Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/398,700

Sound Amplifier System with Speaker Selection

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Dec 28, 2023
Examiner
PHAN, HAI
Art Unit
2654
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
38%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
4y 3m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 38% of cases
38%
Career Allow Rate
63 granted / 165 resolved
-23.8% vs TC avg
Strong +47% interview lift
Without
With
+47.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
4y 3m
Avg Prosecution
3 currently pending
Career history
168
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.1%
-32.9% vs TC avg
§103
45.8%
+5.8% vs TC avg
§102
21.9%
-18.1% vs TC avg
§112
19.1%
-20.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 165 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/04/2024 did not list any references therein. Therefore, no references were being reviewed by the examiner. However, the examiner annotated the IDS forms for applicant’s reference. It is asked that if the applicant has the prior art that applicant wishes to submit for the examiner to consider. Applicant is asked to provide it in response to this office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 Claim(s) 1 and 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pucci et al (US 2023/0041832; hereinafter simply referred to as Pucci). Regarding claim 1, Pucci discloses A sound amplifier system {Fig. 1}, comprising: an amplifier {Fig. 1, amplifier 20}; the amplifier having at least one signal input receiver which can receive a signal from an instrument and electronically transmit that signal to the amplifier, the amplifier having two or more channels which can transmit separate electronic output signals (para 0035}; two or more speakers {speakers 30a, 30b and/or speakers 30c-30f}; the two or more speakers comprising at least two different speaker types {para 0042; Bose Surround Speakers for speaker 30a, and Bose Smart Soundbar for speaker 30b}, the two or more speakers being connected to the amplifier such that the speakers can receive electronic output signals from the amplifier, wherein one or more of a speaker type 1 receives an output signal no.1, and one or more of a speaker type 2 receives an output signal no.2, the speakers emitting the sound transmitted to them by their respective output signals {para 0038}; one or more power supplies; the power supply electrically connected to the sound amplifier system to provide electrical power {para 0041; power source}. Regarding claim 3, Pucci further discloses there are two separate speaker types, the first type of speaker or speakers being speaker type 1, the second type of speaker or speakers being speaker type 2 {para 0042; Bose Surround Speakers for speaker 30a, and Bose Smart Soundbar for speaker 30b}. Regarding claim 4, Pucci further discloses wherein: there are two speakers, a first speaker being speaker type 1, a second speaker being speaker type 2 {para 0042; Bose Surround Speakers for speaker 30a, and Bose Smart Soundbar for speaker 30b}. Regarding claim 5, Pucci further discloses wherein: there are four speakers, a first set of two speakers being speaker type 1 speakers, a second set of two speakers being speaker type 2 {para 0042; Bose Surround Speakers for speaker 30a, and Bose Smart Soundbar for speaker 30b, wherein each of these types of Bose speakers inherently include 2 speakers such as left and right channels}. Regarding claim 6, Pucci further discloses one or more additional speaker cabinets, the one or more speaker cabinets having one or more speakers {Fig. 1, speakers 30c and 30d}, the one or more speakers being electronically daisy chained with the speakers housed in the speaker cabinet such that they emit the sound transmitted to them by the output signals {para 0044; daisy chain connected}. Regarding claim 7, Pucci further discloses a switch {para 0014}, the switch being connected to the amplifier such that the switch may be used to select the channel or channels transmitted by the amplifier to the speakers {para 0005, abstract}. Regarding claim 8, Pucci further discloses wherein: the switch is a manual switch {para 0015}. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 2, 11-16 and 19 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pucci et al (US 2023/0041832) in view of Miyoshi et at (US 2023/0209266; hereinafter simply referred to as Miyoshi). Regarding claim 2, the claimed language is similar to claim 1 except that claim 2 further recites that the amplifier and speakers are a combo and are housed in the same enclosure. Pucci {in para 0009} further discloses that the transducers (speakers) are external to the amplifier housing thus suggesting that in some embodiments, the speakers could be housed within the amplifier enclosure, but fails to clearly state such. However, Miyoshi teaches guitar amplifier {Fig. 1A, 1B} having speakers inside the amplifier {para 0019, 0020}. 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 apply the teaching of Miyoshi’s into the sound amplifier system of Pucci’s because this would provide a single compact sound amplifier system that is portable to be used with musical instrument such as a guitar. Regarding claims 11-16, Pucci further discloses these claimed limitations similar to claims 3-8 and therefore rejected similarly. Regarding claim 19, this claim is similar to claim 2 and therefore rejected similarly. Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pucci et al (US 2023/0041832) in view of Alur et at (US 2022/0116726). Regarding claims 9 and 10, Pucci fails to teach that the switch is a programmable switch (claim 9) or the switch is a remote controlled switch (claim 10). However, Alur teaches the programmable switch that could be used to direct sound to various speakers in the speaker array {Alur: para 0035, 0073 and Fig. 4; and that the arrangement could be contemplated via various and wireless arrangements creating the remote control by the wireless arrangement}. 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 apply the programmable switch or the remote controlled switch as taught by Alur into the system of Pucci’s because this would allow the system to automatically direct sound to different set of speakers depending on the audio source being received and/or remotely controlling the switch for the convenience of the wireless arrangement. Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pucci et al (US 2023/0041832) in view of Miyoshi et at (US 2023/0209266) as applied to claims 2 and 11-16 above, and further in view of Alur et at (US 2022/0116726). Regarding claims 17-18, the combination of Pucci and Miyoshi fails to teach that the switch is a programmable switch (claim 9) or the switch is a remote controlled switch (claim 10). However, Alur teaches the programmable switch that could be used to direct sound to various speakers in the speaker array {Alur: para 0035, 0073 and Fig. 4; and that the arrangement could be contemplated via various and wireless arrangements creating the remote control by the wireless arrangement}. 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 apply the programmable switch or the remote controlled switch as taught by Alur into the combined system of Pucci’s because this would allow the system to automatically direct sound to different set of speakers depending on the audio source being received and/or remotely controlling the switch for the convenience of the wireless arrangement. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cooner (US 2007/0054696) para 0027 teaches a wireless terminal for audio amplifier and speakers among other things where that the switch could be implemented in the remote mode. Brown, Sr. (US 5023915) discloses amplifier systems for musical instruments that include switches for controlling the output to one of the three output channels. Blum et al (WO 2005055658 discloses a sound amplifier having switches for controlling the sound output. Inagaki (US 2004/0184619) discloses sound control system having the selecting switch where different sound source can be played back via different set of speakers. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Phan whose telephone number is (571)272-6338. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM. 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. 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. /HAI PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2654
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 28, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604152
BINARUAL RENDERING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12579991
GENERATIVE NEURAL NETWORK MODEL FOR PROCESSING AUDIO SAMPLES IN A FILTER-BANK DOMAIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12579994
Automated Conversation Content Items from Natural Language
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573416
CONVERSION MODEL LEARNING APPARATUS, CONVERSION MODEL GENERATION APPARATUS, CONVERSION APPARATUS, CONVERSION METHOD AND PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567421
TEXT TO AUDIO CONVERSION WITH DISENTANGLED STYLE CONDITIONING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
38%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+47.4%)
4y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 165 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month