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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/3/25 has been entered.
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, 6, 10-12, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaffe (US 10,112,671 B1) in view of Hamilton (US2004/0118889 A1) and Jones, Jr. et al. (US 2023/0090676 A1)
Re claims 1 and 10: Yaffe teaches a portable audio speaker system, comprising:
a rigid upper shell (16) configured with a set of geometric apertures (grille (48) openings) through a front and back of the upper shell; and,
a lower shell (18) cooperating with the upper shell to define a cavity (20);
at least one speaker (12) disposed in the cavity and communicably and mechanically coupled to the upper shell; and,
at least one coupling member (inherent structure used for mounting the saddlebag to a surface such as a side of a motorcycle, (general discussion in column 1 under the section BACKGROUND) configured to releasably couple the lower shell to a surface,
wherein, the upper shell provides structure sufficient to suspend the at least one speaker (See figure 2 in which at least one speaker along with additional components are able to be mounted), and the lower shell is configured to conform to a shape of the surface when supporting the weight of at least the upper shell, the amplifier, and the at least one speaker. Yaffe however does not teach that the lower shell is deformable as set forth. Hamilton teaches in a similar environment, paragraph [0026] that saddlebags can take the form of either hard or soft (i.e., deformable) types. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing of the invention to incorporate such a teaching into Yaffe to form the saddle bag with soft materials to predictably allow for an alternative material to be used for the saddlebag. Therefor this claimed feature would have been obvious before the filing of the invention. Additionally, this combination of Yaffe and Hamilton does not teach an amplifier disposed in the cavity and electronically coupled to a power cord and communicably coupled to the speaker. Jones, Jr. et al. teaches in a similar environment the use of an amplifier and associated cables (inherently a power cord required for operation of the amplifier) to be provided therein to drive a speaker therein (paragraph [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art prior to the filing of the invention to incorporate such an amplifier into the arrangement of Yaffe and Hamilton as applied to predictably provide a means for driving the speaker that is within the saddlebag. Therefor this additional feature would have been obvious to an artisan before the filing of the invention. Claim 10 includes similar set forth limitations as provided in claim 1 with these features taught by the applied references discussed with respect to claim 1 for similar reasons.
Re claims 6 and 17: additionally note in Jones, Jr. et al. the apertures used are in the shape of honeycomb (See figure 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before the filing of the invention to incorporate such a shaped aperture into the arrangement of Yaffe, and Hamilton as applied to predictably provide an alternative grille arrangement for audio to pass. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 11: note grille (48) in Yaffe has geometric apertures (shapes of the holes in the grille that pass through the front and back of the shell
Re claim 12: Note in Jones Jr. et al. cables (43) are used in conjunction with the amplifier which would inherently provide a power to the amplifier to allow for its operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art prior to the filing of the invention to incorporate such an amplifier/cable feature into the arrangement of Yaffe and Hamilton as applied to predictably provide a means to power the amplifier and allow for the driving the speaker that is within the saddlebag. Therefor this additional feature would have been obvious to an artisan before the filing of the invention.
Re claim 20: Note in Yaffe (figure 2) that in addition to a speaker being coupled to the upper shell that additional components (depicted to the left of the speaker can also be coupled to the upper shell. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to relocate the amplifier as taught in Jones, Jr. et al to a location on the upper case predictably providing an alternative location of mechanically coupling and supporting the amplifier. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 2, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaffe (US 10,112,671 B1) in view of Hamilton (US/0118889 A1) and Jones, Jr. et al. (US 2023/0090676 A1) as applied to claims 1, 6, 10-12, 17 and 20 above, and further in view of Desser (US 2006/0290178 A1).
Re claims 2 and 13: the teaching of Yaffe (US 10,112,671 B1) in view of Hamilton (US/0118889 A1) and Jones, Jr. et al. (US 2023/0090676 A1) is discussed above and incorporated herein. This combination does not teach coupling the arrangement to a seat of a motorcycle as set forth. Desser teaches in a similar environment that saddle bags can be attached to a seat (see figure 1, seat 16 and saddlebag (18a)) providing an alternative location of attachment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate this teaching into the arrangement of Yaffe (US 10,112,671 B1) in view of Hamilton (US/0118889 A1) and Jones, Jr. et al. (US 2023/0090676 A1) as applied to predictably provide an alternative arrangement of attachment. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaffe (US 10,112,671 B1) in view of Hamilton (US/0118889 A1), Jones, Jr. et al. (US 2023/0090676 A1) and Desser as applied to claims 2 and 13 above, and further in view of Barnes (US 8,270,640 B1).
Re claims 3 and 14: The teachings of Yaffe (US 10,112,671 B1) in view of Hamilton (US/0118889 A1), Jones, Jr. et al. (US 2023/0090676 A1) and Desser is discussed above and incorporated herein. This combination however does not teach to power the speaker using motorcycle power. Barnes teaches in a similar environment that housed speakers can be powered using motorcycle power (see column 4, lines 25-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate such a teaching into the arrangement of Yaffe (US 10,112,671 B1) in view of Hamilton (US/0118889 A1), Jones, Jr. et al. (US 2023/0090676 A1) and Desser as applied to predictably provide a means of powering the speaker system. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaffe (US 10,112,671 B1) in view of Hamilton (US/0118889 A1), Jones, Jr. et al. (US 2023/0090676 A1), Desser and Barnes as applied to claims 3 and 14 above, and further in view of Armitage et al. (US 2012/0025486 A1).
Re claims 4 and 15: the teachings of Yaffe (US 10,112,671 B1) in view of Hamilton (US/0118889 A1), Jones, Jr. et al. (US 2023/0090676 A1) Desser and Barnes (US 8,270,640 B1) is discussed above and incorporated herein. This combination does not to wireless receive audio for the speaker. Armitage et al. teaches in a similar environment that audio can be played by receiving wired or wireless signals (see discussion in paragraph [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate this teaching into the arrangement of Yaffe (US 10,112,671 B1) in view of Hamilton (US/0118889 A1), Jones, Jr. et al. (US 2023/0090676 A1) Desser and Barnes (US 8,270,640 B1) as applied to predictably provide an alternative way of providing audio for the speaker(s). Therefor the claimed subject matte would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaffe (US 10,112,671 B1) in view of Hamilton (US/0118889 A1), Jones, Jr. et al. (US 2023/0090676 A1) and Desser (US 2006/0290178 A1) as applied to claims 2 and 13 above, and further in view of Hensley et al. (US 20100147918 A1)
Re claims 5 and 16: the teaching of Yaffe (US 10,112,671 B1) in view of Hamilton (US/0118889 A1), Jones, Jr. et al. (US 2023/0090676 A1) and Desser (US 2006/0290178 A1) is discussed above and incorporated herein. This combination does not teach the use of a fabric as set forth. Hensley et al. teaches in a similar environment that fabrics (such as those discussed in paragrgrph [0057]) can be used for a saddlebag. It would have been obvious before the filing of the invention to incorporate the fabric materials as taught in Hensley et al. into the arrangement of Yaffe (US 10,112,671 B1) in view of Hamilton (US/0118889 A1), Jones, Jr. et al. (US 2023/0090676 A1) and Desser (US 2006/0290178 A1) as applied to predictable provide an alternative material used for the saddlebag. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaffe (US 10,112,671 B1) in view of Hamilton (US/2004/0118889 A1) and Jones, Jr. et al. (US 2023/0090676 A1) as applied to claims 1, 6, 10-12, 17 and 20 above, and further in view of Hensley et al. (US 2010/0147918 A1).
Re claims 7 and 18: the teachings of Yaffe, Hamilton and Jones, Jr et al. is discussed above and incorporated herein. This combination does not teach that the materials used are water resistant. Hensley et al. teaches in a similar environment that the material used can include neoprene material, paragraph [0057] (inherently having a water-resistant quality). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate this teaching into the arrangement of over Yaffe (US 10,112,671 B1) in view of Hamilton (US2004/0118889 A1) and Jones, Jr. et al. (US 2023/0090676 A1) as applied to predictably obtain this quality of a water-resistant saddlebag. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaffe (US 10,112,671 B1) in view of Hamilton (US2004/0118889 A1) and Jones, Jr. et al. (US 2023/0090676 A1) as applied to claims 1, 6, 10-12, 17 and 20 above, and further in view of Barnes (US 8,270,640 B1).
Re claims 8 and 19: the teachings of Yaffe (US 10,112,671 B1) in view of Hamilton (US/0118889 A1) and Jones, Jr. et al. (US 2023/0090676 A1) is discussed above and incorporated herein. This combination does not teach to use a battery for powering the amplifier/speaker. Barnes teaches in a similar environment to use a battery for powering the amplifier/speaker (see column 4, lines 25-62). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate such a battery into the arrangement of Yaffe (US 10,112,671 B1) in view of Hamilton (US/0118889 A1) and Jones, Jr. et al. (US 2023/0090676 A1) as applied to predictably provide a means of powering the amplifier/speaker. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yaffe (US 10,112,671 B1) in view of Hamilton (US/0118889 A1), Jones, Jr. et al. (US 2023/0090676 A1) and Barnes (US 8,270,640 B1) as applied to claims 8 and 19 above, and further in view of Baek et al.
Re claim 9: the teaching of Yaffe (US 10,112,671 B1) in view of Hamilton (US/0118889 A1), Jones, Jr. et al. (US 2023/0090676 A1) and Barnes (US 8,270,640 B1) is discussed above and incorporated herein. This combination does not teach the use of a rechargeable lithium-ion battery as set forth. Baek et al. teaches in a similar environment to incorporate a rechargeable lithium-ion battery (paragraph [0040]) to achieve a battery used for similar purposes that has a reduced weight. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at before the filing of the invention to incorporate the battery as taught by Baek et al. into the arrangement of Yaffe (US 10,112,671 B1) in view of Hamilton (US/0118889 A1), Jones, Jr. et al. (US 2023/0090676 A1) and Barnes (US 8,270,640 B1) as applied to predictably obtain an arrangement with a reduced weight. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the applied references and in particular Hamilton does not teach a deformable lower shell that includes a solid frame that is deformable such that it can conform to the shape of a seat. The claims as set forth do not include limitations of a lower shell that includes a solid frame as argued. Therefor the claimed deformable lower shell as broadly as set forth is satisfied by the use of a soft material for a saddlebag that when place on a seat would conform to the shape of the seat.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM EST.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 11/13/25