Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/781,772

AMPLIFIER HAVING DIFFERENT SECTIONS WITH A CLICKING CONTROL KNOB

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 23, 2024
Examiner
MONIKANG, GEORGE C
Art Unit
2692
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Third Man Hardware LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
701 granted / 941 resolved
+12.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
989
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.9%
-36.1% vs TC avg
§103
58.6%
+18.6% vs TC avg
§102
22.5%
-17.5% vs TC avg
§112
4.0%
-36.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 941 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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. Claims 1, 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fryette et al, US Patent Pub. 20190051273 A1, in view of Kenyon et al, AU 2014246587 A1. (The Fryette et al reference is cited in IDS filed 10/27/2025) Re Claim 1, Fryette et al discloses an amplifier (para 0028: control knob of a modular amplification system, controlled by electronic circuit(para 0032: digital signal processor unit; para 0034: circuitry or signal processing module) where a loudspeaker or a plurality of loudspeakers are integrated within the amplifier), comprising: a body having one or more speakers housed in the body and an electronic circuit connected to the one or more speakers that controls the sound generated by the one or more speakers (para 0028: control knob of a modular amplification system, controlled by electronic circuit(para 0032: digital signal processor unit; para 0034: circuitry or signal processing module) where a loudspeaker or a plurality of loudspeakers are integrated within the amplifier); the body having a control portion, the control portion having one or more control sections and each control section having a plurality of control knobs that control the operation of the electronic circuit (para 0032: Gain, Bass, Middle, Treble, Master control knobs); but fails to explicitly disclose a first control knob of the plurality of control knobs in each control section having an off position wherein the first control knob clicks when entering or exiting the off position. However, Kenyon et al teaches the concept of a control knob that includes a click at the off position enabling a click when the control knob is turned ON/OFF (Kenyon et al, para 00168). It would have been obvious to modify the control knobs of Fryette et al such that they include clicks that sound when the control knobs are entering/existing ON/OFF positions as taught in Kenyon et al for the purpose of alerting a user as to when a control is ON or OFF. Re Claim 6, the combined teachings of Fryette et al and Kenyon et al disclose the amplifier of claim 1, wherein the control portion has a jack into which a musical instrument is plugged (Fryette et al, para 0042: input jack 70 to receive musical instrument plugs). Re Claim 7, the combined teachings of Fryette et al and Kenyon et al disclose the amplifier of claim 1, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the first control knob is a leftmost positioned control knob in each control section. It would have been obvious to identify the left most control knobs (Fryette et al, fig. 4; para 0032: Gain, Bass, Middle, Treble, Master control knobs) as the first control knob since its standard to start counting from left to right. Claim 8 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 1. Claims 2 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fryette et al, US Patent Pub. 20190051273 A1 and Kenyon et al, AU 2014246587 A1, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Stroh et al, US Patent Pub. 20170060169 A1. Re Claim 2, the combined teachings of Fryette et al and Kenyon et al disclose the amplifier of claim 1, but fail to disclose wherein the control portion has a “0” adjacent each first control knob that indicates that the first control knob is in the off position. However, Stroh et al teaches the concept of a control know with values ranging from 0 to 10, where 0 is off and 10 being the maximum level of said control with 5 being the balance/middle (Stroh et al, para 0009). It would have been obvious to modify the device of Fryette et al and Kenyon et al such that its control knobs have values ranging from 0 to 10, where 0 is off and 10 being the maximum level of said control with 5 being the balance/middle as taught in Stroh et al for the purpose of making it easy for user to visually see and know the levels of the control knobs. Claim 9 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 2. Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fryette et al, US Patent Pub. 20190051273 A1, Kenyon et al, AU 2014246587 A1 and Stroh et al, US Patent Pub. 20170060169 A1, as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Elbrecht et al, US Patent 3454702 A. Re Claim 3, the combined teachings of Fryette et al, Kenyon et al and Stroh et al disclose the amplifier of claim 2, but fail to disclose wherein the one or more control sections further comprises a tremolo control section having an intensity control knob that adjusts an intensity of a tremolo sound effect and a speed control knob that adjusts a speed of the tremolo sound effect, wherein the intensity control knob has the off position. However, Elbrecht et al teaches the concept of an amplifier system for electronic musical instruments that include tremolo speed control and tremolo intensity control (Elbrecht et al, col. 1, lines 63-70). It would have been obvious to modify the combined teachings of Fryette et al, Kenyon et al and Stroh et al such that their control knobs include tremolo speed and intensity control knobs as taught in Elbrecht et al such that the tremolo control knobs will also include an ON/OFF click position with 0 to 10 value ranges as the other control knobs modified by Kenyon et al and Stroh et al for the purpose of being able to adjust tremolo settings. Re Claim 4, the combined teachings of Fryette et al, Kenyon et al, Stroh et al and Elbrecht et al disclose the amplifier of claim 3, wherein the one or more control sections further comprises a drive control section having a drive control knob that adjusts a drive of a preamplifier that is part of the electronic circuitry (Fryette et al, fig. 4: GAIN/drive control knob; para 0050), a volume control knob that adjusts a volume of the sound generated by the one or more speakers (Fryette et al, fig. 4: MASTER/volume control knob; paras 0050, 0056), a treble control knob that adjust a high frequency range of sound generated by the one or more speakers (Fryette et al, fig. 4: TREBLE control knob; paras 0032, 0041, 0050), a middle control knob to adjust a middle frequency range of sound generated by the one or more speakers (Fryette et al, fig. 4: MIDDLE control knob; paras 0032, 0041, 0050) and a bass control knob that adjusts a low frequency range of sound generated by the one or more speakers (Fryette et al, fig. 4: BASS control knob; paras 0032, 0041, 0050), wherein the drive control knob has the off position (Stroh et al, para 0009: all the control knobs as modified by Stroh et al include a 0 OFF position and click-off of Kenyon et al (Kenyon et al, para 00168)). Claims 5, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fryette et al, US Patent Pub. 20190051273 A1, Kenyon et al, AU 2014246587 A1, Stroh et al, US Patent Pub. 20170060169 A1 and Elbrecht et al, US Patent 3454702 A as applied to claim 4 above, in view of Chapman et al, US Patent Pub. 20140033900 A1. Re Claim 5, the combined teachings of Fryette et al, Kenyon et al, Stroh et al and Elbrecht et al disclose the amplifier of claim 4, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more control sections further comprises a reverb control section having a jack control knob that adjusts a reverb sound effect, a dwell control knob that adjusts a dwell of the reverb sound effect, a treble control knob that adjust a high frequency range of sound of the reverb sound effect and a bass control knob that adjusts a low frequency range of sound of the reverb sound effect, wherein the jack control knob has the off position. However, Chapman et al teaches the use of a reverb dwell and reverb mix (Chapman et al, para 0004). It would have been obvious to modify the combined teachings of Fryette et al, Kenyon et al, Stroh et al and Elbrecht et al such that they include reverb dwell and reverb mix controls as taught in Chapman et al for the purpose of adjusting the reverb and the input signal strength of the reverb tank, where the modified reverb and reverb dwell controls will include off positions as modified by Kenyon et al and Stroh et al. Furthermore, official notice is taken that both the concepts and advantages of utilizing treble and bass reverb controls are well known. It would have been obvious to modify the Chapman et al device as used to modify the combined teachings of Fryette et al, Kenyon et al, Stroh et al and Elbrecht et al such that they include treble and bass reverb controls for the purpose of controlling how bright or dark the space feels and also the thickness or boominess of a given space based on the output sound. Re Claim 10, the combined teachings of Fryette et al, Kenyon et al, Stroh et al, Elbrecht et al and Chapmen et al disclose the amplifier of claim 5, wherein the drive control knob turns a drive preamplifier off when the drive control know is in the off position. Kenyon et al and Stroh et al are both used to modify the overall system, as analyzed above, to be able to include a click sound to indicate when control knobs enter the ON/OFF position and also values of 0 to 10 that indicate the off status and the maximum level status of said control knobs and as such, all the control knobs including the GAIN/drive, tremolo and reverb related control knobs include an OFF position to turn OFF said controls. Re Claim 11, the combined teachings of Fryette et al, Kenyon et al, Stroh et al, Elbrecht et al and Chapmen et al disclose the amplifier of claim 5, wherein the intensity control knob turns off the tremolo control section when the intensity control knob is in the off position and the jack control knob turns off reverb control section when the jack control knob is in the off position. Kenyon et al and Stroh et al are both used to modify the overall system, as analyzed above, to be able to include a click sound to indicate when control knobs enter the ON/OFF position and also values of 0 to 10 that indicate the off status and the maximum level status of said control knobs and as such, all the control knobs including the GAIN/drive, tremolo and reverb related control knobs include an OFF position to turn OFF said controls. Contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE C MONIKANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1190. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 9AM-5PM, ALT. Fridays off. 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, Carolyn R Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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. /GEORGE C MONIKANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692 2/12/2026 /CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 23, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604126
VEHICULAR MICROPHONE AND VEHICLE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596518
MICROPHONE INTERFACE, VEHICLE, CONNECTION METHOD, AND PRODUCTION METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596888
CONTEXTUALIZATION OF GENERATIVE LANGUAGE MODELS BASED ON ENTITY RESOURCE IDENTIFIERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598428
TRANSDUCER AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591749
MACHINE LEARNING SYSTEM FOR MULTI-DOMAIN LONG DOCUMENT CLUSTERING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+7.2%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 941 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month