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 .
This office action is in response to applicant’s filing dated 4/1/2026, claims 1-7 were cancelled, claims 8-21 were newly introduced. Accordingly claims 8-21 are currently pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 8, 13, 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spillmann et al. (US 20180007456 A1) hereinafter Spillmann in view of Engebreston et al. (US 20030231782 A1) hereinafter Engebreston.
Regarding claim 8, Spillmann teaches A support system for a first sound converter module (“With reference to FIG. 2, each speaker assembly 102 includes a pair of suspension systems 106, 106′” in ¶[0042]), the support system comprising: a first side element configured to screw onto a left-hand side of the first sound converter module (“each speaker assembly 102 includes a pair of suspension systems 106, 106′ that are mirror images of each other and mounted to opposing lateral sides of the speaker cabinet 104” in ¶[0042]), the first side elements including a first of plurality panels (“he frame 114 includes a pair of plates 122, 124” in ¶[0043]; a second side element configured to screw onto a right-hand side of the first sound converter module (“each speaker assembly 102 includes a pair of suspension systems 106, 106′ that are mirror images of each other and mounted to opposing lateral sides of the speaker cabinet 104” in ¶[0042]), the second side element including a second plurality of panels (“The frame 114 includes a pair of plates 122, 124” in ¶[0043]); a first adjusting device configured to be guided between the first plurality of panels (“The frame 114 includes a pair of plates 122, 124 that support the locking mechanism 100” in ¶[0043]), the first adjusting device including a first moveable bar (“The locking mechanism 100 includes a lever arm 116” in ¶[0042]) configured to slide along a linear direction (see how 116 moves in Fig. 3) to engage with a first connecting bolt (“a latch assembly 118” in ¶[0042]) of a second sound converter module that is adjacent to the first sound converter module in a transducer system (See stacked speakers in Fig. 1 and “Referring to FIG. 3, the lever arm 116 may be connected to the suspension system 106′ of an upper vertically adjacent speaker assembly 102′ for connecting the two speaker assemblies 102, 102′ to each other” in ¶[0045]), the first adjusting device (116 in Fig. 3) being configured to be held in an engaged position (“FIG. 4 is an enlarged view of the suspension system of FIG. 3, illustrating the locking mechanism in a locked position” in ¶[0013]) by a first sliding lever pivotably mounted and secured by a first fixing lever (See Fig. 4, where 138 in Fig. 3 is the pivot connecting the sliding arm 116); and a second adjusting device configured to be guided between the second plurality of panels, the second adjusting device including a second moveable bar configured to slide along the linear direction to engage with a second connecting bolt of the second sound converter module, the second adjusting device being configured to be held in an engaged position by a second sliding lever pivotably mounted and secured by a second fixing lever (“With reference to FIG. 2, each speaker assembly 102 includes a pair of suspension systems 106, 106′ that are mirror images of each other and mounted to opposing lateral sides of the speaker cabinet 104. Each suspension system 106 includes a frame 114 that supports the locking mechanism 100” in ¶[0042] and “The locking mechanism 100 provides simple and intuitive connections between speaker assemblies 102 by connecting them together independently from selecting their splay angle(s)” in ¶[0041]),
Spillmann does not specifically disclose the system further comprising a first side element configured to screw onto a left-hand side, nor does Spillmann specifically disclose a second side element configured to screw onto a right-hand side of the first sound converter module however,
Since it is known in the art as evidenced by Engebreston for a system to further comprise a first side element configured to screw onto a left-hand side, nor does Spillman specifically disclose a second side element configured to screw onto a right-hand side of the first sound converter module in (“The rigging frames 200 may be coupled to the speaker housings 220 with machine screws set into four pads on each end of the speaker 245 and 250, or other like method of securely fastening the rigging frames 200 to the speaker housings 220” in ¶[0036]),
An ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to modify the invention of Spillmann with the teachings of Engebreston for the benefit of improving the rigidity of the system, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spillmann with Engebreston.
Regarding claim 13, Spillman as modified by Engebreston teaches the system of claim 8, Spillman further teaches wherein the first adjusting device further comprises: a safety hook pivotably mounted at a pivot point located slightly above a center of a sliding bolt (“The locking mechanism 100 includes a lever arm 116, a latch assembly 118 and a release lever 120” in ¶[0042] and 120 in Fig. 3), and a tension spring configured to hold the first sliding lever in a closed position with sufficient force such that an initial releasing force is required to overcome a spring tension before the tension spring assists in lifting the first sliding lever (“The release lever 120 engages the latch assembly 118 to maintain the locked position, as shown in FIGS. 4-5. The latch assembly 118 includes a spring 192 that biases the lock lever 172 away from the sector 162 to the released position (shown in FIGS. 6-7)” in ¶[0055]).
Regarding claims 15 and 20, claims are rejected for being the methods comprising at least the same elements and performing at least the same functions performed by the system of rejected claims 8 and 13 respectively (see rejections of claims 8 and 13 above).
Claim(s) 9, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spillmann et al. (US 20180007456 A1) hereinafter Spillmann in view of Engebreston et al. (US 20030231782 A1) hereinafter Engebreston and further in view of Colich (US 20050201583 A1) hereinafter Colich.
Regarding claim 9, Spillman as modified by Engebreston teaches the system of claim 8, Spillman as modified by Engebreston does not specifically disclose the system further comprising wherein the first sound converter module is fastened into the first side element and the second side element such that its radiating side faces a rear side of the support system however,
Since it is known in the art as evidenced by Colich for a system to further comprise wherein the first sound converter module is fastened into the first side element and the second side element such that its radiating side faces a rear side of the support system in (“The subwoofers mounted in the dipole configuration include a first set of subwoofers facing a first direction and a second set of subwoofers facing a second direction, in which the second direction is facing a direction that is 180 degrees with respect to the first direction” in ¶[Abstract] and Fig. 8),
An ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to modify the invention of Spillmann as modified by Engebreston with the teachings of Colich for the benefit of improving sound dispersion of the system, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spillman as modified by Engebreston with Colich.
Regarding claim 16, claim is rejected for being the method comprising at least the same elements and performing at least the same functions performed by the system of rejected claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above).
Claim(s) 14, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spillmann et al. (US 20180007456 A1) hereinafter Spillmann in view of Engebreston et al. (US 20030231782 A1) hereinafter Engebreston and further in view of Butler et al. (US 20150289050 A1) hereinafter Butler.
Regarding claim 14, Spillman as modified by Engebreston teaches the system of claim 8, Spillman as modified by Engebreston does not specifically disclose the system further comprising wherein the first sliding lever is held in a closed position by a safety hook, which engages with a groove in the first sliding lever, such that the first sliding lever cannot be lifted until a fixing lever is actuated to rotate the safety hook against a restoring force of a weak tension spring, thereby releasing the groove and allowing separation of the first sound converter module and the second sound converter module however,
Since it is known in the art as evidenced by Butler for a system to further comprise wherein the first sliding lever is held in a closed position by a safety hook, which engages with a groove in the first sliding lever, such that the first sliding lever cannot be lifted until a fixing lever is actuated to rotate the safety hook against a restoring force of a weak tension spring, thereby releasing the groove and allowing separation of the first sound converter module and the second sound converter module in (“Speakers 100 are conveniently attachable one on top of the other. In this regard, each of the speakers 100 includes rigging latches 232 slidably engageable within slots or rigging channels 212 at the sides of the speaker housings, see FIG. 2. Speakers 100 are attached in stacked relationship by releasing the rigging latches 232 of an upper speaker to engage within the channels 212 of a lower speaker and then the rigging latches 232 are locked in place within the channels 212 of the lower speaker.” in ¶[0082]),
An ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to modify the invention of Spillmann as modified by Engebreston with the teachings of Butler for the benefit of improving safety of the system, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spillman as modified by Engebreston with Butler.
Regarding claim 21, claim is rejected for being the method comprising at least the same elements and performing at least the same functions performed by the system of rejected claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12, 17-19 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMMAR T HAMID whose telephone number is (571)272-1953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5, Eastern time.
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, Vivian Chin 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.
AMMAR T. HAMID
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2695
/AMMAR T HAMID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights