DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claims 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohut, U.S. Patent No. 6,931,135 (hereinafter Kohut) in view of Brunet et al, U.S. Patent No. 11,356,773 (hereinafter Brunet).
Regarding claim 15, Kohut discloses an apparatus (from column 4, see an excursion detector 13 mounted to the front of the cone driver to measure the excursion of the driver’s dust cap 15), comprising control circuitry (from column 3, see test circuit) configured to:
measure membrane excursion values of a speaker device at different frequencies to determine a maximum excursion value (from column 4, see maximum safe travel of the cone can be determined);
determine maximum voltages that correspond to the maximum excursion value at different frequencies (from column 5, see a maximum safe peak voltage can be recorded for each test frequency), the maximum voltages including a first maximum voltage and that causes the speaker device to vibrate a membrane of the speaker device at the maximum excursion value in response to the first maximum voltage being applied to the speaker device at the first frequency (because the curve of Figure 6 varies across the spectrum (for example, dropping significantly at lower frequencies like 20Hz-40Hz to prevent mechanical over-excursion), Kohut inherently discloses that a first maximum voltage corresponds to a first frequency, a second maximum voltage corresponds to a second frequency, and so on); and
determine, responsive to the maximum voltages, a model corresponding to the speaker device (from column 5, see The measurement data collected is used to design the shaping filters).
Still on the issue of claim 15, Kohut does not teach the model is nonlinear. All the same, Brunet discloses the model is non-linear (see abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kohut wherein the model is nonlinear as taught by Brunet. This modification would have improved the system’s reliability by improving precision as suggested by Brunet.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Kohut and Brunet discloses the control circuitry is further configured to determine the nonlinear model responsive to a combination of maximum voltages and gain values of the speaker device that corresponds to the different frequencies (from Figure 6 of Kohut, see Maximum Safe Peak Voltage).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kohut and Brunet discloses the control circuitry is further configured to measure the membrane excursion values using a laser (from column 7 of Brunet, see The training system 300 records (i.e., measures), utilizing one or more sensors (e.g., a laser sensor).
3. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohut combined with Brunet in further view of Lawrence et al, U.S. Patent No. 10,616,683 (hereinafter Lawrence).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Kohut and Brunet does not teach the control circuitry is first control circuitry configured to provide the nonlinear model to second control circuitry and the second control circuitry is configured to adjust an audio signal corresponding to the speaker device using the nonlinear model. All the same, Lawrence discloses the control circuitry is first control circuitry configured to provide the model to second control circuitry and the second control circuitry is configured to adjust an audio signal corresponding to the speaker device using the model (from column 6, see Gain calculator block 23 then accepts this estimated speaker excursion x and a predetermined value of the excursion limit xlim and generates an appropriate gain value g to be applied to a delayed version Vd of the input signal V by gain element 14, which is located in the signal path before the loudspeaker 10, so as to attenuate the delayed input signal Vd by a factor g and hence reduce the speaker excursion to less than the provided maximum displacement value xlim). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the combination of Kohut and Brunet wherein the control circuitry is first control circuitry configured to provide the model to second control circuitry and the second control circuitry is configured to adjust an audio signal corresponding to the speaker device using the model as taught by Lawrence. This modification would have improved reliability by providing a delay as suggested by Lawrence.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10-14 and 21-24 are allowed while claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
5. Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLISA ANWAH whose telephone number is 571-272-7533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 8.30 AM to 6 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn Edwards can be reached on 571-270-7136. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-8300 for After Final communications.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2600.
Olisa Anwah
Patent Examiner
October 9, 2026
/OLISA ANWAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
