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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim (s) 21 of U.S. Patent No. (11, 683, 621) and Minarik et al. (US 9,185,478 B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because although, the patented claim mentioned of a portable loudspeaker, comprising: a housing comprising: a front grille; a rear enclosure coupled with the front grille, the rear enclosure defining a rear grille opposing the front grille and the rear enclosure comprising a co-molded construction having a rigid core and a compliant cover over the rigid core and the compliant cover fits over the core in a compliant manner to seal and an electro-acoustic transducer contained in the housing for providing an acoustic output.
However, none of the prior art limit such aspect in regard to the compliant cover fits over the core in a compliant manner to seal against all contact surfaces of the core.
But, Minarik disclose of varied the portion of compliant cover associated with rigid cover as already mentioned herein (col.5 line 20-45) for providing appropriate protection.
Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the portion of compliant cover associated with rigid cover as already mentioned herein (col.5 line 20-45) by varying such mentioned compliant cover associated with the rigid cover and including if desired wherein the rear grille being a portion of the rigid core not covered by the compliant cover, and wherein the compliant cover fits over the core in a compliant manner to seal against all contact surfaces of the core so as to provide proper protection against impact and damage in the portion of the core.
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(s) 1; 3-4, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fustino et al. (US 2019/0014401 A1) and Minarik et al. (US 9,185,478 B2).
Claim 1, Fustino et al. disclose of a portable loudspeaker, comprising: a housing comprising: a front grille (fig.1 (102 w 121); par [41]); a rear enclosure coupled with the front grille, the rear enclosure defining a rear grille opposing the front grille (fig.1 (102 w 123); par [41]).
Nonetheless, Fustino et al never mentioned of particular characteristic of the rear enclosure comprising a co-molded construction having a rigid core and a compliant cover over the rigid core. Minarik disclose of a certain speaker with enclosure having such characteristic as comprising a co-molded construction having a rigid core and a compliant cover over the rigid core (fig.2 (210, 270); col.5 line 15-20 & col.4 line 50-55). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted enclosure having such characteristic as comprising a co-molded construction having a rigid core and a compliant cover over the rigid core so as to provide proper protection against water and sealing as desired.
The combined teaching of Fustino et al and Minarik et al. as a whole, never mentioned of a printed circuit board (PCB) within the enclosure; and an electro-acoustic transducer contained in the housing for providing an acoustic output, wherein the PCB controls operation of the electro-acoustic transducer (Fustino-fig.1 (108); par [37-38]).
Nonetheless, the prior art never mentioned of the circuit being in the rear enclosure, but one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by with the enclosure associated with circuit by varying the arrangement to any desired location and including if desired having such printed circuit board being in the rear enclosure for achieving the same expected result for providing controlling function to the loudspeaker unit.
3. The portable loudspeaker of claim 1, wherein the PCB has a longitudinal dimension spanning at least approximately 75 percent of a longest dimension of the housing (Fustino-fig.1 (108); par [37-38]/the PCB span shape and dimensions cover most of the housing and thus inherently has such at least 75 percentage).
4. The portable loudspeaker of claim 1, wherein the rear enclosure defines a rear of the portable loudspeaker and approximately an entirety of sidewalls of the portable loudspeaker (Fust-fig.1 (102B); par [40, 43]).
8. The portable loudspeaker of claim 1, but the art never specify as wherein at least one of the rigid core or the compliant cover is formed of multiple sub-layers of material.
However, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the mentioned rigid core or compliant cover as mentioned to any desired materials and layers and including the rigid core or the compliant cover is formed of multiple sub-layers of material as per engineering design which yield the same result so as to provide proper protection and sealing as desired.
9. The portable loudspeaker of claim 1, but the prior art never mentioned as wherein the rear grille is defined by the rigid core, and wherein the rear grille is a portion of the rigid core not covered by the compliant cover.
However, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the mentioned rigid core and compliant cover as mentioned to any desired configurations and including the rear grille is defined by the rigid core, and wherein the rear grille is a portion of the rigid core not covered by the compliant cover as per engineering design which yield the same result so as to provide portion of area for proper protection against water and sealing as desired.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fustino et al. (US 2019/0014401 A1) and Minarik et al. (US 9,185,478 B2) and Ho et al. (US 7,813,770 B2).
2. The portable loudspeaker of claim 1, wherein the PCB includes a single PCB that additionally controls interface buttons located on the housing (Fus-par [37-38]).
However, none of the prior art mentioned of the single PCB including an opening for accommodating the electro-acoustic transducer. But HO et al. disclose of the similar analogy wherein a single PCB including an opening for accommodating the electro-acoustic transducer (fig.2 (24/24a); col.3 line 1-5). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such noted single PCB including an opening for accommodating the electro-acoustic transducer so as to reduce and create miniaturized speaker box.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fustino et al. (US 2019/0014401 A1) and Minarik et al. (US 9,185,478 B2) and Lupfer et al. (US 10,327,054 B2).
5. The portable loudspeaker of claim 1, but the prior art never specify wherein the rear enclosure further comprises a set of feet for stabilizing the portable loudspeaker on a surface, wherein the set of feet mitigate rocking of the portable loudspeaker while the electro-acoustic transducer provides the audio output.
But Lupfer et al. disclose of a similar concept related to an enclosure further comprises a set of feet for stabilizing the portable loudspeaker on a surface, wherein the set of feet mitigate rocking of the portable loudspeaker while the electro-acoustic transducer provides the audio output (fig.14 (45); col.9 line 25-30). Thus one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art with the rear enclosure as mentioned by Fustino by adding such noted enclosure further comprises a set of feet for stabilizing the portable loudspeaker on a surface, wherein the set of feet mitigate rocking of the portable loudspeaker while the electro-acoustic transducer provides the audio output so to stabilize the speaker and allow sound out at the elevated condition.
6. The portable loudspeaker of claim 5, wherein the rear enclosure is contoured such that when placed upright on a surface, the contour defines a contact region that rests on the surface, and wherein the contact region and the set of feet provide at least four points of contact with the surface for stabilizing the portable loudspeaker while providing the acoustic output (Fus-fig.3A; fig.3B).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fustino et al. (US 2019/0014401 A1) and Minarik et al. (US 9,185,478 B2) and Savage, Jr. et al. (US 9,875,630 B2).
7. The portable loudspeaker of claim 1, but the prior art lacked of the additional disclosure concerning the electro-acoustic transducer is positioned off-center relative to a lateral centerline of the housing.
However, savage disclose of an electro-acoustic transducer is positioned off-center relative to a lateral centerline of the housing (fig.17A; fig.18A; col.28 line 29-55). Thus, one of the ordinary skill in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted aspect related to the electro-acoustic transducer is positioned off-center relative to a lateral centerline of the housing for configuring a more compact speaker assembly according to transducer associated with housing.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fustino et al. (US 2019/0014401 A1) and Minarik et al. (US 9,185,478 B2) and Howard et al. (US 10,841,675 B2).
10. The portable loudspeaker of claim 1, but none of the prior art specify as further comprising a baffle positioned between the rear enclosure and the front grille, wherein the baffle comprises an opening for the electro-acoustic transducer, and wherein the electro-acoustic transducer is mounted to the baffle.
But , howard disclose of a certain speaker with baffle positioned in a housing between a rear enclosure and a grill , wherein the baffle comprises an opening for the electro-acoustic transducer, and wherein the electro-acoustic transducer is mounted to the baffle (fig.1 (116); col.3 line 5-25). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such noted speaker with baffle positioned in a housing between a rear enclosure and a grill , wherein the baffle comprises an opening for the electro-acoustic transducer, and wherein the electro-acoustic transducer is mounted to the baffle so as to provide the desired acoustic cavity and stabilization to the transducer.
11. The portable loudspeaker of claim 10, further comprising another speaker positioned between the baffle and the rear enclosure, wherein the baffle comprises an opening aligned with a first side of one of the other speaker (fig.1 (118); col.3 line 5-20).
Although, the prior art never specify of the other speaker being a set of passive speakers. But, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the passive speakers as mentioned in (fustino-par [40]) by adding any amount of speakers associated with the baffle and if desired a set of passive speakers for achieving the same expected result for directing the acoustic cavity to desired location.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fustino et al. (US 2019/0014401 A1) and Minarik et al. (US 9,185,478 B2) and Chang (US 2022/0030341).
12. The portable loudspeaker of claim 1, but none of the provided prior art mentioned wherein the co-molded construction of the rear enclosure provides the portable loudspeaker with an ingress protection (IP) rating of at least IP67.
However, Chang et al. disclose of a transducer with enclosure being provided with an ingress protection (IP) rating of at least IP67 (par [18, 35, 44]). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the mentioned co-molded construction of the rear enclosure by configuring such enclosure being provided with an ingress protection (IP) rating of at least IP67 for providing desired protection again water and ensuring proper sealing.
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fustino et al. (US 2019/0014401 A1) and Minarik et al. (US 9,185,478 B2).
13. The portable loudspeaker of claim 1, but he art never specify as wherein a maximum excursion of the electro-acoustic transducer occupies approximately 90 percent or more of a depth of the housing.
However, Minarik et al. disclose of a similar concept related to a maximum excursion of the electro-acoustic transducer occupies approximately a varied and great percentages or more of a depth of the housing (col.4 line 60-col.5 line 20/the speaker and its inherent excursion when activated occupy a large percentage). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted a maximum excursion of the electro-acoustic transducer occupies approximately a varied and great percentages or more of a depth of the housing so as to provide accurate production of low frequency sound.
Although, the art never limit such transducer occupies approximately 90 percent or more of a depth of the housing, again one of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the dimension for the transducer according to the housing by specifying if desired such transducer occupies approximately 90 percent or more of a depth of the housing for achieving the same expected result as to provide accurate production of low frequency sound.
Claim 14, Fustino et al. disclose of a portable loudspeaker, comprising: a housing comprising: a front grille (fig.1 (102 w 121); par [41]); a rear enclosure coupled with the front grille, the rear enclosure defining a rear grille opposing the front grille (fig.1 (102 w 123); par [41]) and an electro-acoustic transducer contained in the housing for providing an acoustic output (Fu-fig.1B (110, 120); par [39]).
Nonetheless, Fustino et al never mentioned of particular characteristic of the rear enclosure comprising a co-molded construction having a rigid core and a compliant cover over the rigid core. Minarikik disclose of a certain speaker with enclosure having such characteristic as comprising a co-molded construction having a rigid core and a compliant cover over the rigid core (fig.2 (210, 270); col.5 line 15-20 & col.4 line 50-55). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted enclosure having such characteristic as comprising a co-molded construction having a rigid core and a compliant cover over the rigid core so as to provide proper protection against impact and damage.
None of the prior art specify of the compliant cover fits over the core in a compliant manner to seal against all contact surfaces of the core (Min-col.5 line 20-25).
But, Minarik disclose of varied the portion of compliant cover associated with rigid cover as already mentioned herein (col.5 line 20-45) for providing appropriate protection.
Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the portion of compliant cover associated with rigid cover as already mentioned herein (col.5 line 20-45) by varying such mentioned compliant cover associated with the rigid cover and including if desired wherein the rear grille being a portion of the rigid core not covered by the compliant cover, and wherein the compliant cover fits over the core in a compliant manner to seal against all contact surfaces of the core so as to provide proper protection against impact and damage in the portion of the core.
15. The portable loudspeaker of claim 14, but, the prior art never limit such concept as wherein the rigid core is at least 15 percent harder than the compliant cover on a hardness scale.
But, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the mentioned rigid core and compliant cover according to particular characteristics and including if desired implementing such rigid core is at least 15 percent harder than the compliant cover on a hardness scale as per engineering preference for achieving the same result as to provide the desired protection against impact or damage.
16. The portable loudspeaker of claim 14, wherein the compliant cover provides impact protection for components in the housing, the components including the electro-acoustic transducer (Mi-fig.1-2; col.2 line 7-20; col.3 line 60-67; col.6 line 45-67).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fustino et al. (US 2019/0014401 A1) and Minarik et al. (US 9,185,478 B2) and Cheung et al. (US 5,515,247).
17. The portable loudspeaker of claim 14, further comprising a mounting strap extending through the rear enclosure (fig.3A (142); par [42]), nonetheless, none of the prior art further disclose as wherein the compliant cover provides an environmental seal around the mounting strap.
However, Cheung disclose of the similar aspect related to a certain cover provides an environmental seal around the mounting strap (fig.4 : col.3 line 1-20). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted aspect related to cover provides an environmental seal around the mounting strap so as to prevent contaminant of entering.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fustino et al. (US 2019/0014401 A1) and Minarik et al. (US 9,185,478 B2) and Chang (US 2022/0030341).
Claim 18, the prior art as in Fustino et al. disclose of a portable loudspeaker, comprising: a housing comprising: a front grille (fig.1 (102 w 121); par [41]); and a rear enclosure coupled with the front grille(fig.1 (102 w 123); par [41]) and an electro-acoustic transducer contained in the housing for providing an acoustic output (fig.1-2; col.6 line 45-67).
Nonetheless, Fustino et al. never specify wherein the rear enclosure comprising a co-molded construction having a rigid core and a compliant cover over the rigid core.
Minarikik disclose of a certain speaker with enclosure having such characteristic as comprising a co-molded construction having a rigid core and a compliant cover over the rigid core (fig.2 (210, 270); col.5 line 15-20 & col.4 line 50-55). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the prior art by adding such noted enclosure having such characteristic as comprising a co-molded construction having a rigid core and a compliant cover over the rigid core so as to provide proper protection against impact and damage.
The prior art never limit the specific regarding the co-molded construction of the rear enclosure provides the portable loudspeaker with an ingress protection (IP) rating of at least IP67.
However, Chang et al. disclose of a transducer with enclosure being provided with an ingress protection (IP) rating of at least IP67 (par [18, 35, 44]). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the mentioned co-molded construction of the rear enclosure by configuring such enclosure being provided with an ingress protection (IP) rating of at least IP67 for providing desired protection again water and ensuring proper sealing.
19. The portable loudspeaker of claim 18, wherein the rear enclosure defines a rear grille opposing the front grille (fig.1 (102 w 123); par [41]) and , wherein the rear grille is aligned with a rear side of a transduer in the rear enclosure (fig.1 (118); col.3 line 5-20).
Although, the prior art never specify of the other speaker being a set of passive speakers. But, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the passive speakers as mentioned in (fustino-par [40]) by adding any amount of speakers being aligned with the rear grilled if desired including such a passive speakers for achieving the same expected result for directing the acoustic cavity to desired location.
Nonetheless , none of the mentioned prior art disclose as wherein the rear grille being a portion of the rigid core not covered by the compliant cover, and wherein the compliant cover fits over the core in a compliant manner to seal against all contact surfaces of the core.
But, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have varied the portion of compliant cover associated with rigid cover as already mentioned herein (col.5 line 20-45 by varying such mentioned compliant cover associated with the rigid cover and including if desired wherein the rear grille being a portion of the rigid core not covered by the compliant cover, and wherein the compliant cover fits over the core in a compliant manner to seal against all contact surfaces of the core so as to provide proper protection against impact and damage in the portion of the core.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fustino et al. (US 2019/0014401 A1) and Minarik et al. (US 9,185,478 B2) and Chang (US 2022/0030341) and Pupecki et al. (US 10,771,873 B2).
20. The portable loudspeaker of claim 19, but the prior art never specify as wherein the passive radiator has an integrated seal.
However, Pupecki et al. disclose of the similar concept regarding passive radiator that has an integrated seal (col.6 line 65-67 & col.8 line 5-25). Thus, one of the ordinary skills in the art could have modified the art by adding such passive radiator that has an integrated seal so as to provide protection against contaminant and water ingress.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DISLER PAUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-6:00 M-F.
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, Chin, Vivian can be reached at (571) 272-7848. 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.
/DISLER PAUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights