The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim 11 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 2.
Claim 16 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 3.
Claim 19 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 10.
When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 2-4 and 10-20 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.
Claim 2 is indefinite on line 2 because it is not understood what one means by “at least one extending member connected to the speaker housing”. There is no clear antecedent basis for “the speaker housing”. Perhaps claim 2 should be amended to be “at least one extending member connected to the speaker enclosure” to clarify the claim language.
Claim 2 is further indefinite on lines 2-3 because the claim refers to “the damping elements”, wherein claim 1 refers to “one or more damping elements”. Perhaps the claim should be amended to be “the one or more damping elements’ to clarify the claim language.
Claim 4 is indefinite on line 2 because it is not understood what one means by “support and suspend the speaker housing within the system housing”. There is no clear antecedent basis for “the speaker housing”. Perhaps claim 4 should be amended to be “support and suspend the speaker enclosure within the system housing” to clarify the claim language.
Claim 11 is indefinite on lines 13-14 because it is not understood what one means by “at least one extending member connected to the speaker housing”. There is no clear antecedent basis for “the speaker housing”. Perhaps claim 11 should be amended to be “at least one extending member connected to the speaker enclosure” to clarify the claim language.
Claim 11 is further indefinite on line 14 because the claim line refers to “the damping elements”, wherein line 11 of the claim refers to “one or more damping elements”. Perhaps the claim should be amended to be “the one or more damping elements’ to clarify the claim language.
Claim 12 is indefinite on lines 2-3 because it is not understood what one means by “four damping elements connected to four corners of the speaker housing, and wherein each corner of the speaker housing has an inward curve”. There is no clear antecedent basis for “the speaker housing”. Perhaps claim 12 should be amended to be “four damping elements connected to four corners of the speaker enclosure, and wherein each corner of the speaker enclosure has an inward curve” to clarify the claim language.
Claim 13 is indefinite on line 2-3 because it is not understood what one means by “extending member connected to the speaker housing further comprises three extending member engaging openings in the speaker housing”. There is no clear antecedent basis for “the speaker housing”. Perhaps claim 13 should be amended to be “extending member connected to the speaker enclosure further comprises three extending member engaging openings in the speaker enclosure” to clarify the claim language.
Claim 15 is indefinite on line 2 because it is not understood what one means by “wall of the speaker housing”. There is no clear antecedent basis for “the speaker housing”. Perhaps clam 15 should be amended to be “wall of the speaker enclosure” to clarify the claim language.
Claim 20 is indefinite on lines 13-14 because it is not understood what one means by “at least one extending member connected to the speaker housing”. There is no clear antecedent basis for “the speaker housing”. Perhaps claim 20 should be amended to be “at least one extending member connected to the speaker enclosure” to clarify the claim language.
Claim 20 is further indefinite on lines 13-15 because it is not understood what one means by “the resilient member includes a ring … and a support pole extending through the ring”. Specifically, it is not understood how the resilient member includes the support pole. Perhaps the claim should be amended to be “the resilient member includes a ring … and the one or more damping elements include a support pole extending through the ring”, in view of similar language in claims 2 and 11, to clarify the claim language.
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 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haastrup et al. (US 2019/0364357).
Regarding claim 1, Haastrup discloses a teleconferencing system (see figs. 5-7, for example), comprising: a system housing 710; a speaker enclosure 500 configured within the system housing 710; a speaker mounted to the speaker enclosure 500; and one or more damping elements 620, 640 coupling the speaker enclosure 500 to the system housing 710, wherein the one more damping elements 620, 640 suspend the speaker enclosure 500 within the system housing 710 such that the speaker enclosure 500 is isolated and separate from the system housing 710 be at least a minimum distance. The one or more damping elements 620, 640 provide the only structural coupling between the speaker enclosure 500 and the system housing 710. The one or more damping elements 620, 640 are directly connected to the speaker enclosure 500 with a resilient member 640.
Regarding claim 4, the one or more damping elements 620, 640 are configured to support and suspend the speaker enclosure 500 within the system housing 710 along three dimensions. See para. 0004.
Regarding claim 5, the teleconferencing system further includes a microphone disposed in the system housing 710. The one or more damping elements 620, 640 are configured to reduce an amount of mechanical energy generated by the speaker and coupled to the microphone via the one or more damping elements 620, 640. See para. 0005 and fig. 2, for example.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, the one or more damping elements 620, 640 dampen audio spectrum mechanical energy generated by the speaker and mechanically coupled to the system housing 710 by at least 6 dB. The audio spectrum is a voice spectrum of 100 Hz – 3000 Hz. See para. 0005.
Regarding claim 8, the one or more damping elements 620, 640 have a non-linear force response profile. See para. 0005.
Regarding claim 9, the minimum distance is 2 mm. See para. 0004.
Claims 2, 3, and 10 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.
Claims 11-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Note objection to claims 11, 16, and 19 above, however, as being substantial duplicate claims of claims 2, 3, and 10, respectively. One cannot have duplicate claims allowed in the application.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited on the PTO-892 each disclose a system including a speaker and one or more damping elements coupled to the speaker.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL W HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-7588.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen, can be reached at telephone number 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 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 to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/PAUL W HUBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
pwh
January 24, 2026