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 .
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) 1-6, 8-9, 18, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bentley (US 20200084544 A1, hereinafter “Bentley”).
Regarding claim 1, Bentley teaches an audio device comprising: an outer enclosure, (see [0086]: communication unit 100 including housing 100 and array of speakers 120)
an acoustic cavity within the outer enclosure, (see Fig. 10: speakers 120 are within the outer part of the housing 110 in an acoustic cavity)
and at least one hidden connection point in the outer enclosure, (see [0110], Fig. 12, Fig. 19: mounting formations 190 include mounting formations in the form of slots 192 which are hidden underneath the outer part of the housing 110)
the at least one hidden connection point configured to receive a corresponding fastener by penetrating the outer enclosure. (see [0110], Fig. 19: in the outer part of the outer housing 110, once the slots receive the lugs 510 on the mounting bracket 500, a fastener is secured through the aperture 194, penetrating the housing through 520)
Regarding claim 2, Bentley teaches the outer enclosure includes a cover visible from an exterior of the audio device, and wherein the at least one hidden connection point is not visible from the exterior of the audio device. (see [0110], Fig. 19: the outer enclosure housing 110 includes a cover which is the mounting bracket 500 and the hidden connection points 192 and 194 is not visible externally)
Regarding claim 3, Bentley teaches the at least one hidden connection point includes a slot for receiving the fastener and is entirely enclosed by the outer enclosure. (see [0110], Fig. 19: slots 192 receive the lugs 510 and are securely fastened and entirely enclosed by the outer enclosure)
Regarding claim 4, Bentley teaches the at least one hidden connection point enables connection with an external device using the fastener. (see [0110]: mounting bracket 500 also secures formations in the form of screw apertures 530 for securing the bracket to an external object or device)
Regarding claim 5, Bentley teaches the external device comprises a mounting bracket. (see [0110]: the external device comprises a mounting bracket 500)
Regarding claim 6, Bentley teaches the outer enclosure is sized to complement the mounting bracket. (see [0110]: the outer enclosure is able to complement the mounting bracket in securing formations)
Regarding claim 8, Bentley teaches the at least one hidden connection point is configured to be located with a corresponding mounting aperture in the mounting bracket. (see [0110]: aperture 194 is screwed into the threaded aperture 520 to mount bracket 500)
Regarding claim 9, Bentley teaches the mounting bracket aids in at least one of, display of the audio device, fixed use of the audio device, or theft deterrence for the audio device. (see [0110]: At least, in this way, theft of the communication unit 100 is discouraged or impeded)
Regarding claim 18, Bentley teaches the at least one hidden connection point includes at least two hidden connection points, and wherein penetrating the outer enclosure creates openings in the outer enclosure to reach the at least two hidden connection points, respectively. (see Fig. 19: four slots 192 that are hidden under the outer enclosure) (see [0110], Fig. 19: in the outer part of the outer housing 110, once the slots receive the lugs 510 on the mounting bracket 500, a fastener is secured through the aperture 194, penetrating the housing through 520, which clearly would reach the two hidden connection points, respectively)
Regarding claim 20, Bentley teaches positioning the mounting bracket on the audio device, the mounting bracket having a set of mounting apertures, positioning the corresponding fastener in each of the set of mounting apertures, puncturing the outer enclosure with the corresponding fastener, and seating the corresponding fastener in each of the at least one hidden connection points. (see [0110]: mounting formations 190 include slots 192, securing formation in the form of an aperture 194 for receiving a fastener such as a screw. The aperture 194 is configured to align with a threaded aperture 520 in the mounting bracket 500 where the lugs 510 have been received into the slot 193. The screw is inserted through the aperture 194 and screwed into the threaded aperture 520, which is essentially puncturing this outer enclosure to reach the hidden mounting slots 192)
Regarding claim 21, Bentley teaches an inner enclosure, wherein the outer enclosure is over-molded on the inner enclosure, the inner enclosure outlines the at least one hidden connection point. (see [0110], Fig. 19: the outer enclosure housing 110 includes a cover which is the mounting bracket 500 and the hidden connection points 192 and 194 is not visible externally)
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) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley (US 20200084544 A1, hereinafter “Bentley”) in view of Siu (US 20240107209 A1) (Siu is included as an additional reference in this rejection due to the applicant’s challenge to the official notice).
Regarding claim 7, Bentley is silent to the mounting bracket includes a set of arms, wherein the set of arms extend only partially along sidewalls of the audio device when mounted.
Siu (US 20240107209 A1) teaches a bracket having a support arm that can extend partially along a sidewall providing a portion of the retention force on the audio device. (see [0004])
Bentley and Siu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of mounting brackets of an audio device. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have included a bracket comprising a set of arms when mounted of Siu to Bentley in order to effectively secure the bracket to the wall.
Claim(s) 12-13, 15, and 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley (US 20200084544 A1, hereinafter “Bentley”).
Regarding claim 12, Bentley is silent to the outer enclosure appears substantially identical to an outer enclosure of a reference audio device, wherein the reference audio device is of a same type as the audio device and does not include hidden connection points.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to identify that the outer enclosure appears identical to the outer enclosure of an audio device that does not include hidden connection points. This is merely a design choice based on the users' needs/preferences and no unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 13, Bentley is silent to a wall within the outer enclosure, the wall separating the at least one hidden connection point from the acoustic cavity.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to include a wall that separates the hidden connection point as a seal for acoustic volume. The designer could have made this adjustment based on the users’ needs/preferences and no unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 15, Bentley is silent to the fastener does not impact an acoustic performance of the audio device or an ingress protection (IP) rating of the audio device.
However, when a designer chooses a fastener for the audio device enclosure it would have been obvious for the designer to choose a type of fastener that does not impact acoustic performance of the audio device nor an ingress protection rating of the audio device based on designer’s preference since the designer can either choose a type of fasteners that have impact on acoustic performance or choose a type of fasteners that has no impact on acoustic performance, no unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 22, Bentley teaches an audio device comprising: an outer enclosure, (see [0086]: communication unit 100 including housing 100 and array of speakers 120)
an acoustic cavity within the outer enclosure, (see Fig. 10: speakers 120 are within the outer part of the housing 110 in an acoustic cavity)
and at least one hidden connection point in the outer enclosure, (see [0110], Fig. 12, Fig. 19: mounting formations 190 include mounting formations in the form of slots 192 which are hidden underneath the outer part of the housing 110)
the at least one hidden connection point configured to receive a corresponding fastener by penetrating the outer enclosure (see [0110], Fig. 19: in the outer part of the outer housing 110, once the slots receive the lugs 510 on the mounting bracket 500, a fastener is secured through the aperture 194, penetrating the housing through 520)
and enabling connection with an external device (see [0118]: connectors for connecting of external media device)
Bentley does not explicitly teach [enabling connection with an external device] using the fastener; and a wall within the outer enclosure, the wall separating the at least one hidden connection point from the acoustic cavity.
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to enable connection with an external device using the fastener and include a wall that separates the hidden connection point as a seal for acoustic volume. The designer could have made this adjustment based on the users’ needs/preferences and no unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 23, Bentley is silent to the wall comprises a passive radiator.
However, official notice is taken that it is well-known in the art that a passive radiator is used for higher quality acoustics and therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have included a passive radiator since it is just one of the many well-known ways that a designer can use to ensure quality acoustics including air pressure to produce deeper, more resonant bass from a smaller enclosure. Having a wall that comprises a passive radiator would have been determined based on designer’s preference which does not produce any unexpected results
Regarding claim 24, Bentley teaches the external device comprises a mounting bracket, (see [0118]: connectors for connecting external media devices)
and wherein penetrating the outer enclosure creates an opening in the outer enclosure to reach the hidden connection point. (see [0110], Fig. 19: in the outer part of the outer housing 110, once the slots receive the lugs 510 on the mounting bracket 500, a fastener is secured through the aperture 194, penetrating the housing through 520)
Regarding claim 25, Bentley teaches wherein prior to penetrating the outer enclosure, the at least one hidden connection point is not visible from an exterior of the audio device from any angle. (see [0110], Fig. 12, Fig. 19: mounting formations 190 include mounting formations in the form of slots 192 which are hidden underneath the outer part of the housing 110 which does not imply that the connection points are visible from the exterior at any angle)
Bentley does not explicitly teach the wall provides ingress protection for the acoustic cavity and maintains acoustic performance after the fastener has penetrated the outer enclosure.
However, when a designer chooses a fastener that penetrates the outer enclosure, it would have been obvious for the designer to also include a wall that does not impact the IP rating of the audio device based on designer’s preference since the designer can either choose a type of fastener or wall that have impact on IP rating or choose a type of fastener or wall that has no impact on IP rating, and no unexpected result is produced.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bentley (US 20200084544 A1, hereinafter “Bentley”) in view of Amae (US 20150334481 A1) (Amae is included as an additional reference in this rejection due to the applicant’s challenge to the official notice).
Regarding claim 14, Bentley is silent to the wall comprises a passive radiator.
Amae (US 20150334481 A1) teaches a wall that comprises passive radiator. (see [0007])
Bentley and Amae are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of an audio device for mounting. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have included a passive radiator of Amae to Bentley to ensure quality acoustics including air pressure to produce deeper, more resonant bass from a smaller enclosure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed February 3, 2026, with respect to claim 5 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) of claim 5 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments filed February 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s arguments that “the mounting bracket 500 in Bentley is separate from the housing 410 of the amplifier unit 400. And that “Applicant’s claim 1 recites, among other things, “at least one hidden connection point in the outer enclosure… configured to receive a corresponding fastener by penetrating the outer enclosure. The separation between the mounting bracket 500 and the housing 410 of the amplifier in Bentley means this reference simply cannot disclose at least one hidden connection point “in the outer enclosure” of the audio device.” (Remarks, page 7), examiner would like to note the mounting bracket 500 is only introduced to read on the claimed limitation “a corresponding fastener” and the claimed limitation “hidden connection point in the outer enclosure” is taught by Bentley, as discussed above (i.e. “see [0110], Fig. 12, Fig. 19: mounting formations 190 include mounting formations in the form of slots 192 which are hidden underneath the outer part of the housing 110”).
Regarding applicant’s arguments that the “apertures” of Bentley are plainly visible “i.e. not hidden” (Remarks, page 7), examiner would like to point out that, as discussed above, the apertures 192 of Bentley are under the housing 110 of the unit 100, which makes it hidden during normal use.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that the examiner already relies on the “mounting bracket 500” of Bentley as an alleged equivalent of Applicant’s claimed “outer enclosure” (Remarks, bottom, page 7 – top page 8), examiner would like to note, as mentioned above, the mounting bracket 500 is only introduced to read on the claimed limitation “a corresponding fastener” (e.g. mounting bracket) and the claimed limitation “hidden connection point in the outer enclosure” is taught by Bentley, as discussed above (i.e. “see [0110], Fig. 12, Fig. 19: mounting formations 190 include mounting formations in the form of slots 192 which are hidden underneath the outer part of the housing 110”).
Applicant is reminded that the specifications are not the measure of invention. Therefore, limitations contained therein cannot be read into the claims for the purpose of avoiding the prior art. In re Sporck, 55 CCPA 743, 386 F.2d 924, 155 USPQ 687 (1968). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (e.g., “an audio device with a hidden connection port that can be conveniently accessed for use in a mounted setting” (Remarks, top page 7) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the claimed limitations have been interpreted reasonably broad to read on the prior art references, as discussed above.
On pages 8-9 of applicant’s remarks, applicant further challenges the official notice statement which states the limitations of claims 7 and 12-15 is a well-known in the art, and therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to have included these limitations. Claim 12-14 are merely a design choice that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill. However, the Examiner is providing such a prior art reference as set forth below in response to applicant’s request to show by evidential document:
Siu (US 20240107209 A1) teaches a bracket having a support arm that can extend partially along a sidewall providing a portion of the retention force on the audio device. (see [0004])
Amae (US 20150334481 A1) teaches a wall that comprises passive radiator. (see [0007])
Eva (US 20210160601 A1) teaches an element of a part of an audio device that does not impact the ingress protection. (see [0046])
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 ANNABELLE KANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/ANNABELLE KANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights