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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to Applicants Request for Reconsideration filed 1/19/26 which has been entered. Claims 48-49, 51-52, 55-62, and 67 have been amended. Claims 53-54 and 63-66 have been cancelled. Claims 68-73 have been added. Claims 48-52, 55-62, and 67-73 are still pending in this application, with Claims 48, 67, and 69 being independent.
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 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) 48-49, 51, 55-57, 67, 69-70 and 73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mollick US Publication No. 20110259175 in view of Ludwig US Patent No. 7309829.
Referring to claim 48, Mollick teaches a system, comprising: a frame structure configured for placement within a sound-generating device (Figs. 1-2: vertical straps 11 placed within drum cavity 17); wherein the frame structure is suspended within the sound-generating device and acoustically decoupled from the sound-generating device (Fig. 1: vertical straps 11 suspended within drum cavity 17; para 0030: “The microphone is adequately isolated from the drum shell vibrations… The elastomeric material chosen for the straps may be any material type that provides a vibration damping or attenuation property, such as rubber.”); and a transducer assembly including a plurality of transducers, wherein the transducer assembly is coupled, via a plurality of connectors, to an interior of the frame structure (Figs. 1-2: microphones 16/21 coupled to interior of straps 11 via horizontal straps 12, plane 15, wires 19, and/or plane 18; para 0031: “Along the plane…a plurality of microphones may be mounted. Additionally, a plurality of planes may be adapted to secure to the vertical straps, allowing several simultaneously mounted planes for supporting several microphones.”) and wherein the plurality of connectors are rotatably coupled to the interior of the frame structure such that the transducer assembly is rotatable within the frame structure (para 0026: “The flat plane 15 may be moved up and down the lengths of each vertical strap 11, and angled or tiled as desired to achieve a microphone 16 position that yields the optimal sound quality ”– Examiner notes that when the plane is tilted/angled, the plane and the connected microphones are rotatably connected to the interior of at least some of the straps 11), wherein the plurality of transducers are suspended from the plurality of connectors (Figs. 1-2: microphones 16/21 suspended from horizontal straps 12, plane 15, wires 19, and/or plane 18).
However, Mollick does not teach the microphones producing concurrent signals per se, but Ludwig teaches the plurality of transducers are configured to generate a plurality of audio signals concurrently (Column 65, Lines 24-28: “the invention provides for signal outputs from the multi-channel transducer(s) to be fed in parallel to a control signal extractor 5010 so as to simultaneously issue control signals 5011 to any one or more of music synthesizers, signal processors, lighting, special effects, etc.”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate audio signals concurrently, as taught in Ludwig, in the system of Mollick because it allows processing to be conducted on all signals from the microphones at all times.
Referring to claim 49, Mollick teaches the transducer assembly is configured to rotate about an axis within the frame structure while maintaining a constant spacing between the plurality of transducers (para 0026; Fig. 1: when multiple microphones are positioned on plane 15, the tilting of plane 15 with respect to a horizontal axis at an upper distal edge of plane 15 will maintain constant spacing between such microphones).
Referring to claim 51, Mollick teaches the frame structure is suspended within the sound-generating device using a plurality of flexible or stretchable cords (para 0032).
Referring to claim 55, Mollick teaches the plurality of transducers are suspended using a plurality of flexible or stretchable cords (Fig. 2: microphone 21 suspended from plane 18 via wires 19; para 0027).
Referring to claim 56, Mollick teaches each transducer of the plurality of transducers is, as suspended, acoustically isolated from the frame structure (para 0027: “The wire 19 acts as a suspension device in which the microphone 21 is isolated from the movement of the drum shell and straps 11”).
Referring to claim 57, Mollick teaches a first transducer of the plurality of transducers and a second transducer of the plurality of transducers are separated by a distance that is greater than or equal to a diameter of a diaphragm of one of the plurality of transducers (para 0026: “The flat plane 15 may be moved up and down the lengths of each vertical strap 11, and angled or tiled as desired to achieve a microphone 16 position that yields the optimal sound quality.”; para 0031: “Along the plane…a plurality of microphones may be mounted. Additionally, a plurality of planes may be adapted to secure to the vertical straps, allowing several simultaneously mounted planes for supporting several microphones.”). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have had good reason to pursue the known finite options of positioning two microphones relative to one another on a single plane and/or positioning two planes with microphones relative to one another, therefore it would have been obvious to try placing the microphones at a distance greater than or equal to a diameter of a diaphragm of one of the transducer because the microphones are able to be mounted anywhere along the plane and the planes are able to move along the lengths of the vertical straps, as discussed in Mollick in the system of Mollick and Ludwig.
Referring to claim 67, Mollick teaches a method, comprising: providing a frame structure configured for placement within a sound-generating device (Figs. 1-2: vertical straps 11 placed within drum cavity 17); wherein the frame structure is suspended within the sound-generating device and acoustically decoupled from the sound-generating device (Fig. 1: vertical straps 11 suspended within drum cavity 17; para 0030: “The microphone is adequately isolated from the drum shell vibrations… The elastomeric material chosen for the straps may be any material type that provides a vibration damping or attenuation property, such as rubber.”); and providing a transducer assembly including a plurality of transducers, wherein the transducer assembly is coupled, via a plurality of connectors, to an interior of the frame structure (Figs. 1-2: microphones 16/21 coupled to interior of straps 11 via horizontal straps 12, plane 15, wires 19, and/or plane 18; para 0031: “Along the plane…a plurality of microphones may be mounted. Additionally, a plurality of planes may be adapted to secure to the vertical straps, allowing several simultaneously mounted planes for supporting several microphones.”) and wherein the plurality of connectors are rotatably coupled to the interior of the frame structure such that the transducer assembly is rotatable within the frame structure (para 0026: “The flat plane 15 may be moved up and down the lengths of each vertical strap 11, and angled or tiled as desired to achieve a microphone 16 position that yields the optimal sound quality ” – Examiner notes that when the plane is tilted/angled, the plane and the connected microphones are rotatably connected to the interior of some of the straps 11), wherein the plurality of transducers are suspended from the plurality of connectors (Figs. 1-2: microphones 16/21 suspended from horizontal straps 12, plane 15, wires 19, and/or plane 18).
However, Mollick does not teach the microphones producing concurrent signals per se, but Ludwig teaches the plurality of transducers are configured to generate a plurality of audio signals concurrently (Column 65, Lines 24-28: “the invention provides for signal outputs from the multi-channel transducer(s) to be fed in parallel to a control signal extractor 5010 so as to simultaneously issue control signals 5011 to any one or more of music synthesizers, signal processors, lighting, special effects, etc.”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate audio signals concurrently, as taught in Ludwig, in the method of Mollick because it allows processing to be conducted on all signals from the microphones at all times.
Referring to claim 69, Mollick teaches a system, comprising: a frame structure configured for placement within a sound-generating device (Figs. 1-2: vertical straps 11 placed within drum cavity 17); wherein the frame structure is suspended within the sound-generating device and acoustically decoupled from the sound-generating device (Fig. 1: vertical straps 11 suspended within drum cavity 17; para 0030: “The microphone is adequately isolated from the drum shell vibrations… The elastomeric material chosen for the straps may be any material type that provides a vibration damping or attenuation property, such as rubber.”); and a transducer assembly including a plurality of transducers, wherein the transducer assembly is coupled, via a plurality of connectors, to an interior of the frame structure (Figs. 1-2: microphones 16/21 coupled to interior of straps 11 via horizontal straps 12, plane 15, wires 19, and/or plane 18; para 0031: “Along the plane…a plurality of microphones may be mounted. Additionally, a plurality of planes may be adapted to secure to the vertical straps, allowing several simultaneously mounted planes for supporting several microphones.”) and wherein the plurality of connectors are rotatably coupled to the interior of the frame structure (para 0026: “The flat plane 15 may be moved up and down the lengths of each vertical strap 11, and angled or tiled as desired to achieve a microphone 16 position that yields the optimal sound quality” – Examiner notes that when the plane is tilted/angled, the plane and the connected microphones are rotatably connected to the interior of some of the straps 11), wherein the plurality of transducers are suspended from the plurality of connectors (Figs. 1-2: microphones 16/21 suspended from horizontal straps 12, plane 15, wires 19, and/or plane 18) and are aligned on an axis (para 0031: “Along the plane…a plurality of microphones may be mounted – Examiner notes that when there are two microphones along the plane, the axis will be the line that connects the two microphones) having an angle with respect to a membrane of the sound-generating device (Figs. 1-2: multiple microphones placement along plane 15/18 form an axis having an angle with membrane of drum) that is adjustable via the plurality of connectors (Figs. 1-2: horizontal straps 12, plane 15, wires 19, and/or plane 18 are adjustable; para 0026: “The flat plane 15 may be moved up and down the lengths of each vertical strap 11, and angled or tiled as desired to achieve a microphone 16 position that yields the optimal sound quality”).
However, Mollick does not teach the microphones producing concurrent signals per se, but Ludwig teaches the plurality of transducers are configured to generate a plurality of audio signals concurrently (Column 65, Lines 24-28: “the invention provides for signal outputs from the multi-channel transducer(s) to be fed in parallel to a control signal extractor 5010 so as to simultaneously issue control signals 5011 to any one or more of music synthesizers, signal processors, lighting, special effects, etc.”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate audio signals concurrently, as taught in Ludwig, in the system of Mollick because it allows processing to be conducted on all signals from the microphones at all times.
Referring to claim 70, Mollick teaches the transducer assembly is configured to rotate about a further axis within the frame structure while maintaining a constant spacing between the plurality of transducers (para 0026; Fig. 1: when multiple microphones are positioned on plane 15, the tilting of plane 15 with respect to a horizontal axis at an upper distal edge of plane 15 will maintain constant spacing between such microphones).
Referring to claim 73, Mollick teaches the plurality of transducers includes a first transducer and a second transducer aligned along an axis (para 0031: “Along the plane…a plurality of microphones may be mounted - Examiner notes that the axis will be the line that connects the two microphones) forming an angle with a plane of the membrane of the sound-generating device that is greater than 0° and less than 180° (Figs. 1-2: multiple microphones placement along plane 15/18 (along with the fact that plane 15/18 is adjustable at the 4 corners) form an axis having an angle with membrane of drum between 0 and 180 degrees).
Claim(s) 50, 62, and 68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mollick and Ludwig, as applied to claim 48 above, and further in view of Cleland US Publication No. 20020029680.
Referring to claim 50, Mollick teaches the sound-generating device is a percussion instrument (Fig. 1: drum). However, Mollick and Ludwig do not teach a stretched membrane per se, but Cleland teaches a percussion instrument comprising a stretched membrane (para 0003). Both Mollick and Cleland teach drums, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute in stretched membrane of Cleland for the drum surface of Mollick in the system of Mollick and Ludwig because a stretched membrane is a conventional drum surface and will allow for sound to be made when played.
Referring to claim 62, Mollick teaches the plurality of transducers includes a first transducer and a second transducer aligned along an axis forming an angle with a plane of a top of the sound-generating device that is greater than 0 degrees and less than 180 degrees (para 0031: “Along the plane…a plurality of microphones may be mounted”; Figs. 1-2: multiple microphones placement along plane 15/18 (along with the fact that plane 15/18 is adjustable at the 4 corners) form an axis having an angle with membrane of drum between 0 and 180 degrees – Examiner notes that when there are two microphones along the plane, the axis will be the line that connects the two microphones). However, Mollick and Ludwig do not teach a stretched membrane per se, but Cleland teaches a stretched membrane of the sound-generating device (para 0003). Both Mollick and Cleland teach drums, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute in stretched membrane of Cleland for the drum surface of Mollick in the system of Mollick and Ludwig because a stretched membrane is a conventional drum surface and will allow for sound to be made when played.
Referring to claim 68, Mollick teaches the plurality of transducers of the transducer assembly are aligned on an axis having an adjustable angle with respect to a membrane of the sound-generating device (para 0031: “Along the plane…a plurality of microphones may be mounted”; para 0026: “The flat plane 15 may be moved up and down the lengths of each vertical strap 11, and angled or tiled as desired to achieve a microphone 16 position that yields the optimal sound quality”; Figs. 1-2: multiple microphones placement along plane 15/18 form an axis having an angle with membrane of drum – Examiner notes that when there are two microphones along the plane, the axis will be the line that connects the two microphones). However, Mollick and Ludwig do not teach a stretched membrane per se, but Cleland teaches a stretched membrane of the sound-generating device (para 0003). Both Mollick and Cleland teach drums, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute in stretched membrane of Cleland for the drum surface of Mollick in the system of Mollick and Ludwig because a stretched membrane is a conventional drum surface and will allow for sound to be made when played.
Claim(s) 52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mollick and Ludwig, as applied to claim 48 above, and further in view of Sugiyama et al. US Patent No. 4151777 and Tikander et al. US Patent No. 10469939.
Referring to claim 52, Mollick and Ludwig do not teach a diffusor, but Sugiyama et al. teaches a diffusor positioned below the frame structure and within the sound- generating device (Fig. 7: sound-absorbing plate 112 within case 1 and will be below microphone depending on how the enclosure is oriented), wherein the diffusor comprises a body suspended within the sound generating device preventing the body from contacting an inner surface of the sound-generating device (Fig. 5: body of sound absorbing plate 112 suspended within case 1 and does not contact inner surface of case 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a diffusor, as taught in Sugiyama et al., in the system of Mollick and Ludwig because it provides a way “so that there are no reflected waves which interfere with each other and there are no standing waves around the microphone.”
However, Mollick, Ludwig, and Sugiyama et al. do not teach the diffusor containing a hollow body, but Tikander et al. teaches the diffusor comprises: a hollow body (Column 7, Lines 56-59). Both Sugiyama et al. and Tikander et al. teach elements to dampen sound, therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute in a hollow diffusor, as taught in Tikander et al., for the plate of Sugiyama et al., in the system of Mollick, Ludwig, and Sugiyama et al. because both elements will help to dampen standing waves.
Claim(s) 58 and 71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mollick and Ludwig, as applied to claims 48 and 69 above, and further in view of Shaw et al. US Publication No. 20180102121.
Referring to claim 58, Mollick teaches the plurality of transducers includes a first transducer and a second transducer (para 0031). However, Mollick and Ludwig do not teach radio frequency noise canceling transducers, but Shaw et al. teaches each transducer implemented as a radio-frequency noise- canceling transducer (para 0007). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use radio frequency noise canceling transducers, as taught in Shaw et al., in the system of Mollick and Ludwig because it helps to “cancel out external interferences.”
Referring to claim 71, Mollick teaches the plurality of transducers includes a first transducer and a second transducer (para 0031). However, Mollick and Ludwig do not teach radio frequency noise canceling transducers, but Shaw et al. teaches each transducer implemented as a radio-frequency noise- canceling transducer (para 0007). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use radio frequency noise canceling transducers, as taught in Shaw et al., in the system of Mollick and Ludwig because it helps to “cancel out external interferences.”
Claim(s) 59-60 and 72 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mollick and Ludwig, as applied to claims 48 and 69 above, and further in view of Kennedy US Patent No. 5027691.
Referring to claim 59, Mollick teaches the plurality of transducers includes a first transducer and a second transducer (para 0031). However, Mollick and Ludwig do not teach humbucking microphones, but Kennedy teaches each implemented as a humbucking microphone capsule having a moving diaphragm (Column 1, Lines 37-41: “Typically, contact or acoustic pickups are used. These pickups function much the same as a dynamic microphone, which has a magnet attached to a vibrating diaphragm and a separate stationary coil for sensing the changing magnetic field.”; Column 2, Line 64: “A second humbucking coil can be provided”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use humbucking microphones, as taught in Kennedy, in the system of Mollick and Ludwig because it helps to “inhibit electrical noise”.
Referring to claim 60, Kennedy teaches each humbucking microphone capsule includes a primary coil and a secondary coil, wherein the moving diaphragm is attached to the primary coil (Column 1, Lines 37-41: “Typically, contact or acoustic pickups are used. These pickups function much the same as a dynamic microphone, which has a magnet attached to a vibrating diaphragm and a separate stationary coil for sensing the changing magnetic field.”; Column 2, Line 64: “A second humbucking coil can be provided”). Motivation to combine is the same as in claim 59.
Referring to claim 72, Mollick teaches the plurality of transducers includes a first transducer and a second transducer (para 0031). However, Mollick and Ludwig do not teach humbucking microphones, but Kennedy teaches each implemented as a humbucking microphone capsule having a moving diaphragm (Column 1, Lines 37-41: “Typically, contact or acoustic pickups are used. These pickups function much the same as a dynamic microphone, which has a magnet attached to a vibrating diaphragm and a separate stationary coil for sensing the changing magnetic field.”; Column 2, Line 64: “A second humbucking coil can be provided”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use humbucking microphones, as taught in Kennedy, in the system of Mollick and Ludwig because it helps to “inhibit electrical noise”.
Claim(s) 61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mollick, Ludwig, and Kennedy, as applied to claims 48 and 59 above, and further in view of Cleland.
Referring to claim 61, Mollick teaches the first transducer and the second transducer are aligned along an axis forming an angle with a plane of a stretched membrane of the sound-generating device that is greater than 0 degrees and less than 180 degrees (para 0031: “Along the plane…a plurality of microphones may be mounted”; Figs. 1-2: multiple microphones placement along plane 15/18 (along with the fact that plane 15/18 is adjustable at the 4 corners) form an axis having an angle with membrane of drum between 0 and 180 degrees – Examiner notes that the axis will be the line that connects the two microphones).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states in para 3 of page 9 to para 1 of page 10 of the remarks:
“Mollick, for example, lacks rotational capability with respect to any microphones that may be located within the percussion instrument shell. While FIG. 4 illustrates a "fore-aft conveyor belt," this structure allows movement of the microphone(s) placed thereon only in a front-to-back (or back-to-front) linear motion along the motion of the conveyor belt.
While Ludwig discloses embodiments that include multiple transducers, Ludwig fails to disclose the features shown to be lacking from Mollick. That is, Ludwig does not disclose or suggest the dual suspension operation, the frame structure, or the rotational capability of the transducer assembly as recited in claim 48.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, Mollick shows a dual suspension, with 1) the straps 11 forming a frame and connecting to the drum shell and 2) with the straps 12, plane 15, wires 19, and/or plane 18 connecting the microphone to the straps 11 in Figs. 1-2. Secondly, Mollick also shows rotational capability of the straps 12, plane 15, wires 19, and/or plane 18. Para 0026 of Mollick states that the plane can be tilted or angled as desired, therefore, the straps 12, plane 15, wires 19, and/or plane 18 are rotatably coupled to various parts of the straps 11 and the microphones attached to such planes are also rotatable with respect to various parts of the drum and straps 11. For example, when the lower edge of plane 15 is adjusted upwards and the upper edge remains stationary, plane 15 and its attached microphones will be rotated about the horizontal axis at an upper edge of plane 15 that comprises an interior of straps 11. Therefore, Mollick teaches rotational capability of the transducer assembly.
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 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.
Examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office Action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE A FALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Wednesday, 9am-5pm.
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.
/KATHERINE A FALEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights