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 .
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) 1-5, and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akino (US 2012/0140972) in view of Wiederholt (US 2014/0153739).
Regarding claim 1, Akino teaches A microphone capsule suspension assembly, comprising: a body (Akino figure 1, microphone case 1) comprising: an inner surface and an outer surface, wherein the inner surface defines an internal region that is configured to support a microphone capsule (Akino figure 1, microphone case 1, “The outer circumferential end of a bottom of the yoke 32, which is one of the magnetic circuit components of the microphone unit 3, is fitted in the inner circumferential surface of the upper end of a supporting cylinder 37”); an upper extension extending from the outer surface in a radial direction that extends from a central axis of the body (Akino figure 1, microphone unit case 36 extends from cylinder 37); and a lower extension extending from the outer surface in the radial direction (Akino figure 1, outer cylinder 42 extends from cylinder 37), wherein the upper extension and lower extension are spaced apart in a direction that is parallel to the central axis (Akino figure 1, the outer cylinder and supporting cylinder are spaced apart on the vertical axis which is parallel to the central axis of the device), however does not explicitly teach the upper extension and lower extension each comprise a wall that has a first wall thickness and comprises an array of indentations that have a second wall thickness formed therein, and the first wall thickness is greater than the second wall thickness.
Wiederholt teaches the upper extension and lower extension (Wiederholt figures 1-2, top and bottom sound decoupling unit 40) 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 indentations 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).
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 Wiederholt to improve the known microphone capsule of Akino to achieve the predictable result of improving sound decoupling (Wiederholt ¶0015).
Regarding claim 2, Akino in view of 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, Akino in view of 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, Akino in view of 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, Akino in view of 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, Akino in view of 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).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akino (US 2012/0140972) in view of Wiederholt (US 2014/0153739) in further view of Eveleigh (US 2020/0337186).
Regarding claim 6, Akino in view of 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 Akino in view 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 Akino (US 2012/0140972) in view of Wiederholt (US 2014/0153739) in further view of Tardo (US 5033093).
Regarding claim 8, Akino teaches A microphone assembly, comprising: a microphone body assembly (Akino figure 1, microphone case 1); a microphone capsule suspension assembly configured to be coupled to the microphone body assembly (Akino figure 1, microphone case 1, “The outer circumferential end of a bottom of the yoke 32, which is one of the magnetic circuit components of the microphone unit 3, is fitted in the inner circumferential surface of the upper end of a supporting cylinder 37”), the microphone capsule suspension assembly comprising: a body (Akino figure 1, microphone case 1) comprising: an inner surface and an outer surface, wherein the inner surface defines an internal region that is configured to support a microphone capsule (Akino figure 1, microphone case 1, “The outer circumferential end of a bottom of the yoke 32, which is one of the magnetic circuit components of the microphone unit 3, is fitted in the inner circumferential surface of the upper end of a supporting cylinder 37”); an upper extension extending from the outer surface in a radial direction that extends from a central axis of the body (Akino figure 1, microphone unit case 36 extends from cylinder 37); and a lower extension extending from the outer surface in the radial direction (Akino figure 1, outer cylinder 42 extends from cylinder 37), wherein the upper extension and lower extension are spaced apart in a direction that is parallel to the central axis (Akino figure 1, the outer cylinder and supporting cylinder are spaced apart on the vertical axis which is parallel to the central axis of the device), and a dynamic microphone capsule disposed within the internal region of the body (Akino figure 1 and ¶0030, “dynamic microphone unit 3”), however does not explicitly teach a microphone capsule suspension assembly configured to be coupled to the microphone body assembly by a clamp assembly, the upper extension and lower extension each comprise a wall that has a first wall thickness and comprises an array of indentations that have a second wall thickness formed therein, 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 teaches the upper extension and lower extension (Wiederholt figures 1-2, top and bottom sound decoupling unit 40) 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 indentations 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).
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 Wiederholt to improve the known microphone capsule of Akino to achieve the predictable result of improving sound decoupling (Wiederholt ¶0015).
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 Akino in view of Wiederholt to achieve the predictable result of a more secured connection between components in the microphone assembly.
Regarding claim 9, Akino in view of Wiederholt in further 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, Akino in view of Wiederholt in further view of Tardo teaches wherein the microphone capsule suspension assembly acoustically separates a housing of the microphone body assembly from the dynamic microphone (Akino figure 1, microphone case 1, “The outer circumferential end of a bottom of the yoke 32, which is one of the magnetic circuit components of the microphone unit 3, is fitted in the inner circumferential surface of the upper end of a supporting cylinder 37”).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akino (US 2012/0140972) in view of Wiederholt (US 2014/0153739) in further view of Tardo (US 5033093) in further view of Barna (US 2015/0210224).
Regarding claim 10, Akino in view of Wiederholt in further 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 Akino in view of Wiederholt in further view of Tardo to achieve the predictable result of locking components in place.
Regarding claim 11, Akino in view of Wiederholt in further 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 Akino (US 2012/0140972) in view of Wiederholt (US 2014/0153739) in further view of Tardo (US 5033093) in further view of Akkil (US 2024/0281078).
Regarding claim 13, Akino in view of Wiederholt in further 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 Akino in view of Wiederholt in further view of Tardo to achieve the predictable result of a more convenient user input to adjust the device.
Regarding claim 15, Akino teaches A microphone body assembly, comprising: a housing (Akino figure 1, microphone case 1); the microphone capsule suspension assembly comprising: an inner surface and an outer surface, wherein the inner surface defines an internal region that is configured to support a microphone capsule (Akino figure 1, microphone case 1, “The outer circumferential end of a bottom of the yoke 32, which is one of the magnetic circuit components of the microphone unit 3, is fitted in the inner circumferential surface of the upper end of a supporting cylinder 37”); an upper extension extending from the outer surface in a radial direction that extends from a central axis of the body (Akino figure 1, microphone unit case 36 extends from cylinder 37); and a lower extension extending from the outer surface in the radial direction (Akino figure 1, outer cylinder 42 extends from cylinder 37), wherein the upper extension and lower extension are spaced apart in a direction that is parallel to the central axis (Akino figure 1, the outer cylinder and supporting cylinder are spaced apart on the vertical axis which is parallel to the central axis of the device), 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, the upper extension and lower extension each comprise a wall that has a first wall thickness and comprises an array of indentations that have a second wall thickness formed therein, and the first wall thickness is greater than the second wall thickness; and a clamp assembly configured to secure the microphone capsule suspension assembly to the housing.
Wiederholt teaches the upper extension and lower extension (Wiederholt figures 1-2, top and bottom sound decoupling unit 40) 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 indentations 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).
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 Wiederholt to improve the known microphone capsule of Akino to achieve the predictable result of improving sound decoupling (Wiederholt ¶0015).
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 Akino in view 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 Akino in view of Wiederholt in further view of Tardo to achieve the predictable result of a more convenient user input to adjust the device.
Regarding claim 16, Akino in view of Wiederholt in further 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, Akino in view of Wiederholt in further 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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akino (US 2012/0140972) in view of Wiederholt (US 2014/0153739) in further view of Tardo (US 5033093) in further view of Eveleigh (US 2020/0337186).
Regarding claim 14, Akino in view of Wiederholt in further view of Tardo does not explicitly teach wherein the microphone capsule suspension assembly comprises a material with a Shore A hardness of between about 30 and about 40.
Eveleigh teaches wherein the microphone capsule suspension assembly 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 Akino in view of Wiederholt in further view of Tardo to achieve the predictable result of adjusting the durability of the device.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akino (US 2012/0140972) in view of 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, Akino in view of Wiederholt in further 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 Akino in view of Wiederholt in further view of Tardo in further view of Akkil to achieve the predictable result of locking components in place.
Regarding claim 18, Akino in view of Wiederholt in further 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, Akino in view of Wiederholt in further 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).
Conclusion
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