Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Art Rejections
Anticipation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 102 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth 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.
Claims 1–3 and 6–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Application Publication 2013/0243232 (published 19 September 2013) (“Dimitrov”).
Claim 1 is drawn to “a dual-compression driver.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed driver and the Dimitrov reference.
Claim 1
The Dimitrov Reference
“1. A dual-compression driver, comprising:
The Dimitrov reference similarly describes a compression driver having two diaphragms 9. Dimitrov at Abs., ¶¶ 59, 60, 79, FIGs.3a–3d.1
“a first diaphragm having an annular aperture about a central axis, the annular aperture transitions to a rectangular exit;
“a first phasing plug;
“a second diaphragm;
“a second phasing plug;
Dimitrov’s compression driver includes two annular diaphragms 9 arranged above one another and corresponding phasing plugs for each diaphragm formed by upper and lower compression chambers 8 and channels A3, B3 running through upper and lower chambers 8. Id. at ¶¶ 78–86.
“a hornlet positioned at a central axis of the first and second phasing plugs, the hornlet has a circular first end attached to the second diaphragm,
“a blade-like shaped second end that extends past the rectangular exit of the first diaphragm, and
“a contoured transition from the circular first end to the blade-like shaped second end; and
Dimitrov’s compression driver includes a central sound guidance body 13 that corresponds to the claimed hornlet. Id. at ¶¶ 77, 84, FIGs.3a, 3b. See also Figure 1, below.
Sound guidance body 13 includes an annular, or circular, first end attached to second bottom diaphragm 9 via housing base 3. Dimitrov at ¶ 84, FIGs.3a–3c. See also Figure 1, below.
Sound guidance body 13 is shaped like a blade at exit end 15, which is at a position beyond a rectangular exit 16 of a first top diaphragm 9. Dimitrov at ¶ 84, FIGs.3a–3c. See also Figure 1, below.
Sound guidance body 13 further has a contoured transition (following angles a and b) from an annular shape at housing base 3 to blade-like shape at the exit end 15. Dimitrov at ¶¶ 82–83, FIGs.3a–3c. See also Figure 1, below.
“an adapter positioned at the rectangular exit of the first diaphragm, the adapter has a rectangular aperture having a width along an x-axis horizontal to the central axis and a length along a z-axis perpendicular to the central axis.”
Dimitrov’s compression driver includes a sound wave routing element 14 that corresponds to the claimed adapter. Sound wave routing element 14 is positioned at a rectangular exit and has a rectangular aperture arranged as claimed. See Dimitrov at ¶ 84, FIGs.3a–3c (describing element 14 as transitioning from an annular opening 16 to a linear/rectangular opening 15, indicating that there is a substantially rectangular exit portion before opening 15). See also Figure 1, below. Additionally, Dimitrov describes alternative embodiments that include polygonal (e.g., rectangular) collecting spaces and correspondingly-shaped diaphragm exits. Dimitrov at ¶ 24.
Table 1
PNG
media_image1.png
650
1059
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Marked-up version of Dimitrov at FIG.3a (marked-up to remove original reference numerals and to highlight correspondence to the claimed invention).
For the foregoing reasons, the Dimitrov reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein a shape of the contoured transition of the hornlet, dimensions of the rectangular exit, and dimensions of the rectangular aperture control directivity of an acoustic signal.”
Similarly, the shape and dimensions of Dimitrov’s sound guidance body 13 and sound wave routing element 14 will inherently control directivity of a sound output by driver 1. Dimitrov at ¶¶ 9, 12, 81, 96, 97 (describing the formation of a wavefront with a specific shape (e.g., flat or curved), which will effect the directivity of the output). For the foregoing reasons, the Dimitrov reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1, and further requires the following:
“wherein the contoured transition of the hornlet is convex and defines a pathlength in a horizontal plane of the first diaphragm that is equidistant to a pathlength in a vertical plane of the first diaphragm.”
Similarly, Dimitrov’s sound guidance body 13 includes a convex transition defined by angles a and b from the first end fixed to frame 3 and the second end that extends to opening 15. Dimitrov at FIG.3a. Similarly, because sound guidance body 13 and wave routing element 14 extend horizontally and vertically with respect to diaphragms 9, they respectively define horizontal and vertical paths, at least a portion of each path being equal in length to the other path. In at least one embodiment, where angles a and b are the same, the path over the length of elements 13 and 14 will be equal. See id. at ¶ 82, FIG.3b. For the foregoing reasons, the Dimitrov reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 6 is drawn to “a hornlet for a compression driver having a rectangular exit.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed hornlet and the Dimitrov reference.
Claim 6
The Dimitrov Reference
“6. A hornlet for a compression driver having a rectangular exit, the hornlet comprising:
Dimitrov’s compression driver includes a central sound guidance body 13 that corresponds to the claimed hornlet. Id. at ¶¶ 77, 84, FIGs.3a, 3b. See also Figure 1, above.
“a circular base at a first end;
Sound guidance body 13 includes an annular, or circular, first end attached to second bottom diaphragm 9 via housing base 3. Dimitrov at ¶ 84, FIGs.3a–3c. See also Figure 1, above.
“a blade-shaped second end; and
Sound guidance body 13 is shaped like a blade at exit end 15, which is at a position beyond a rectangular exit 16 of a first top diaphragm 9. Dimitrov at ¶ 84, FIGs.3a–3c. See also Figure 1, above.
“a contoured transition from the first end to the second end.”
Sound guidance body 13 further has a contoured transition (following angles a and b) from an annular shape at housing base 3 to blade-like shape at the exit end 15. Dimitrov at ¶¶ 82–83, FIGs.3a–3c. See also Figure 1, above.
Table 2
For the foregoing reasons, the Dimitrov reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 7 depends on claim 6, and further requires the following:
“wherein the contoured transition is convex, defining a pathlength through the compression driver in a horizontal plane that is equidistant to a pathlength in a vertical plane.”
Similarly, Dimitrov’s sound guidance body 13 includes a convex transition defined by angles a and b from the first end fixed to frame 3 and the second end that extends to opening 15. Dimitrov at FIG.3a. Similarly, because sound guidance body 13 and wave routing element 14 extend horizontally and vertically with respect to diaphragms 9, they respectively define horizontal and vertical paths, at least a portion of each path being equal in length to the other path. In at least one embodiment, where angles a and b are the same, the path over the length of elements 13 and 14 will be equal. See id. at ¶ 82, FIG.3b. For the foregoing reasons, the Dimitrov reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 8 depends on claim 6, and further requires the following:
“wherein the compression driver is a dual-compression driver.”
The Dimitrov reference similarly describes a compression driver having two diaphragms 9. Dimitrov at Abs., ¶¶ 59, 60, 79, FIGs.3a–3d. For the foregoing reasons, the Dimitrov reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Claim 9 depends on claim 6, and further requires the following:
“wherein the circular base is on a central axis and the rectangular exit of the compression driver has a width along the x-axis and a length along the z-axis, wherein the x and z axes are relative to the central axis.”
Sound guidance body 13 includes an annular, or circular, first end attached to second bottom diaphragm 9 via housing base 3 and aligned with a central y-axis. Dimitrov at ¶ 84, FIGs.3a–3c. See also Figure 1, above. Dimitrov’s compression driver further includes a sound wave routing element 14 that defines the claimed rectangular exit over x and z axes as claimed. See Dimitrov at ¶ 84, FIGs.3a–3c (describing element 14 as transitioning from an annular opening 16 to a linear/rectangular opening 15, indicating that there is a substantially rectangular exit portion before opening 15). See also Figure 1, above. For the foregoing reasons, the Dimitrov reference anticipates all limitations of the claim.
Obviousness
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.
Claims 4, 5 and 10–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Dimitrov and US Patent Application Publication 2018/0255399 (published 06 September 2018) (“Voishvillo”).
Claim 4 depends on claim 3, and further requires the following:
“wherein the dimensions of the rectangular exit and the dimensions of the rectangular inlet of the adapter are equal to 12.7 mm in the horizontal plane and 42.5 mm in the vertical plane.”
Claim 5 depends on claim 3, and further requires the following:
“wherein the dimensions of the rectangular exit and the dimensions of the rectangular inlet of the adapter are equal to 12.7 mm in the horizontal plane and 60.9 mm in the vertical plane.”
Claims 4 and 5 are treated together. In the anticipation rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, a correspondence was shown between Dimitrov’s sound wave routing element 14 and the claimed adapter. However, sound wave routing element 14 does not include a rectangular aperture 15 that has the same dimensions as a rectangular exit (e.g., a rectangular portion near opening 16) since element 14 expands/contracts in horizontal and vertical planes. See Dimitrov at FIG.3b.
The Voishvillo reference teaches and suggests adding an adapter 260 to the end of a compression driver’s diaphragm assembly, particularly an element 250 whose inner opening corresponds in function to Dimitrov’s sound wave routing element 14 by forming a portion of a central bore 206 that acts an internal waveguide. Voishvillo at ¶¶ 33, 54, 66, FIGs.1, 8. Voishvillo’s adapter 260 has straight sides, so that it matches the dimensions of the diaphragm assembly exit at an inlet and has the same dimensions in its aperture. See id. at FIG.1. Voishvillo explains that the adapter 260 provides fastening mechanisms 262 for connecting the compression driver 200 with another device (e.g., an external waveguide, or horn). Voishvillo at ¶¶ 33, 55, 66. This would have reasonably suggested modifying Dimitrov’s compression driver 1 to similarly include an adapter with the claimed dimensions. One of ordinary skill would have expected that adding the adapter would have facilitated connection with an external acoustic impedance, such as a horn. Of course, fitting with Dimitrov’s design, one of ordinary skill would have shaped the inlet of the adapter and the aperture of the adapter to both be rectangular to match the rectangular exit of Dimitrov’s sound wave routing element 14. And it would have also been obvious to simply rearrange/resize portions of Dimitrov’s sound wave routing element 14 as seen in Voishvillo at FIG.1 so that only a portion of Dimitrov’s sound path from points 16 to 15 is defined by sound wave routing element 14 while the rest is defined by an adapter.
Further, the Dimitrov reference teaches and suggests choosing angles a and b to provide a desired defined wavefront over different frequencies. Dimitrov at ¶¶ 82, 83. The resulting dimensions used would have varied as a matter of design choice based on the designer’s operational preferences. Accordingly, the claimed dimensions of 12.7 mm in a horizontal plane and 42.5 mm in a vertical plane would have been obvious design parameters. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Dimitrov and the Voishvillo references makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Claim 10 depends on claim 9, and further requires the following:
“wherein the rectangular exit of the compression driver has a width of 12.7 mm and a length of 42.5 mm.”
Claim 11 depends on claim 9, and further requires the following:
“wherein the rectangular exit of the compression driver has a width of 12.7 mm and a length of 60.9 mm.”
Claims 10 and 11 are treated together. In the anticipation rejection of claim 6, incorporated herein, a correspondence was shown between Dimitrov’s sound wave routing element 14 and the claimed adapter. However, sound wave routing element 14 does not include a rectangular aperture 15 that has the same dimensions as a rectangular exit (e.g., a rectangular portion near opening 16) since element 14 expands/contracts in horizontal and vertical planes. See Dimitrov at FIG.3b.
The Voishvillo reference teaches and suggests adding an adapter 260 to the end of a compression driver’s diaphragm assembly, particularly an element 250 whose inner opening corresponds in function to Dimitrov’s sound wave routing element 14 by forming a portion of a central bore 206 that acts an internal waveguide. Voishvillo at ¶¶ 33, 54, 66, FIGs.1, 8. Voishvillo’s adapter 260 has straight sides, so that it matches the dimensions of the diaphragm assembly exit at an inlet and has the same dimensions in its aperture. See id. at FIG.1. Voishvillo explains that the adapter 260 provides fastening mechanisms 262 for connecting the compression driver 200 with another device (e.g., an external waveguide, or horn). Voishvillo at ¶¶ 33, 55, 66. This would have reasonably suggested modifying Dimitrov’s compression driver 1 to similarly include an adapter with the claimed dimensions. One of ordinary skill would have expected that adding the adapter would have facilitated connection with an external acoustic impedance, such as a horn. Of course, fitting with Dimitrov’s design, one of ordinary skill would have shaped the inlet of the adapter and the aperture of the adapter to both be rectangular to match the rectangular exit of Dimitrov’s sound wave routing element 14. And it would have also been obvious to simply rearrange/resize portions of Dimitrov’s sound wave routing element 14 as seen in Voishvillo at FIG.1 so that only a portion of Dimitrov’s sound path from points 16 to 15 is defined by sound wave routing element 14 while the rest is defined by an adapter.
Further, the Dimitrov reference teaches and suggests choosing angles a and b to provide a desired defined wavefront over different frequencies. Dimitrov at ¶¶ 82, 83. The resulting dimensions used would have varied as a matter of design choice based on the designer’s operational preferences. Accordingly, the claimed dimensions of 12.7 mm in a horizontal plane and 42.5 mm in a vertical plane would have been obvious design parameters. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Dimitrov and the Voishvillo references makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Claim 12 is drawn to “a loudspeaker.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed loudspeaker and the Dimitrov reference.
Claim 12
The Dimitrov Reference
“12. A loudspeaker, comprising:
“a dual-compression driver having a rectangular exit;
The Dimitrov reference similarly describes a compression driver having two diaphragms 9. Dimitrov at Abs., ¶¶ 59, 60, 79, FIGs.3a–3d.2 Dimitrov’s driver has a rectangular exit 15. Id. at ¶ 66, FIGs.3a, 3c.
“a hornlet aligned within a central axis of the dual compression driver, the hornlet having a contoured transition from a circular base at a first end to a blade-shape at a second end, the second end terminates at the rectangular exit; and
Dimitrov’s compression driver includes a central sound guidance body 13 that corresponds to the claimed hornlet. Id. at ¶¶ 77, 84, FIGs.3a, 3b. See also Figure 1, above.
Sound guidance body 13 includes an annular, or circular, first end attached to second bottom diaphragm 9 via housing base 3. Dimitrov at ¶ 84, FIGs.3a–3c. See also Figure 1, above.
Sound guidance body 13 is shaped like a blade at exit end 15, which is at a position beyond a rectangular exit 16 of a first top diaphragm 9. Dimitrov at ¶ 84, FIGs.3a–3c. See also Figure 1, above.
Sound guidance body 13 further has a contoured transition (following angles a and b) from an annular shape at housing base 3 to blade-like shape at the exit end 15. Dimitrov at ¶¶ 82–83, FIGs.3a–3c. See also Figure 1, above.
“a horn having a rectangular throat coupled to the rectangular exit of the dual-compression driver.”
Dimitrov does not describe a corresponding horn.
Table 3
The table above shows that Dimitrov describes a speaker corresponding to the claimed speaker. Dimitrov does not describe the claimed horn having a rectangular throat coupled to the rectangular exit of the dual-compression driver (e.g., Dimitrov’s rectangular exit end 15.)
The differences between the claimed invention and the Dimitrov reference are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed. The obviousness rejection of claim 4, incorporated herein, the Voishvillo reference teaches and suggests modifying Dimitrov’s driver to include an adapter to make connection with an external horn. In making this determination, one of ordinary skill would have reasonably considered the use of a horn with a rectangular throat in order to match the rectangular opening of Dimitrov’s driver, just as Dimitrov’s element 14 is made annular to match annular opening 16. See Dimitrov at ¶ 84. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Dimitrov and the Voishvillo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 13 depends on claim 12, and further requires the following:
“wherein the contoured transition is convex, defining a pathlength in a horizontal plane that is equidistant to a pathlength in a vertical plane.”
Similarly, Dimitrov’s sound guidance body 13 includes a convex transition defined by angles a and b from the first end fixed to frame 3 and the second end that extends to opening 15. Dimitrov at FIG.3a. Similarly, because sound guidance body 13 and wave routing element 14 extend horizontally and vertically with respect to diaphragms 9, they respectively define horizontal and vertical paths, at least a portion of each path being equal in length to the other path. In at least one embodiment, where angles a and b are the same, the path over the length of elements 13 and 14 will be equal. See id. at ¶ 82, FIG.3b. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Dimitrov and the Voishvillo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 14 depends on claim 12, and further requires the following:
“wherein the hornlet is at a central axis and the rectangular exit of the compression driver has a width along the x-axis and a length along the z-axis.”
Sound guidance body 13 includes an annular, or circular, first end attached to second bottom diaphragm 9 via housing base 3 and aligned with a central y-axis. Dimitrov at ¶ 84, FIGs.3a–3c. See also Figure 1, above. Dimitrov’s compression driver further includes a sound wave routing element 14 that defines the claimed rectangular exit over x and z axes as claimed. See Dimitrov at ¶ 84, FIGs.3a–3c (describing element 14 as transitioning from an annular opening 16 to a linear/rectangular opening 15, indicating that there is a substantially rectangular exit portion before opening 15). See also Figure 1, above. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Dimitrov and the Voishvillo references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 15 depends on claim 14, and further requires the following:
“wherein the rectangular exit of the dual-compression driver has a width of 12.7 mm and a length of 42.5 mm.”
Claim 16 depends on claim 14, and further requires the following:
“wherein the rectangular exit of the dual-compression driver has a width of 12.7 mm and a length of 60.9 mm.”
Claims 15 and 16 are treated together. In the obviousness rejection of claim 12, incorporated herein, a correspondence was shown between Dimitrov’s sound wave routing element 14 and the claimed adapter. However, sound wave routing element 14 does not include a rectangular aperture 15 that has the same dimensions as a rectangular exit (e.g., a rectangular portion near opening 16) since element 14 expands/contracts in horizontal and vertical planes. See Dimitrov at FIG.3b.
The Voishvillo reference teaches and suggests adding an adapter 260 to the end of a compression driver’s diaphragm assembly, particularly an element 250 whose inner opening corresponds in function to Dimitrov’s sound wave routing element 14 by forming a portion of a central bore 206 that acts an internal waveguide. Voishvillo at ¶¶ 33, 54, 66, FIGs.1, 8. Voishvillo’s adapter 260 has straight sides, so that it matches the dimensions of the diaphragm assembly exit at an inlet and has the same dimensions in its aperture. See id. at FIG.1. Voishvillo explains that the adapter 260 provides fastening mechanisms 262 for connecting the compression driver 200 with another device (e.g., an external waveguide, or horn). Voishvillo at ¶¶ 33, 55, 66. This would have reasonably suggested modifying Dimitrov’s compression driver 1 to similarly include an adapter with the claimed dimensions. One of ordinary skill would have expected that adding the adapter would have facilitated connection with an external acoustic impedance, such as a horn. Of course, fitting with Dimitrov’s design, one of ordinary skill would have shaped the inlet of the adapter and the aperture of the adapter to both be rectangular to match the rectangular exit of Dimitrov’s sound wave routing element 14. And it would have also been obvious to simply rearrange/resize portions of Dimitrov’s sound wave routing element 14 as seen in Voishvillo at FIG.1 so that only a portion of Dimitrov’s sound path from points 16 to 15 is defined by sound wave routing element 14 while the rest is defined by an adapter.
Further, the Dimitrov reference teaches and suggests choosing angles a and b to provide a desired defined wavefront over different frequencies. Dimitrov at ¶¶ 82, 83. The resulting dimensions used would have varied as a matter of design choice based on the designer’s operational preferences. Accordingly, the claimed dimensions of 12.7 mm in a horizontal plane and 42.5 mm in a vertical plane would have been obvious design parameters. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Dimitrov and the Voishvillo references makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Summary
Claims 1–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§102 and 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Issues Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Written Description
Applicant amended claim 4 to refer to a rectangular inlet instead of a rectangular aperture. The claimed rectangular inlet of the adapter refers to the portion that connects to the rectangular exit of first diaphragm, and does not refer to the aperture from which sound is emitted. With this understanding, the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) has been withdrawn.
Indefiniteness
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 4 and 5 recite “the rectangular inlet of the adapter”. These limitations have no antecedent basis. The Examiner suggests amending claim 1 to include a recitation of “a rectangular inlet of the adapter” or to amend claims 4 and 5 to replace the article “the” with the article “a”.
Objections
Applicant’s amended drawings have obviated the issues noted in the previous Office action. (Non-Final Rejection at 21–22) (07 April 2026).
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s Reply (02 July 2026) includes comments pertaining to the rejections included in the Non-Final Rejection (07 April 2026) and repeated herein. Concerning claim 1, Applicant comments that the Dimitrov reference does not anticipate the claimed “contoured transition” from a circular first end to a blade-like shaped second end. (Reply at 5). Applicant comments that a “contour” has a special meaning in acoustics and horn design that refers to a continuously curved profile, and that Dimitrov presents an angular, faceted wedge that does not exhibit a continuously curved profile. The Examiner agrees that Dimitrov does not meet Applicant’s proposed definition. However, it is not clear from the plain language of the claim or Applicant’s Specification that the term “contour” is strictly limited as Applicant proposes. Without any objective evidence on the record to the contrary, the plain meaning of the claim controls, and a contour is generally understood to be a shape that follows the curves of another surface. See Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contour (last accessed 20 August 2026) (“an outline especially of a curving or irregular figure”). Dimitrov’s central sound guidance body 13 meets this plain language meaning because it includes angled portions that follow the transitional shape from housing 2 to sound wave routing element 14. Dimitrov at FIG.3b. And while the claim does not require a continuously curved profile, the Examiner further notes as an advisory that Dimitrov describes additional embodiments that exhibit smoother transitions, such as the embodiments of FIGs.1b, 2b, 6a, 6b, 7a.
Concerning claims 3 and 7, Applicant comments that the Dimitrov reference does not depict describe a convex contoured transition that creates equidistant path lengths in both a horizontal plane and a vertical plane. (Reply at 6). The Dimitrov reference depicts an embodiment where sound guidance body 13 forms two angles a and b in two different planes. Dimitrov also describes various embodiments of the angles, including one in which the angles are the same. Id. at ¶¶ 82–83, FIG.3b. When the angles are the same reason, simple geometry shows that the path length through channel 12 (i.e., the channel defined by sound guidance body 13 and sound wave routing element 14). In particular, the path length in each plane is equivalent to the hypotenuse of a right-triangle that begins at sound entry start 16 and extends to open sound exit end 15. See Figure 3, below. Because the triangles begin and end at the same points, they exhibit the same heights. Assume angles a and b set equal as described by Dimitrov. Applying the formula base=height/tan(alpha), yields two triangles with the same base. Applying the formula hypotenuse=SQRT(height2+base2) yields two triangles with the same hypotenuse, or path length.
PNG
media_image2.png
536
1054
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Marked-up copy of Dimitrov at FIG.3b.
Applicant comments that the claim requires the claimed hornlet to define a pathlength, while Dimitrov’s pathlengths are defined by the overall sound discharge channel. (Reply at 7). Presumably, Applicant is referring to Dimitrov’s elements 13 and 14. While strictly true that claim 3 states that the hornlet defines a pathlength, the remainder of the Specification puts this characterization into context—namely, a hornlet 220 defines a pathlength, but only because it is surrounded by elements 202 and 204, which further demarcate the pathlengths. See Spec. at FIGs.2, 3B.
Concerning the § 112 rejection of claim 4, Applicant comments that
For the foregoing reasons, Applicant has not persuasively established any error in the Office action, and all the rejections will be maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WALTER F BRINEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-4:30 pm.
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, Carolyn Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/Walter F Briney III/
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
8/20/2026
1 For the sake of brevity this rejection cites Dimitrov’s FIG.3. However, similar correspondence exists between the claimed invention and Dimitrov’s other embodiments depicted in FIGs.4–7.
2 For the sake of brevity this rejection cites Dimitrov’s FIG.3. However, similar correspondence exists between the claimed invention and Dimitrov’s other embodiments depicted in FIGs.4–7.
Prosecution Insights