DETAILED ACTION
1. Applicant's amendments and remarks submitted on May 4, 2026 have been entered. Claims 9-11, 13 and 15-16 have been amended. Claims 12 and 18 have been cancelled. Claims 1-11, 13-17 and 19-20 are still pending on this application, with claims 9-11, 13-17 and 20 being rejected, and claims 1-8 and 19 being allowed. All new grounds of rejection were necessitated by the amendments to claims 9-11, 13 and 15-16. Accordingly, this action is made final.
2. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 10-11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
5. Claim 10 recites “wherein the pipe segment has an interior volume, respectively.” It is not clear what the limitation “respectively” is referring to, as the claim now recites one pipe segment and one interior volume. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
6. Claim 11 is dependent on claim 10 and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the same reason as parent claim 10.
7. Claim 13 recites the limitation “the EFT structure” in line 5 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should probably say “the ETF structure.”
8. Claim 13 further recites the limitation “the EFT system” in line 6 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
9. Claims 14-16 are dependent on claim 13 and are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the same reason as parent claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
10. 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.
11. Claim(s) 9-10, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent No 5696357 to Starobin.
As to claim 9, Starobin discloses a loudspeaker system, comprising: a loudspeaker enclosure having a port opening and an interior volume; a driver supported by the loudspeaker enclosure (see figures 2-3; col. 3, lines 54-67); a vent lumen associated with the port opening to provide communication between the interior volume and an environment (aperture 112/114, see figures 2-3; col. 4, lines 1-8); and an Eigen Tone Filter ("ETF") structure comprising a pipe segment positioned within the vent lumen (port 116/118 tuned for resonance frequency, see figure 2; col. 3, lines 36-52; col. 4, lines 9-20; col. 5, lines 7-23 and 38-61; col. 6, lines 7-25).
As to claim 10, Starobin further discloses wherein the pipe segment has an interior volume, respectively (see figure 2; col. 4, lines 9-12).
As to claim 17, Starobin further discloses wherein the ETF structure is substantially coaxially aligned with the vent lumen and has an inside diameter in a range of 25 to 38mm (1 or 1.3 inch diameter, see col. 5, lines 18-37; col. 7, lines 35-49).
As to claim 20, Starobin further discloses wherein the driver comprises a midrange driver or a midbass driver, and wherein the loudspeaker system further comprises a baffle supporting the midrange driver or midbass driver (see figures 2-3; col. 3, lines 54-67).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Starobin in view of WO 2007/109828 A1 to Velican et al. (“Velican”).
As to claim 11, Starobin discloses the loudspeaker system of claim 10.
Starobin discloses varying lengths (col. 8, lines 15-24), does not expressly disclose wherein the pipe segment has a segment length, wherein the segment length is approximately one quarter of a wavelength at a selected ETF port signal notch frequency which is within a band of frequencies comprising an open pipe resonance of the vent lumen. However such a configuration is known the art, as taught by Velican, which discloses a similar loudspeaker system, and further discloses the resonance controlling duct structure having a length that is substantially one quarter wavelength associated with the frequency of the resonance peak within a pass band of the system and corresponding resonance notch of the resonance controlling duct structure (see figures 2-3; pg. 3, lines 8-19). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being to control a resonance of the speaker structure, and in particular to cancel a resonance peak caused by unwanted resonances of the structure (Velican pg. 1, lines 4-6 and 22-24; pg. 3, lines 8-19).
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claims 1-8 and 19 are allowed.
15. Claims 13-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
16. 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.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABRINA DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 5712727488. 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.
/SABRINA DIAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/AHMAD F. MATAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights