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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) (connection means in claim 1 and lifting means in claim 4) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “diffusion means” in claims and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim refers to “a protective helmet made in a single body piece,” which is indefinite. Applicant’s disclosure refers to protective helmet 4 as being made from a single body piece (Specification, Page 3, Lines 11-12), but at a minimum, the Figures show a football helmet that clearly has a facemask part attached with fasteners to a main portion of the helmet, a chin strap, and depicts arts of the inner padding, which are well known to be part of a football helmet. Referring to helmet #4 as being made from a “single body piece” is confusing as it is depicted as being formed from multiple piece, and is generally known in the art to include more than a single piece. For the rejection, the Examiner will interpret the claimed “a single body piece” as including any “protective helmet” that is monolithic, or formed from multiple pieces securely attached together so as to create “a single body piece”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "said front wall" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that claim 14 depends from claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-4, 9, 11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saati (9,621,983).
With respect to claim 1, Saati teaches a system for sound diffusion (device of Figures 2-6 and 16-19), comprising at least one supporting structure (106/104/110), sound diffusion means (defined by housing components and #104/110 any/all components within #104/110 including speakers #112/116 and sound port #128) associated with said supporting structure (106) and adapted to diffuse sound waves and connection means (broadly defined by Bluetooth circuitry #144, crossover network #142 and any other inherent, but not shown electrical connections to/between speakers #112/116) associated with said diffusion means (104/110/112/116) and adapted to be connected with a sound source unit (#103 - defined by “cellular phones and handheld media devices and more” – Col. 7, Lines 9-29), characterized by the fact that said supporting structure (106) comprises a protective helmet (clearly seen, see #106) made in a single body piece (note pieces #106 are connected together to form a single connected part – see 112b interpretation above) and defining an open cavity (defined by interior space, closed off by base region #110), wherein said diffusion means (104/110) comprise at least one self-supporting closure body (110), inserted within said protective helmet (106) so as to close said open cavity defining a substantially enclosed volume (volume within 104/110), wherein said diffusion means (104/110) comprise at least one loudspeaker device (112/116) associated with said closure body (110) and arranged within said enclosed volume; and wherein said diffusion means (104/110) comprise a diffusion duct (128) housed within said enclosed volume and communicating with the outside through an outlet opening (136) defined on said supporting structure (106/104/110). Note that Applicant’s supporting structure #2 appears to include both the protective helmet #4 and the diffusion means structure #3.
With respect to claim 2, Saati teaches wherein said outlet opening (136) is defined on said closure body (110).
With respect to claim 3, Saati teaches wherein said closure body (110) comprises at least one substantially horizontal lower wall and intended to face a resting surface (105) of said system and wherein said diffusion duct (128) runs along a substantially vertical direction, said outlet opening (136) being defined on said lower wall. Although duct #128 is curved, it is considered to “run along a substantially vertical direction”, as the vertical extension is greater than a horizontal extension. Further the term “substantially vertical direction” is vague and open to interpretation. The Examiner interprets #128 as “running along a substantially vertical direction”.
With respect to claim 4, Saati teaches wherein the system comprises lifting means (defined by unlabeled four feet members on bottom of #110) associated with said supporting structure (106/104/110) and adapted to keep said lower wall raised above said resting surface (105).
With respect to claim 9, Saati teaches wherein said loudspeaker device (112/116) comprises at least one main loudspeaker (112) and at least one secondary loudspeaker (116) different from said main loudspeaker (112).
With respect to claim 11, Saati teaches wherein said diffusion means ((defined by housing components and #104/110 any/all components within #104/110 including speakers #112/116 and sound port #128)) comprise two of said secondary loudspeakers (116) and wherein said secondary loudspeakers (116) are associated with said protective helmet (106) where the side openings with which said protective helmet (106) is provided are located.
With respect to claim 13, Saati teaches wherein said closure body (104/110) comprises at least two side walls (defined by side portions accommodating speaker #116) arranged substantially orthogonal to said front wall (defined by a front facing wall portion of connected ones of #104) and to said lower wall (110) and wherein said secondary loudspeakers (116) are supported by said side walls (clearly seen).
With respect to claim 14, Saati teaches wherein said side walls (defined by side portions accommodating speaker #116) extend from said front wall (defined by a front facing wall portion of connected ones of #104) and are spaced apart from said lower wall (note lower wall #110 and mounted to base portions of #104, said base portions of #104 defining the “spaced apart”” configuration).
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.
Claims 5-8, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saati (9,621,983).
With respect to claim 5, Saati teaches the system for diffusion of claim 1. Saati further teaches wherein said protective helmet (106) has a front portion (front facing portion in which facemask part is attached), intended to face a user, and a rear portion (portion opposite facemask) opposite the front portion, by the fact that said closure body (104/110) comprises a 45-degree front wall (when speaker #112/aperture 114 is arranged at a 45-degree angle relative the elevated base #110 - Col. 10, Lines 20-42) and arranged where said front portion is located, wherein said loudspeaker device comprises at least one main loudspeaker (112) associated with said 45-degree front wall, and wherein said outlet opening (136) is arranged where said front portion of said protective helmet is located.
Saati fails to explicitly teach wherein said closure body comprises a substantially vertical front wall and arranged where said front portion is located, wherein said loudspeaker device comprises at least one main loudspeaker associated with said front wall, and wherein said outlet opening is arranged where said rear portion of said protective helmet is located.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein said closure body comprises a substantially vertical front wall and arranged where said front portion is located, wherein said loudspeaker device comprises at least one main loudspeaker associated with said front wall, and wherein said outlet opening is arranged where said rear portion of said protective helmet is located, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In this case, altering the wall forming aperture #114 which accommodates speaker #112 to a vertical wall as opposed to 45-degrees, and moving opening #136 to a rear location would merely alter a radiation direction of the speakers, which would have been well known and obvious to one of ordinary skill so as to direct sound in a particular direction, and involves routine skill.
With respect to claim 6, Saati teaches wherein said main loudspeaker (116) is a woofer.
With respect to claim 7, Saati teaches the system for diffusion of claim 1. Saati further teaches wherein said protective helmet (106) has a front portion (front facing portion in which facemask part is attached), intended to face a user, and a rear portion (portion opposite facemask) opposite the front portion, wherein said closure body (110) comprises a 45-degree front wall (when speaker #112/aperture 114 is arranged at a 45-degree angle relative the elevated base #110 - Col. 10, Lines 20-42) and arranged where said front portion is located, wherein said loudspeaker device comprises at least one main loudspeaker (112) associated with said 45-degree front wall, wherein said closure body (110) comprises at least one substantially horizontal lower wall and contiguous to said 45-degree front wall, and intended to face a resting surface (105) of said system, wherein said diffusion duct (128) runs along a substantially vertical direction, said outlet opening (136) being defined on said lower wall (110) and being arranged where said front portion of said protective helmet is located. Although duct #128 is curved, it is considered to “run along a substantially vertical direction”, as the vertical extension is greater than a horizontal extension. Further the term “substantially vertical direction” is vague and open to interpretation. The Examiner interprets #128 as “running along a substantially vertical direction”.
Saati fails to explicitly teach wherein said closure body comprises a substantially vertical front wall and arranged where said front portion is located, wherein said loudspeaker device comprises at least one main loudspeaker associated with said front wall, and wherein said outlet opening is arranged where said rear portion of said protective helmet is located.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein said closure body comprises a substantially vertical front wall and arranged where said front portion is located, wherein said loudspeaker device comprises at least one main loudspeaker associated with said front wall, and wherein said outlet opening is arranged where said rear portion of said protective helmet is located, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In this case, altering the wall forming aperture #114 which accommodates speaker #112 to a vertical wall as opposed to 45-degrees, and moving opening #136 to a rear location would merely alter a radiation direction of the speakers, which would have been well known and obvious to one of ordinary skill so as to direct sound in a particular direction, and involves routine skill.
With respect to claim 8, Saati teaches wherein said main loudspeaker is a woofer.
With respect to claim 10, Saati teaches the system for diffusion of claim 1. Saati further teaches wherein said secondary loudspeaker (112) is a full-range speaker.
Saati fails to explicitly teach wherein said secondary loudspeaker is a tweeter.
It is noted that a tweeter speaker is a high frequcy speaker that reproduces high frequencies, while a full range speaker generally covers the full range of human hearing (20Hz-20kHz), and as Saati teaches, the full range speaker #116 covers this range (Col. 8, Lines13-15). Because changing between a full range speaker and a tweeter is effectively just changing the operating range of a speaker, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein said secondary loudspeaker is a tweeter, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In this case, altering the operating range of the speaker would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to as to acoustically tune the speaker device.
With respect to claim 12, Saati teaches the system for diffusion of claim 1. Saati further teaches wherein said main loudspeaker (112) and said secondary loudspeakers (116) are arranged at an obvious, but unspecified heigh relative to one another when speaker #112 is arranged at a 45-degree angle relative the reflecting surface #105 (Col. 10, Lines 20-42).
Saati fails to explicitly teach Saati teaches wherein said main loudspeaker and said secondary loudspeakers are arranged at the same height.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide wherein said main loudspeaker and said secondary loudspeakers are arranged at the same height., since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. In this case, altering the height of either the speakers 116 or 112 such that they are arranged at the same height would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill so as to acoustically tune the speaker system and/or for aesthetic purposes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pertinent arts of record relating to Applicant’s disclosure are disclosed in the PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEREMY AUSTIN LUKS whose telephone number is (571)272-2707. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00-5:00).
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.
/JEREMY A LUKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights