DETAILED ACTION
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
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.
Claims 1-4 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Voishvillo, U.S. Patent No. 11,523,210, patented on December 6, 2022 (Voishvillo).
As to Claim 1, Voishvillo discloses (in Figs. 5A and 5B) a waveguide [508] comprising: an acoustic inlet [524] to receive acoustic energy from an acoustic transducer [502, 504] (col. 4, lines 56-58); an acoustic outlet (at [525]) to emit the acoustic energy (col. 5, lines 26-31); and an acoustic conduit [528] to transfer the acoustic energy from the inlet [524] to the outlet (at [525]), wherein the acoustic conduit [528] and the acoustic outlet (at [525]) are configured to distribute the acoustic energy to a listening zone without a primary axis (SPL increases moving away from the speaker, which cancels out any movement off axis; col. 4, lines 31-42; see Figs. 3 and 4).
As to Claim 2, Voishvillo remains as applied above to Claim 1. Voishvillo further discloses that at least three locations along a plane [106] have equal sound pressure levels (col. 4, lines 31-42; see Figs. 3 and 4).
As to Claim 3, Voishvillo remains as applied above to Claim 1. Voishvillo further discloses that the acoustic outlet (at [525]) comprises a circular or semi-circular shape (see Fig. 6A).
As to Claim 4, Voishvillo remains as applied above to Claim 1. Voishvillo further discloses that the acoustic outlet (at [525]) radially encompasses one of a 360-degree range, a 180-degree range, or a 90-degree range (sound is distributed evenly around the waveguide, which would correspond to a 360-degree range; col. 5, lines 24-31).
As to Claim 8, Voishvillo remains as applied above to Claim 1. Voishvillo further discloses that the waveguide [508] is configured to produce the same sound pressure level (SPL) at three locations on a plane [106] (col. 4, lines 31-42; see Figs. 3 and 4).
As to Claim 9, Voishvillo remains as applied above to Claim 1. Voishvillo further discloses that the waveguide [508] is configured to produce the same SPL across multiple distances along a plane [106] oriented perpendicular to an axis [306] of the waveguide [508] (col. 4, lines 31-42; see Figs. 3 and 4).
As to Claim 10, Voishvillo remains as applied above to Claim 1. Voishvillo further discloses a speaker assembly [500] comprising: the waveguide [508]; and wherein the acoustic transducer [502, 504] is coupled to the acoustic inlet [524] (see Fig. 4).
As to Claim 11, Voishvillo remains as applied above to Claim 10. Voishvillo further discloses an enclosure [506] to which the waveguide [508] is secured (see Figs. 5A and 5B).
As to Claim 12, Voishvillo remains as applied above to Claim 10. Voishvillo further discloses another acoustic transducer [906] coupled to the waveguide or to the acoustic inlet [520] (there is an additional concentric tweeter [906]; col. 6, lines 45-54; see Fig. 9A).
As to Claim 13, Voishvillo remains as applied above to Claim 1. Voishvillo further discloses a loudspeaker [500] comprising: the waveguide [508]; and a second acoustic transducer [906] coupled to the waveguide or to the acoustic inlet [520] (there is an additional concentric tweeter [906]; col. 6, lines 45-54; see Fig. 9A); and an enclosure [506] to which the loudspeaker [500] is secured.
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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voishvillo, U.S. Patent No. 11,523,210, patented on December 6, 2022 (Voishvillo), in view of Yeh et al., U.S. Patent No. 10,779,079, patented on September 15, 2020 (Yeh).
As to Claim 5, Voishvillo remains as applied above to Claim 1. Voishvillo does not explicitly disclose that the acoustic outlet is configured to distribute a greater portion of the acoustic energy in selected directions. However, providing directional control of acoustic energy for similar acoustic devices was well known. Yeh teaches a waveguide [21] having a sound outlet [110] configured to distribute a greater portion of the acoustic energy in selected directions (a directivity adjustment assembly [40] allows for an adjustment of a sound pressure adjustment area; col. 5, lines 4-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to configure the acoustic outlet to distribute a greater portion of the acoustic energy in selected directions, by incorporating the technique disclosed by Yeh. The improvement would have provided the advantage of user customization.
As to Claim 6, Voishvillo remains as applied above to Claim 1. Voishvillo does not explicitly disclose that the acoustic outlet is configured to have a user-configurable distribution of the acoustic energy. However, providing user control of acoustic energy distribution for similar acoustic devices was well known. Yeh teaches a waveguide [21] having a sound outlet [110] configured to have a user-configurable distribution of the acoustic energy (a directivity adjustment assembly [40] allows for an adjustment of a sound pressure adjustment area; col. 5, lines 4-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to configure the acoustic outlet to have a user-configurable distribution of the acoustic energy, by incorporating the technique disclosed by Yeh. The improvement would have provided the advantage of user customization.
As to Claim 7, Voishvillo remains as applied above to Claim 1. Voishvillo does not explicitly disclose user-selectable locations to accommodate occluding members to provide a user-configurable distribution of the acoustic energy. However, providing user control of acoustic energy distribution for similar acoustic devices was well known. Yeh teaches a waveguide [21] having user-selectable locations to accommodate occluding members [41, 42] to provide a user-configurable distribution of the acoustic energy (a directivity adjustment assembly [40] allows for an adjustment of a sound pressure adjustment area; col. 5, lines 4-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to provide user-selectable locations to accommodate occluding members to provide a user-configurable distribution of the acoustic energy, by incorporating the technique disclosed by Yeh. The improvement would have provided the advantage of user customization.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Robinson whose telephone number is (571) 270-3956. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fan Tsang, can be reached on (571) 272-7547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RYAN ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694