DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s traversal of the restriction requirement between Group I and Group II has been considered and is found persuasive, and therefore, the restriction requirement is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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)(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.
3. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mihelich et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0228945 (hereinafter Mihelich).
Regarding claim 1, Mihelich discloses an apparatus (from Figure 1, see 100) comprising:
equalizer circuitry (from Figure 1, see 116) having first (from Figure 1, see 154) and second inputs (from Figure 1, see 124) and an output (from Figure 1, see 120), the equalizer circuitry configured to adjust an audio signal at the first input responsive to coefficient values (from Figure 1, see 144) at the second input;
amplifier circuitry (from Figure 1, see 104) having an input coupled to the output of the equalizer circuitry, and having an output; and
control circuitry (from Figure 1, see 112) having a first input (from Figure 3, see 124) coupled to the first input of the equalizer circuitry, having a second input (from Figure 1, see 140) coupled to the output of the amplifier circuitry, and having an output coupled to the second input of the equalizer circuitry, the control circuitry configured to determine a resonant frequency of a speaker device (from Figure 1, see 106) responsive to the audio signal and a signal at the output of the amplifier circuitry, and to provide the coefficient values at the output of the control circuitry responsive to the resonant frequency of the speaker device.
Regarding claim 2, Mihelich teaches further including measurement circuitry (from Figure 1, see 110) having an input coupled to the output of the amplifier circuitry, the measurement circuitry configured to determine a voltage and a current of an output audio signal.
Regarding claim 3, Mihelich discloses wherein the control circuitry is configured to determine the resonant frequency responsive to the current (from Figure 1, see 130) and the voltage (from Figure 1, see 128) of the output audio signal.
Regarding claim 4, Mihelich discloses wherein the equalizer circuitry (from Figure 8, see 116) includes: first equalizer circuitry (from Figure 8, see 810) having a first input coupled to the control circuitry, a second input, and an output, the first equalizer circuitry configured to receive the audio signal at the second input; and second equalizer circuitry (from Figure 8, see 812) having an input coupled to the output of the first equalizer circuitry and an output coupled to the amplifier circuitry.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihelich in view of Brunet et al, U.S. Patent No. 11,356,773 (hereinafter Brunet).
Regarding claim 6, Mihelich discloses an apparatus (from Figure 1, see 100) comprising:
control circuitry (from Figure 1, see 112) configured to:
determine a speaker device resonant frequency; and determine coefficient values responsive to the speaker device resonant frequency and a speaker device model (from Figure 11, see 1110);
equalizer circuitry (from Figure 1, see 116) coupled to the control circuitry and configured to provide an adjusted audio signal using the coefficient values; and
amplifier circuitry (from Figure 1, see 104) coupled to the equalizer circuitry and configured to amplify the adjusted audio signal to provide an output audio signal.
Still on the issue of claim 6, Mihelich 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 Mihelich 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 7, Mihelich discloses wherein to determine the speaker device resonant frequency, the control circuitry is configured to: determine an impedance value based on the output signal; compare the impedance value to a template impedance form; and determine the speaker device resonant frequency responsive to the comparison (see paragraph 0035 of Mihelich).
Regarding claim 8, Mihelich discloses generate a plurality of bandpass filters that are centered at different frequencies; select, from bandpass filters that are centered at different frequencies, a bandpass filter that is centered at the determined speaker device resonant frequency; and apply the bandpass filter to the audio signal to generate a filtered audio signal (see paragraph 0047 of Mihelich).
6. Claim 15 is 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.
Regarding claim 15, Kohut discloses 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); 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 5, 9-14 and 16-20 are 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
8. 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
Olisa Anwah
Patent Examiner
July 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights