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 filed 5/16/25 has been considered. The foreign patent documents could not be considered since these documents were not provided to the office.
Drawings
The drawings filed 3/21/24 are objected to because as seen in figure 4, element “110” does not point to any structural portion of the loudspeaker arrangement. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) 1-4, 7-9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marlowe (US 2007/0056796 A1), cited by applicant.
Re claim 1: Marlowe teaches a directional loudspeaker (figure 3) for an acoustic hailing device, comprising: an enclosure (cabinet) comprising a primary waveguide system (front side of cabinet) integrated into the enclosure; and a set of secondary waveguide vanes (baffle extenders) capable of changing between a reduced-footprint configuration and a deployed configuration (see figure 7), wherein a waveguide mouth of the loudspeaker has a first size (See for example figure 9 arrangement without baffle extender) defined by the primary waveguide system when the set of secondary waveguide vanes is in the reduced-footprint configuration, and wherein the waveguide mouth of the loudspeaker has a second size (see figure 9 with baffle extender) defined by the primary waveguide system and the set of secondary waveguide vanes when the set of secondary waveguide vanes is in the deployed configuration, the second size greater than the first size.
Re claim 2: See possible arrangement of extenders placed against sides of the enclosure in the closed position.
Re claim 3: as seen from figure 5 the baffles can be attached to the enclosure using a hook and loop fastener system that would prevent accidental placement of the waveguide vanes (baffles) into the deployed configuration.
Re claim 4: the first and second attachment members are satisfied by the hook and loop members used in the configuration as depicted in figure 5.
Re claim 7: see figure 8 for teaching a hinge arrangement to lock the waveguide (baffle) in the open position and the closed position due to the friction present within the hinge element without the claim providing specifics of the locking arrangement
Re claim 8: as seen from figure 4 the extenders used can be removed from the enclosure for the use of a hook and loop fastener system
Re claim 9: the claimed reduction of sound pressure as set forth in an inherent result by the addition of the baffle extender(s) as seen in figure 9 since the sound waves as depicted are spread out over a wider distance.
Re claim 11: Marlowe teaches a loudspeaker for an acoustic hailing device, comprising: a body;
one or more primary waveguides (front side of cabinet) integrated into the body and defining a first waveguide mouth (see figure 9, without baffle extender); and
secondary waveguide vanes (baffle board extenders), attached to the body by a locking hinge system (see figure 8 for teaching a hinge arrangement to lock the waveguide (baffle) in the open position and the closed position due to the friction present within the hinge element without the claim providing specifics of the locking arrangement) and moveable between a retracted position and a deployed position,
wherein the secondary waveguide vanes define an enhanced waveguide mouth (See figure 9, with baffle extender) when in the deployed position, the enhanced waveguide mouth having greater surface area than the first waveguide mouth and providing improved acoustic efficiency, i.e. providing enhanced sound quality of the loudspeaker arrangement.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marlowe in view of Cairns (US 2003/0204899 A1).
Re claims 5 and 6: the teaching of Marlowe is discussed above and incorporated herein. Marlowe additionally teaches in paragraph [0054] that any type other fastening method can be used as an alternative to hook and loop attaching methods. Cairns teaching in the environment of attachments that a magnetic or snap attaching method can be used as an alternative to a hook and loop (paragraph [0020]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to replace the attachment method of hook and loop as taught in Marlowe with a magnetic (claim 5) or snap (claim 6) as taught by Cairns to predictably provide an alternative method of attachment of two elements. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marlowe in view of Zastoupil et al. (US 11,716,563 B2).
Re claim 10: The teaching of Marlowe is discussed above and incorporated herein. Marlowe does not teach a handle at the top of the enclosure. Zastoupil et al. teaches in a similar environment to incorporate a handle (210) at the top of the enclosure (see figure 2A) to allow for the speaker enclosure to be easily carried. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate a handle as taught by Zastoupil et al. into the arrangement of Marlowe to predictably provide a means to easily carry the loudspeaker enclosure. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)1) as being anticipated by Heil (US 2006/0062402 A1), cited by applicant.
Re claim 1: Heil teaches a directional loudspeaker for an acoustic hailing device, comprising:
an enclosure (See figures 5A-5C) comprising a primary waveguide system (21) integrated into the enclosure;
and a set of secondary waveguide vanes (3) capable of changing between a reduced-footprint configuration and a deployed configuration (See figure 3 (positions of elements 32d and 32g able to change positions from that indicated by the sold lines to another position indicated by the dashed lines), wherein a waveguide mouth of the loudspeaker has a first size defined by the primary waveguide system when the set of secondary waveguide vanes is in the reduced-footprint configuration, and wherein the waveguide mouth of the loudspeaker has a second size defined by the primary waveguide system and the set of secondary waveguide vanes when the set of secondary waveguide vanes is in the deployed configuration, the second size greater than the first size (See openings formed by the positioning of the flaps (32d and 32g) at the two locations as depicted in figure 3.
Re claim 11: Heil teaches a loudspeaker for an acoustic hailing device, comprising: a body (figures 5A-5C); one or more primary waveguides (21) integrated into the body and defining a first waveguide mouth; and secondary waveguide vanes (32d, 32g) attached to the body by a locking hinge system (See arrangement in figure 6) and moveable between a retracted position and a deployed position(See figure 3 (positions of elements 32d and 32g able to change positions from that indicated by the sold lines to another position indicated by the dashed lines), wherein the secondary waveguide vanes define an enhanced waveguide mouth when in the deployed position, the enhanced waveguide mouth having greater surface area than the first waveguide mouth and providing improved acoustic efficiency (by changing the directivity of sound produced by the loudspeaker).
Re claim 9: the that the change in position of the vanes (32d, 32g) change the directivity of sound produces over a given area that inherently reduces the sound pressure at an operator position (in front of the loudspeaker)
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heil in view of Zastoupil et al. (US 11,716,563 B2).
The teaching of Heil is discussed above and incorporated herein. Heil does not teach a handle at the top of the enclosure. Zastoupil et al. teaches in a similar environment to incorporate a handle (210) at the top of the enclosure (see figure 2A) to allow for the speaker enclosure to be easily carried. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to incorporate a handle as taught by Zastoupil et al. into the arrangement of Heil to predictably provide a means to easily carry the loudspeaker enclosure. Therefor the claimed subject matter would have been obvious before the filing of the invention
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. EA002182 B1 teaches an arrangement with waveguides that can be held at desired position by the use of friction within a hinge or a separate locking mechanism.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 PM EST.
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 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 9/15/25