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 § 112
Claim 6 is 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 6 contains the trademark/trade name “Adafruit MAX98306.” Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe an audio processor and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1,5,10,11,14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) (to the extent understood) as being fully met by Thorn et al (USPGP 20200394987).
Regarding Claim 1, Thorn discloses an active shoulder rest, comprising:
at least one sound diffusion speaker 210 (exciter reads on a speaker, paras. 0016, 0030);
at least one actuator 210; and
at least one amplifier 240, wherein the at least one sound diffusion speaker 210 and the at least one actuator 210 are connected to the at least one amplifier 240.
Regarding Claim 5, Thorn discloses at least two voice coil actuators 210 (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 10, Thorn discloses a jack 220 configured to couple differential stereo input signals (“two channels of audio” para. 0027) and to power a daughter board (“breakout board,” para. 0027).
Regarding Claim 11, Thorn discloses a system, comprising:
at least one sound diffusion speaker 210;
at least one actuator 210;
at least one amplifier 240, wherein the at least one sound diffusion speaker 210 and the at least one actuator 210 are connected to the amplifier 240; and
at least one port configured for a microphone pickup (“output from the violin” para. 0037).
Regarding Claim 14, Thorn discloses a daughter board (“breakout board,” para. 0027) that is configured to connect to a computer interface (“sent to a computer to be processed” para. 0018).
Regarding Claim 15, Thorn discloses a computer interface connected to the daughter board, wherein the computer interface is configured for signal processing (“sent to a computer to be processed” para. 0018; “processed by a computer in real-time” para. 0036).
Regarding Claim 16, Thorn discloses the computer interface comprises an application configured to implement signal processing that is designed to transform natural sound of a stringed instrument (“sent to a computer to be processed” para. 0018).
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) 2,3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorn in view of Hosler (USPGP 20060283311).
Regarding Claim 2, Thorn (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 1 above) discloses all features claimed, but does not explicitly teach an ABS cabinet that embeds the at least one sound diffusion speaker.
Hosler discloses a musical instrument apparatus which comprises a cabinet (housing 502) made of ABS (para. 0081).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to adapt the teachings of Thorn with those of Hosler, so as to improve the damping and shielding of the device as suggested by Hosler (para. 0081).
Regarding Claim 3, Thorn discloses two diffusion speakers 210. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to adapt Thorn to comprise three diffusion speakers, as the mere duplication of working parts has been held to not constitute nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorn/Hosler, and further in view of Donaldson et al (USPGP 20090161885).
Regarding Claim 4, the Thorn/Hosler combination (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 3 above) discloses all features claimed, including 5-watt drivers (para. 0027) but does not explicitly teach the three speakers comprise a 5-watt driver and two 13mm drivers.
Donaldson discloses a driver system which comprises two 13mm drivers (para. 0056). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to adapt the teachings of Thorn/Hosler with those of Donaldson so as to use a 5-watt driver and two 13mm drivers, as the mere duplication of working parts has been held to not constitute nonobviousness, and the discovering the optimum value of a size or power of a speaker or driver involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected (to the extent understood) under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorn.
Regarding Claim 6, Thorn (applied here in a similar manner as to claim 1 above) discloses all features claimed, including at least one amplifier comprises an ADAFRUIT MAX9744, but does not explicitly teach an amplifier comprising an ADAFRUIT MAX98306.
Official Notice is taken that it would have been notoriously old and well-known in the art to use either the MAX9744 or MAX98306, as both are known Class D audio amplifiers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to adapt the teachings of Thorn with the ADAFRUIT MAX98306 as they are functionally equivalent.
Claim(s) 7-9,12,13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorn in view of Soltoft (WO 2021144343 A1).
Regarding Claims 7-9, Thorn (applied here in a similar manner as claim 1 above) discloses all features claimed, but does not explicitly teach a port configured for and attached to a detachable condenser or a contact microphone.
Soltoft (e.g. Fig. 14) discloses a microphone assembly for a musical instrument which comprises a port 5 configured for and attached to a detachable condenser (2, para. 0035) or a contact microphone (para. 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to adapt the teachings of Thorn with those of Soltoft, so as to allow for a greater variety of microphones to be used with the musical instrument, as is known in the art to be desirable.
Regarding Claims 12,13 Soltoft is applied to Thorn here in a similar manner as to claims 7-9 and 11 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited show related teachings in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY DONELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2061. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
JEFFREY . DONELS
Examiner
Art Unit 2837
/JEFFREY DONELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights