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
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 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) 1-5, 7, 9, 10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Halley et al. (US 2019/0215602) herein Halley.
Regarding claim 1, Halley discloses an acoustic waveguide (acoustic waveguide 6, Fig. 2), comprising: a housing having a proximal end with an inlet aperture and a distal end with an outlet aperture (housing 4 with a proximal end with an inlet aperture 40 and a distal end with an outlet aperture (front surface 20 of waveguide 6 and midrange openings 16, Figs. 2, 4); a mounting flange positioned at the proximal end and configured to acoustically couple a driver to inlet aperture (mounting flange 25 positioned at the proximal end and configured to acoustically couple a driver 12 to inlet aperture 40, Figs. 2-4, [0029]); and a plurality of sound channels extending through the housing and acoustically coupling the inlet aperture to the outlet aperture (high-frequency channels 32a-32d extending through the housing coupling the inlet aperture to the outlet aperture, Fig. 4), each sound channel at least partially defining a sound path having an acoustic length, wherein at least one of the sound paths of the plurality of sound channels has a bend angle that exceeds 180 degrees (sound channels at least partially define sound paths 36a-36d having an acoustic length with channels 32b and 32c each having bend angles that exceeds 180 degrees, Fig. 4, [0036]).
Regarding claim 2, Halley discloses wherein the driver is a high-frequency driver with an output frequency greater than 500Hz (speaker drivers designed to produce high-frequency 2 kHz-20Khz, [0003]).
Regarding claim 3, Halley discloses wherein the acoustic length of each sound path of the plurality of sound channels is substantially equal to each of the other sound paths (high-frequency sound paths 36a-d of sound channels 32a-32d have substantially same path lengths as each other, [0036], Figs. 1, 4).
Regarding claim 4, Halley discloses further comprising a plurality of inlet sound channels positioned between and acoustically coupling the inlet aperture and the plurality of sound channels, wherein the inlet sound channels divide the inlet aperture into at least two sound paths (there are four sound paths 36a-d of sound channels 32a-d, Figs. 1, 4).
Regarding claim 5, Halley discloses wherein the plurality of sound channels comprises primary sound channels, wherein the acoustic waveguide further comprises a plurality of secondary sound channels positioned between and acoustically coupling the inlet sound channels and the primary sound channels, and wherein the secondary sound channels divide each of the inlet sound channels into at least two sound paths (secondary sound channels seen near 140 that are positioned between and acoustically coupling the inlet sound channels to primary sound channels 116a and 116b, dividing said inlet sound channel into at least two sound paths 116a and 116b; the same applies to primary sound channels 116e and 116f, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 7, Halley discloses wherein the plurality of primary sound channels divide each of the secondary sound channels into at least two sound paths (plurality of sound channels 116a and 116b split the secondary sound channel near 140 into at least two sound paths, similarly 116e and 116f split the secondary sound channel on the other side into at least two sound paths, Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 9, Halley discloses wherein the outlet aperture is partitioned such that each of the plurality of sound channels is acoustically coupled to an individual portion of the outlet aperture (each plurality of sound channels 32a-32d corresponds individually to an individual partition in the outlet aperture as seen in Figs. 2, 4).
Regarding claim 10, Halley discloses wherein the acoustic waveguide is mirror symmetric about a plane perpendicular to a surface of the mounting flange bisecting the inlet aperture, and wherein the plane is positioned vertically such that a vector across the width of the acoustic waveguide is normal to the plane (the acoustic waveguide is mirror symmetrical about a plane perpendicular to a surface of the mounting flange bisecting the inlet aperture as seen in Figs. 2-4, 7, and 10-12).
Regarding claim 13, Halley discloses an acoustic waveguide (acoustic waveguide 6, Fig. 2), comprising: a housing having a proximal end with a first inlet aperture and a second inlet aperture and a distal end with a first outlet aperture and a second outlet aperture (housing 4 with a proximal end with an inlet aperture 40 and a distal end with an outlet aperture (front surface 20 of waveguide 6 and midrange openings 16, Figs. 2, 4); a first mounting flange positioned at the proximal end and configured to acoustically couple a first driver to the first inlet aperture (mounting flange 25 positioned at the proximal end and configured to acoustically couple a driver 12 to inlet aperture 40, Figs. 2-4, [0029]); a second mounting flange positioned at the proximal end and configured to acoustically couple a second driver to the second inlet aperture (Figs. 13C-13F teach second driver 12 which would have a symmetrical mounting flange 25 positioned at the proximal end and configured to acoustically couple a driver 12 to inlet aperture 40, Figs. 2-4, [0029], [0058]-[0061]); a plurality of first sound channels extending through the housing and acoustically coupling the first inlet aperture to the first outlet aperture (high-frequency channels 32a-32d extending through the housing coupling the inlet aperture to the outlet aperture, Fig. 4 said channels corresponding to first driver 12, Figs. 13C-13F, [0058]-[0061]); and a plurality of second sound channels extending through the housing and acoustically coupling the second inlet aperture to the second outlet aperture (high-frequency channels 32a-32d extending through the housing coupling the inlet aperture to the outlet aperture, Fig. 4, said channels corresponding to second driver 12, Figs. 13C-13F, [0058]-[0061]), wherein each of the plurality of the first and second sound channels at least partially defines a sound path having an acoustic length substantially equal to each of the other sound paths (high-frequency sound paths 36a-d of sound channels 32a-32d have substantially same path lengths as each other, [0036], Figs. 1, 4, said channels corresponding to first and second waveguide would be identical to each other); and wherein at least one of the sound paths of the plurality of first sound channels has a bend angle that exceeds 180 degrees (all the sound channels of each waveguide at least partially define sound paths 36a-36d having an acoustic length with channels 32b and 32c each having bend angles that exceeds 180 degrees, Fig. 4, [0036], [0058]-[0061]).
Regarding claim 14, Halley discloses wherein at least one of the sound paths of the plurality of second sound channels has a bend angle that exceeds 180 degrees (all the sound channels of each waveguide at least partially define sound paths 36a-36d having an acoustic length with channels 32b and 32c each having bend angles that exceeds 180 degrees, Fig. 4, [0036], [0058]-[0061], thus the second waveguide would have the same channels 32b and 32c each having bend angles that exceeds 180 degrees).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 4 when applied to the multiple waveguides of claim 13.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 15 when applied to the second waveguide of claim 13 which would have identical/symmetrical features as the first waveguide and its corresponding plurality of first inlets and sound channels.
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.
Claim 6, 8, 11, 12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halley et al. (US 2019/0215602) herein Halley.
Regarding claims 6 and 17, while Halley does not specifically teach wherein each of the secondary sound channels changes a direction of the corresponding sound path in the range of about 70O to 90O from a direction perpendicular to the mounting flange, Halley does not limits its dimensions and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the change in direction be in the range of about 70O to 90O from a direction perpendicular to the mounting flange, since applicant has not disclosed that having such a change in direction solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with change in direction of Halley.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the secondary sound channels of Halley to change a direction of the corresponding sound path in the range of about 70O to 90O from a direction perpendicular to the mounting flange in order to achieve a desired level of sound projection through a waveguide.
Regarding claim 8, while Halley does not specifically teach wherein the at least one of the sound paths of the plurality of primary sound channels has a bend radius in the range of about 0.25 inches to 0.8 inches, Halley does not limits its dimensions and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a bend radius in the range of about 0.25 inches to 0.8 inches, since applicant has not disclosed that having such a bend radius range solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with bend radius of Halley.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of primary sound channels of Halley to have a bend radius in the range of about 0.25 inches to 0.8 inches in order to better fit into the dimensions of a compact waveguide while still achieving the desired waveguide propagation.
Regarding claim 11, while Halley does not specifically teach wherein the primary sound channels flare laterally and/or vertically outwards to the distal end along at least a portion of the primary sound channels downstream of a bend area, and wherein the lateral flares of the primary sound channels define a flare angle at distal portions of the primary sound channels between about 10O and 20O, between about 12O and 18O, or between about 14O and 16O, Halley does show the flaring at the distal end of the waveguide in Fig. 4 and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the lateral flares of the primary sound channels define a flare angle at distal portions of the primary sound channels between about 10O and 20O, between about 12O and 18O, or between about 14O and 16O, since applicant has not disclosed that having such angles solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with flare angles of Halley.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the primary sound channels of Halley to flare laterally and/or vertically outwards to the distal end along at least a portion of the primary sound channels downstream of a bend area, and wherein the lateral flares of the primary sound channels define a flare angle at distal portions of the primary sound channels between about 10O and 20O, between about 12O and 18O, or between about 14O and 16O in order to achieve desired wave propagation while minimizing standing waves in a waveguide.
Regarding claim 12, while Halley does not specifically teach wherein each sound path is an arcuate path defined by at least one bend having a radius of curvature and having a path width at the at least one bend, wherein the radius of curvature is equal to or greater than double the path width at the bend, Halley does not limits its dimensions and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to define an arcuate path by at least one bend having a radius of curvature and having a path width at the at least one bend, wherein the radius of curvature is equal to or greater than double the path width at the bend, since applicant has not disclosed that having such a ratio between the radius of curvature and path width of the bend solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with path of Halley.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sound paths of Halley such that an arcuate path defined by at least one bend having a radius of curvature and having a path width at the at least one bend, wherein the radius of curvature is equal to or greater than double the path width at the bend in order to achieve desired wave propagation while minimizing standing waves in a waveguide.
Regarding claim 18, while Halley does not specifically teach wherein a ratio of a depth of the housing to a width of the outlet aperture is in the range of about 1:1.2 to 1:2, in the range of about 1:1.4 to 1:1.8, is about 1:1.44, or is about 1:1.73, Halley does not limit the dimensions of its housing and outlets, and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a ratio of depth of the housing to a width of the outlet aperture is in the range of about 1:1.2 to 1:2, in the range of about 1:1.4 to 1:1.8, is about 1:1.44, or is about 1:1.73, since applicant has not disclosed that such a ratio solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the dimensional ratios of Halley.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dimensional ratios of Halley such that a ratio of a depth of the housing to a width of the outlet aperture is in the range of about 1:1.2 to 1:2, in the range of about 1:1.4 to 1:1.8, is about 1:1.44, or is about 1:1.73 in order to achieve desired wave propagation while minimizing standing waves in a waveguide.
Regarding claim 19, while Halley does not specifically teach wherein the acoustic length of the sound channels is between about 120% and 200% of the depth of the housing, between about 130% and 145% of the depth of the housing, between about 138% and 141% of the depth of the housing, about 139.6% of the depth of the housing, or about 136.7% of the depth of the housing, Halley does not limit its housing and waveguide dimensions and it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the acoustic length of the sound channels is between about 120% and 200% of the depth of the housing, between about 130% and 145% of the depth of the housing, between about 138% and 141% of the depth of the housing, about 139.6% of the depth of the housing, or about 136.7% of the depth of the housing, since applicant has not disclosed that such a dimensional relationship solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with acoustic lengths and housing depths of Halley.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the acoustic length and depth of housing of Halley such to have the acoustic length of the sound channels is between about 120% and 200% of the depth of the housing, between about 130% and 145% of the depth of the housing, between about 138% and 141% of the depth of the housing, about 139.6% of the depth of the housing, or about 136.7% of the depth of the housing in order to achieve desired wave propagation while minimizing standing waves in a waveguide.
Regarding claim 20, while Halley does not specifically teach further comprising at least one compression driver connected to the mounting flange and configured to generate and direct sound into the inlet aperture, Halley does teach the use of a high-frequency driver (high-frequency driver 12, Fig. 2) and it is well known in the art for high-frequency drivers to be compression drivers.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the high-frequency driver of Halley to be a compression driver in order to take advantage of the many well-known benefits of a compression driver such as higher outpour for given input power. The Examiner takes Official Notice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5728. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 PM.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-7503. 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.
/SEAN H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691