DETAILED ACTION
1. Applicant's amendments and remarks submitted on August 22, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1 and 12 have been amended. Claims 7 and 9-11 have been cancelled. Claims 53-56 have been added. Claims 1-6, 8, 12-20 and 53-56 are still pending on this application, with claims 1-6, 8, 12-20 and 53-56 being rejected. All new grounds of rejection were necessitated by the amendments to claim 1 and new claims 53-56. Accordingly, this action is made final.
2. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Specification
3. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
6. Claim 55 recites the limitation “the front light source” in line 2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In addition, it is not clear if the limitation is referring to the “plurality of lights” now recited in claim 1 as conveying information to a user, or if it refers to the “front light” also recited in claim 1. If the latter, it is not clear if the front light is one of the plurality of lights recited in claim 1, or if it’s a separate light with a different function that conveys different information to the user. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8, 12 and 53-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub No 2023/0171534 A1 to Li in view of US Patent No 10979810 B2 to Mata Magana et al. (“Mata”).
As to claim 1, Li discloses a speaker comprising: an outer housing portion that substantially conforms to the shape of a spheroid having an axis of rotation that is substantially horizontal (center axis of unit 21 and body 1, see figures 1-4; pg. 2, ¶ 0026); a first driver positioned facing forward in a direction that is substantially parallel with the axis of rotation (21, see figures 1-4; pg. 2, ¶ 0025); a plurality of additional drivers that are distributed around the first driver, wherein each of the plurality of additional drivers partially faces forward and is angled partially outward away from the axis of rotation (22, see figures 3-4; pg. 2, ¶ 0025, ¶ 0031 - ¶ 0032).
Li does not disclose a front cover positioned in front of the first driver, wherein the front cover is suspended with an annular gap between the outer housing portion and the front cover; and a user interface ring that includes a plurality of lights arranged along a circle that is concentric with the annular gap, wherein the lights are individually controllable to convey information to a user.
Mata discloses a similar speaker, and further discloses the speaker housing including a front cover or shroud 116 for the speaker, the cover being suspended with a gap between the shroud and the outer housing (see figure 1; col. 6, lines 61-65; col. 7, lines 34-38), the speaker further comprising a user interface with visual indicators illuminated by one or more light sources, which can include a light ring concentric with the annular gap and disposed on the outer housing and/or surrounding the shroud, and configured with independently controlled LEDs to provide varying information to the user (see figures 1 and 6; col. 5, lines 7-28; col. 7, lines 30-50; col. 12, lines 1-7).
Li and Mata are analogous art because they are both drawn to speakers.
It would have been an obvious choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the visual indicator arrangement and cover as taught by Mata in the device as taught by Li. The motivation being as a matter of design, as the cover can provide a uniform and aesthetically pleasing surface that conforms with the shape of the speaker housing, as well as provide cover for the speaker while allowing sound to pass through (Mata figure 1; col. 6, lines 60-65; col. 7, lines 1-3), and further to provide the speaker unit with a visual indicator that can deliver visual feedback regarding status or operating information to the user (Mata col. 5, lines 16-28; col. 7, lines 30-50).
Li in view of Mata does not expressly disclose a front light configured to illuminate the annular gap between the outer housing portion and the front cover. However such a configuration is considered an obvious variation given the teachings of Li in view of Mata regarding a plurality of light sources, and further as it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). In this case, Li in view of Mata already teaches the use of one or more visual indicators and light sources positioned at a front or top portion of the device and surrounding the gap (see figure 1; col. 5, lines 16-28; col. 7, lines 30-50). The use of a front light to illuminate the annular gap in particular is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Li in view of Mata, and further depending on the design of the speaker, in particular the number of visual indicators and light sources incorporated in the front portion of the speaker.
As to claim 4, Li in view of Mata further discloses wherein an axis of the first driver is substantially collinear with the axis of rotation (Li figures 3-4).
As to claim 5, Li in view of Mata does not expressly disclose wherein each of the plurality of additional drivers is angled relative to the axis of rotation by an angle between about 30 degrees and about 60 degrees. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Li in view of Mata, which discloses the additional drivers 22 being positioned at an angle (Li figures 3-4), and further as it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of obvious design choice within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, the specific angle position of the additional drivers being between about 30-60 degrees is considered obvious given the teachings of Li in view of Mata, which already discloses the additional drivers being positioned at an angle, and specifically being positioned at an angle less than 90 degrees, in order to conform to the spherical shape of the housing (Li figures 3-4).
As to claim 6, Li in view of Mata does not expressly disclose wherein each of the plurality of additional drivers is angled relative to the axis of rotation by an angle between about 40 degrees and about 50 degrees. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Li in view of Mata, which discloses the additional drivers 22 being positioned at an angle (Li figures 3-4), and further as it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of obvious design choice within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, the specific angle position of the additional drivers being between about 40-50 degrees is considered obvious given the teachings of Li in view of Mata, which already discloses the additional drivers being positioned at an angle, and specifically being positioned at an angle less than 90 degrees, in order to conform to the spherical shape of the housing (Li figures 3-4).
As to claim 8, Li in view of Mata further discloses wherein a front surface of the front cover can substantially conform to the shape of the spheroid (Mata figure 1).
As to claim 12, Li in view of Mata further discloses wherein the user interface ring is touch sensitive to receive touch inputs (Mata col. 5, lines 7-15).
As to claim 53, Li in view of Mata further discloses further comprising a rear light configured to illuminate a rear of the speaker (Mata figure 2B; col. 15, lines 32-33).
As to claim 54, Li in view of Mata further discloses further comprising a reflective ring disposed in the annular gap, wherein the reflective ring is positioned to reflect light from the front light (Mata figure 10; col. 7, lines 51-57; col. 16, lines 37-50).
As to claim 55, Li in view of Mata further discloses comprising a controller to adjust the color and/or intensity of the front light source to convey information to the user (Mata col. 6, lines 2-9; col. 7, lines 10-50).
As to claim 56, Li in view of Mata does not expressly disclose wherein the user interface ring includes at least 70 individually controllable lights arranged along the circle. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Li in view of Mata, and further as it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947). In this case, the number of lights can depend on various factors, such as the size and shape of the speaker device, the size and type of lights used, and the desired overall look of the device, as long as the lights are individually controlled to provide a wide range of visual appearances that convey information to the user, as already taught by Li in view of Mata (Mata col. 7, lines 30-50).
8. Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Mata, and further in view of US Patent Pub No 2015/0195635 A1 to Garfio et al. (“Garfio”).
As to claim 2, Li in view of Mata discloses the speaker of Claim 1.
Li in view of Mata discloses the first driver being a low sound unit (Li pg. 2, ¶ 0025) but does not expressly disclose wherein the first driver is a sub-woofer. However the use of a sub-woofer as a low range speaker is known in the art, as taught by Garfio, which discloses a similar speaker, and further discloses the speaker including a low range speaker driver in the form of a subwoofer (see figures 21-22; pg. 8, ¶ 0123). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being as a matter of design, and further depending on the desired lower sounds to be output by the speaker, as subwoofers are well-known low range speaker units (Garfio; pg. 8, ¶ 0123).
As to claim 3, Li in view of Mata and Garfio further discloses wherein the plurality of additional drivers includes at least two mid-range drivers, and at least two tweeters (Li pg. 2, ¶ 0025; Garfio pg. 8, ¶ 0123).
9. Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Mata and further in view of US Patent Pub No 9793869 B1 to Snyder et al. (“Snyder”).
As to claim 13, Li in view of Mata discloses the speaker of Claim 12.
Li in view of Mata further discloses the light ring being configured to act as a visual indicator (Mata col. 5, lines 16-28; col. 7, lines 39-46), but does not expressly disclose wherein the user interface ring is configured to indicate a current volume level by illuminating one of the lights that corresponds to the current volume level. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Snyder, which discloses a similar device, and further discloses the use of LED lights as a volume indicator, wherein lights are illuminated to correspond to the current volume level (see figures 1A and 5A; col. 3, lines 14-17; col. 9, lines 56-65). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being to provide visual feedback to the user on the current volume level via the visual indicator lights of the speaker, and indicate to the user that a volume adjustment has been performed (Snyder figure 5A; col. 3, lines 14-17; col. 9, lines 56-65; col. 10, lines 16-23).
As to claim 14, Li in view of Mata and Snyder further discloses wherein a subset of the lights on the user interface ring correspond to an available volume range, and wherein the user interface ring is configured to indicate a current volume level by illuminating one of the lights that corresponds to the current volume level and by also illuminating the lights that correspond to volume levels lower than the current volume level (Snyder figure 5A; col. 9, lines 56-65).
As to claim 15, Li in view of Mata and Snyder further discloses wherein the user interface ring is configured to also illuminate the light that corresponds to a maximum volume level (Snyder figure 5A; col. 9, lines 56-65; col. 10, lines 16-23).
10. Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Mata, and further in view of US Patent No 10427374 B2 to Hamada et al. (“Hamada”).
As to claim 16, Li in view of Mata discloses the speaker of Claim 1.
Li in view of Mata does not disclose wherein the outer housing portion is covered with a fabric covering. However the use of a fabric covering for speakers is known in the art, as taught by Hamada, which discloses a similar device, and further discloses the device housing being covered by a fabric (see figures 1-3; col. 5, lines 1-13). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being as a matter of design for aesthetic or cosmetic purposes, and further to provide a protective cover for the speaker device (Hamada col. 1, lines 32-49).
As to claim 17, Li in view of Mata and Hamada further discloses wherein the fabric covering is a seamless knitted fabric (Hamada col. 4, lines 20-39).
As to claim 18, Li in view of Mata and Hamada further discloses wherein the fabric covering includes a first opening at a front end, and a second opening at a back end (Hamada figures 2-3 and 9; col. 5, lines 24-38; col. 7, lines 45-55).
11. Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Mata and Hamada, and further in view of US Patent Pub No 2018/0091901 A1 to Stanley et al. (“Stanley”).
As to claim 19, Li in view of Mata and Hamada discloses the speaker of Claim 16.
Li in view of Mata and Hamada does not expressly disclose wherein the fabric covering includes a first channel at the front end. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Stanley, which discloses a similar device with a fabric covering, and further discloses the fabric including a threading portion at the end of the fabric opening to accommodate a drawstring (see figures 17A-17D; pg. 10, ¶ 0108). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being to provide an element such as a drawstring that allows the opening to be expanded or contracted, thereby easing installation or removal of the fabric from the speaker device (Stanley pg. 10, ¶ 0108).
As to claim 20, Li in view of Mata, Hamada and Stanley further discloses comprising a ring that extends through the first channel (Stanley loop, see pg. 10, ¶ 0109).
Response to Arguments
12. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Conclusion
13. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABRINA DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 5712727488. 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.
/SABRINA DIAZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/AHMAD F. MATAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2693