Akkil in further view of Barna teaches wherein the upper clamp is configured to fit over the microphone capsule suspension assembly and engage with the lower clamp (Barna figure 2, snap-type connections 34 and latch slots 38, guide slot 40).
Regarding claim 19, Wiederholt in view of Tardo in further view of Akkil in further view of Barna teaches wherein the upper clamp comprises a plurality of recesses configured to engage with a plurality of angled protrusions of the lower clamp (Barna figure 2, snap-type connections 34 and latch slots 38, guide slot 40).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 8-9 of Remarks that the combination of Akino and Wiederholt to teach the claimed limitations can only be achieved with impermissible hindsight. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Akino in view of Wiederholt have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of Akino and Wierderholt. Wiederholt clearly teaches the limitations of claim 1 as elaborated in the current office action. Therefore, the claims stand rejected.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NORMAN YU whose telephone number is (571)270-7436. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571-272-7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Va. 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for
informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Arlington, VA 22314
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NORMAN YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights