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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
354
719
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the claim language of Claim 1 A speaker mounting assembly for mounting a speaker in multiple configurations, the speaker mounting assembly comprising: a bracket having a substantially V-shaped profile, wherein the bracket comprises: a first mounting plate and a second mounting plate meeting at a flattened vertex, wherein the flattened vertex forms a third mounting plate, and fixing apertures in each of the first, second and third mounting plates, wherein the first mounting plate, and the second mounting plate each have an inner receiving surface and an outer receiving surface; wherein, in use, a speaker is mountable on at least one of any of the inner receiving surfaces and/or the outer receiving surfaces. (emphasis added)
The claim is for a bracket for mounting a speaker. The bracket of Cowan, having similar shape to that of the claim limitations, would allow for mounting of a speaker to any of the inner and/or outer receiving surfaces. That is, a speaker could be adhered to via an epoxy or similar to the claimed surfaces, or any of the existing holes of the bracket of Cowan could be used for attaching a speaker to any of the claimed surfaces. For these reasons, the bracket of Cowan reads on all limitations of Claim 1 as amended.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-13, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cowan et al. (US 6845840 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, Cowan teaches: A speaker mounting assembly for mounting a speaker in multiple configurations (Figs. 2-4, 6), the speaker mounting assembly comprising: a bracket having a substantially V-shaped profile (mounting bracket 18), wherein the bracket comprises: a first mounting plate (40A) and a second mounting plate (40B) meeting at a flattened vertex (42), wherein the flattened vertex forms a third mounting plate (as shown), and fixing apertures in each of the first, second and third mounting plates (44A, 44B, 46A, 46B, 48A, 48B, 54, 56), wherein the first mounting plate, and the second mounting plate each have an inner receiving surface and an outer receiving surface (40A, 40B have both inner and outer receiving surfaces); wherein, in use, a speaker is mountable on at least one of any of the inner receiving surfaces and/or the outer receiving surfaces (it is understood from the Figures that a speaker could be mounted to at least one of any of the inner or outer receiving surfaces of 40A/40B since there is nothing expressly prohibiting mounting thereon).
Regarding Claim 2, Cowan teaches: wherein the angle between the internal walls of the first mounting plate and the second mounting plate is about 90 degrees (as shown in Figs).
Regarding Claim 3, Cowan teaches: wherein the internal walls of the first mounting plate and second mounting plate are planar and the outer walls of the first mounting plate and the second mounting plate are multifaceted (Figs. 3 and 6 in combination).
Regarding Claim 4, Cowan teaches: wherein the inner receiving surface is substantially V-shaped (Figs. 3-4, interior portion which receives Speaker 12 can be said to be substantially v-shaped) and the opposing, outer surface is also substantially V-shaped but is truncated to comprise a flat strip at the apex of the V-shape (Fig. 6, rear central portion of bracket 18).
Regarding Claim 5, Cowan teaches: wherein the third mounting plate has a stepped configuration (area adjacent 64 steps down to area 52 in Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 6, Cowan teaches: wherein the third mounting plate comprises a recess (area of 52 in Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 7, Cowan teaches: wherein the third mounting plate comprises a cuboidal recess (area of 52 in Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 8, Cowan teaches: wherein the third mounting plate comprises a cuboidal recess which is centrally positioned along its length (area of 52 in Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 9, Cowan teaches: further comprising at least one spacer (44A, 44B from Figs. 3 and 4 act as spacers).
Regarding Claim 10, Cowan teaches: wherein each spacer comprises a rigid material (inherently taught as the spacers, being part of the bracket, are used for securing a speaker thereon).
Regarding Claim 11, Cowan teaches: further comprising a first spacer at a first end of the speaker mounting assembly (44A) and a second spacer at a second end of the speaker mounting assembly (44B; 44A, 44B act as spacers).
Regarding Claim 12, Cowan teaches: further comprising at least one removable triangular cover (Fig. 2B-2C depict a removeable triangular cover 74).
Regarding Claim 13, Cowan teaches: further comprising two removable triangular covers, wherein each removable triangular cover is attached at an open end face of the speaker mounting assembly (as shown in Figs. 2B, 2C: element 74).
Regarding Claim 19, Cowan teaches: The speaker system comprising at least one speaker mounting assembly according to claim 1, and at least one speaker attached thereto (Figs. 2A, 4, 6).
Regarding Claim 20, Cowan teaches: The speaker system comprising at least one speaker mounting assembly according to claim 1, and at least one speaker enclosure attached thereto, wherein the at least one speaker enclosure comprises a speaker (Figs. 2A, 4, 6).
Regarding Claim 21, Cowan teaches: comprising at least one spacer (44A, 44B), wherein the or each spacer traverses a gap between the speaker mounting assembly and a speaker enclosure attached thereto (44A, 44B act as spacers in the gap between 18 and 12).
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) 14, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan et al. (US 6845840 B2), in view of Nicolas (CN 208863068 U).
Regarding Claim 14, Cowan does not teach: further comprising a detachable support arm. In a related field, Nicolas teaches a detachable support arm for a speaker (Figs. 3-4, 21-22). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cowan to include a detachable support arm such as taught by Nicolas. Motivation for doing so would lie in allowing further adjustment of the speaker of Cowan once secured, for example, to a wall.
Regarding Claim 16, Cowan, in view of Nicolas, teaches: wherein the detachable support arm is pivotable (Figs. 21-22, Nicolas).
Regarding Claim 17, Cowan, in view of Nicolas, teaches: wherein the detachable support arm is pivotably mounted to the bracket (as modified, detachable support arm of Fig. 4 of Nicolas would be pivotably mounted to bracket 18 of Cowan).
Regarding Claim 18, Cowan, in view of Nicolas, Nicolas teaches: wherein the detachable support arm comprises a base (40), a pivot point (120) and a mounting arm (60).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan et al. (US 6845840 B2), in view of Nicolas (CN 208863068 U), and in further view of Garrett (US 20170311062 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Cowan, in view of Nicolas, does not teach: further comprising a removable spike at one end of the detachable support arm. In a related field, Garrett teaches to provide a ground spike on a speaker for mounting the speaker firmly to the ground when desired (Fig. 8: spike 801). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cowan, in view of Nicolas, to further include a ground spike, such as taught by Garrett, in either a fixed or a removeable fashion, such that the speaker may be attached firmly to the ground. Motivation for doing so would lie in allowing the speaker to be used in an outdoor setting.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW A EASON whose telephone number is (571)270-7230. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-4PM.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at (571) 270-7230. 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.
/MATTHEW A EASON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2624