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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 21-22 are 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.
Claims 21-22 are dependent on claim 13, however they recite a method, and claim 13 is directed to a system. It is therefore not clear if the claims are directed to a method or a system, i.e. if they are meant to be dependent on and include all the limitations of the system recited on claim 13, or if they are meant to be dependent on and include all the limitations of method claim 12. If the former, it is noted that claim 21 would be considered a substantial duplicate of claim 16, as both claims would be dependent on claim 13 and cover the same planar magnetic driver limitations. A prior art rejection is therefore not considered proper at this time, as such a rejection would have to be based on mere assumptions and considerable speculation about the scope of the claims. See MPEP 2173.06.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In this case, claims 19-20 are dependent on cancelled claim 14, and are therefore deemed improper. For the purposes of examination, the claims have been interpreted as dependent on claim 13. Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub No 2015/0281866 A1 to Williams et al. (“Williams”) in view of US Patent Pub No 2020/0021909 A1 to Smithers et al. (“Smithers”).
As to claim 1, Williams discloses an apparatus comprising: an audio speaker comprising: a housing (10, see figure 1-2; pg. 4, ¶ 0034); plural wireless communication interfaces in the housing to receive audio from respective audio sources (see figure 5; pg. 7, ¶ 0057); and at least one driver assembly in the housing, wherein at least first and second base surfaces of the housing are oriented at an obtuse angle relative to each other, so that a user can push the speaker housing onto the first base surface to aim a sonic axis of the speaker in a first direction and then tilt the speaker onto the second base surface to aim the sonic axis in a second direction (see figures 3A-3C and 18; pg. 4, ¶ 0035 - ¶ 0036; pg. 5, ¶ 0041).
Williams does not expressly disclose the driver assembly being a planar magnetic assembly that drives at least a woofer and/or a tweeter in the housing. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Smithers, which discloses a similar loudspeaker apparatus (see figure 5), and further discloses the drivers can be planar magnetic drivers configured to operate in any frequency such as bass, mid-range or tweeters (see pg. 5, ¶ 0059 - ¶ 0060; pg. 6, ¶ 0066). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as the use of planar magnetic drivers is known in the art and therefore merely a straightforward possibility which skilled person would select when designing a loudspeaker apparatus. The motivation being a matter of design, as long as any appropriate driver is used, and further depending on the desired bandwidth for the audio content (Smithers pg. 5, ¶ 0059 - ¶ 0060; pg. 6, ¶ 0066).
As to claim 8, Williams in view of Smithers does not expressly disclose comprising plural metal connectors that extend through at least two edges of the planar magnetic driver to create an electrical connection between the planar magnetic driver and a printed circuit board (PCB) to control the driver. However it does disclose a control circuit within the housing that is connected to the driver circuit and corresponding acoustic drivers to control the drivers (Williams figure 5; pg. 4, ¶ 0034; pg. 7, ¶ 0054, ¶ 0058). The use of metal connectors and a PCB is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Williams in view of Smithers, as such components are known in the art and therefore considered merely a straightforward possibility when selecting components to implement the electrically connected circuitry already taught by Williams in view of Smithers.
As to claim 12, Williams discloses a method comprising: wirelessly receiving, at a standalone audio speaker, signals representing audio (see figures 1-5; pg. 7, ¶ 0057); and playing audio based on the signals at least in part using a driver in the audio speaker, wherein the standalone audio speaker comprises a housing (10, see figure 1-2; pg. 4, ¶ 0034), wherein at least first and second base surfaces of the housing are oriented at an obtuse angle relative to each other, wherein the audio is aimed along a sonic axis of the speaker in a first direction when the speaker rests on the first base surface, and wherein the audio is aimed along a sonic axis of the speaker in a second direction when the speaker rests on the second base surface (see figures 3A-3C and 18; pg. 4, ¶ 0035 - ¶ 0036; pg. 5, ¶ 0041).
Williams does not expressly disclose playing the audio using a planar magnetic driver. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Smithers, which discloses a similar loudspeaker apparatus (see figure 5), and further discloses the drivers can be planar magnetic drivers configured to operate in any frequency such as bass, mid-range or tweeters (see pg. 5, ¶ 0059 - ¶ 0060; pg. 6, ¶ 0066). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as the use of planar magnetic drivers is known in the art and therefore merely a straightforward possibility which skilled person would select when designing a loudspeaker apparatus and corresponding method. The motivation being a matter of design, as long as any appropriate driver is used, and further depending on the desired bandwidth for the audio content (Smithers pg. 5, ¶ 0059 - ¶ 0060; pg. 6, ¶ 0066).
Claim(s) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Smithers, and further in view of US Patent Pub No 2006/0034480 A1 to Simidian, II et al. (“Simidian”).
As to claim 2, Williams in view of Smithers discloses the apparatus of Claim 1.
Williams in view of Smithers does not expressly disclose wherein the planar magnetic driver comprises one or more permanent magnets disposed against an inside surface of a stator that covers a front of the housing. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Simidian, which discloses a planar magnetic driver that includes permanent magnets and a stator (see figures 1A and 2A-2B; pg. 2, ¶ 0015 - ¶ 0017). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as such a structure is well-known for planar magnetic drivers, and further as the use of such permanent magnets can provide efficient transducers with little distortion (Simidian pg. 1, ¶ 0003, ¶ 0005; pg. 2, ¶ 0017).
As to claim 6, Williams in view of Smithers and Simidian further discloses comprising a flat dampening fabric flush with a solid rectangular frame between the cavity and planar magnetic driver (Simidian pg. 3, ¶ 0028).
9. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Smithers, and further in view of US Patent Pub No 2020/0053462 A1 to Qian et al. (“Qian”).
As to claim 10, Williams in view of Smithers discloses apparatus of Claim 1.
Williams in view of Smithers discloses the apparatus comprising a battery (Williams pg. 4, ¶ 0034), and a dock with a connector (Williams figure 7; pg. 10, ¶ 0081), but does not expressly disclose comprising at least one charging dock comprising charge circuitry for charging at least one battery in the housing, the charging dock comprising plural contacts, the speaker comprising plural pogo pins to register with and electrically contact respective contacts of the dock, the pogo pins being disposed in a recess of the housing, the recess being configured and sized to snugly receive the charging dock. However the use of recessed pogo pins as electrical contacts for providing power is known in the art, as taught by Qian, which discloses a similar speaker device, and further discloses the speaker can include pogo pins as the recessed connection ports for providing electrical connections including to a charging port for receiving power and charge the battery (see figures 4A-6; pg. 4, ¶ 0046; pg. 5, ¶ 0048). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being as a matter of design, as the use of pogo pins for electrical connection are known in the art, and further to provide a recessed charging interface that can be hidden from view (see figures 4A-6; pg. 4, ¶ 0046).
10. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Smithers, and further in view of US Patent No 6035962 Lin.
As to claim 11, Williams in view of Smithers discloses the apparatus of Claim 1.
Williams in view of Smithers discloses the use of bass speakers (Smithers pg. 6, ¶ 0066), but does not expressly disclose comprising a woofer assembly in the housing comprising a woofer surrounded by a flat frame, wherein edges of the flat frame are received between longitudinal ribs on a wall of the housing with a sonic axis of the woofer assembly facing the wall. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Lin, which discloses a similar apparatus, and further discloses the speaker having a support board that is coupled to the housing via longitudinal ribs or grooves (see figures 1-4; col. 2, lines 1-17). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being to provide a stabilizing structure for positioning the speaker within the housing (Lin col. 2, lines 48-54).
11. Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Smithers, and further in view of US Patent No 9900692 B2 to McCoy et al. (“McCoy”).
As to claim 13, Williams discloses a system comprising: a first speaker configured to receive audio from an audio source and from a Bluetooth audio source; a second speaker configured to simultaneously receive audio from the audio source and from the Bluetooth audio source such that the first and second speakers establish a stereo audio system to simultaneously play audio in stereo (stereo or surround sound configurations, see figures 1-5; pg. 4, ¶ 0034, ¶ 0036; pg. 7, ¶ 0057, ¶ 0059; pg. 8, ¶ 0064); the first speaker being a standalone speaker comprising at least one driver, wherein the first speaker comprises first and second base surfaces oriented at an obtuse angle relative to each other, where the first speaker is configured to rest on either the first or second base surface (see figures 3A-3C and 18; pg. 4, ¶ 0035 - ¶ 0036; pg. 5, ¶ 0041).
Williams does not expressly disclose the driver being a planar magnetic driver configured to drive at least one woofer or tweeter, nor does it disclose the wherein the received audio can be from a computer game audio source. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Smithers, which discloses a similar loudspeaker system for playing audio content from various sources including computer games (see figure 5; pg. 1, ¶ 0005; pg. 3, ¶ 0040), and further discloses the drivers can be planar magnetic drivers configured to operate in any frequency such as bass, mid-range or tweeters (see pg. 5, ¶ 0059 - ¶ 0060; pg. 6, ¶ 0066). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as the use of computer games as an audio source and planar magnetic drivers are known in the art and therefore merely straightforward possibilities which skilled person would select when designing a loudspeaker system. The motivation being a matter of design, as long as any appropriate source and driver is used, and further depending on the desired bandwidth for the audio content (Smithers pg. 5, ¶ 0059 - ¶ 0060; pg. 6, ¶ 0066).
Williams in view of Smithers further does not expressly disclose the first speaker being configured to simultaneously receive audio from the audio source and the Bluetooth audio source, nor the first and second speakers simultaneously playing audio from both sources. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by McCoy, which discloses a similar speaker system with multiple speakers, and further discloses the speaker being configured to play one or more audio files received from two or more sources simultaneously (see figures 1-2; col. 5, lines 1-47). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, particularly when designing a system with multiple speakers and which can receive audio content from various sources, the motivation being to provide a more flexible speaker system that can playback a variety of audio content in many different ways depending on the content, the source, and the desired acoustic or sound effect (McCoy col. 1, lines 13-28; col. 5, lines 1-47).
As to claim 15, Williams in view of Smithers and McCoy further discloses wherein the planar magnetic speaker driver is slightly tilted within the first speaker when the first speaker is in an upright orientation (Smithers figure 11; pg. 5, ¶ 0060).
12. Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Smithers and McCoy, and further in view of Simidian.
As to claim 16, Williams in view of Smithers and McCoy discloses the system of Claim 13.
Williams in view of Smithers and McCoy does not expressly disclose wherein the planar magnetic driver comprises one or more permanent magnets disposed against an inside surface of a stator that covers a front of a housing of the speaker. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Simidian, which discloses a planar magnetic driver that includes permanent magnets and a stator (see figures 1A and 2A-2B; pg. 2, ¶ 0015 - ¶ 0017). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as such a structure is well-known for planar magnetic drivers, and further as the use of such permanent magnets can provide efficient transducers with little distortion (Simidian pg. 1, ¶ 0003, ¶ 0005; pg. 2, ¶ 0017).
13. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Smithers and McCoy, and further in view of Qian.
As to claim 19, Williams in view of Smithers and McCoy discloses the system of Claim 14.
Williams in view of Smithers and McCoy discloses the system speaker comprising a battery (Williams pg. 4, ¶ 0034), and a dock with a connector (Williams figure 7; pg. 10, ¶ 0081), but does not expressly disclose comprising at least one charging dock comprising charge circuitry for charging at least one battery in the first speaker, the charging dock comprising plural contacts, the first speaker comprising plural pogo pins to register with and electrically contact respective contacts of the charging dock, the pogo pins being disposed in a recess of the first speaker, the recess being configured and sized to snugly receive the charging dock. However the use of recessed pogo pins as electrical contacts for providing power is known in the art, as taught by Qian, which discloses a similar speaker device, and further discloses the speaker can include pogo pins as the recessed connection ports for providing electrical connections including to a charging port for receiving power and charge the battery (see figures 4A-6; pg. 4, ¶ 0046; pg. 5, ¶ 0048). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being as a matter of design, as the use of pogo pins for electrical connection are known in the art, and further to provide a recessed charging interface that can be hidden from view (see figures 4A-6; pg. 4, ¶ 0046).
14. Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams in view of Smithers and McCoy, and further in view of Lin.
As to claim 20, Williams in view of Smithers and McCoy discloses the system of Claim 14.
Williams in view of Smithers and McCoy discloses the use of bass speakers (Smithers pg. 6, ¶ 0066), but does not expressly disclose comprising a woofer assembly in the first speaker, the woofer assembly comprising a woofer surrounded by a flat frame, wherein edges of the flat frame are received between longitudinal ribs on a wall of the first speaker with a sonic axis of the woofer assembly facing the wall. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Lin, which discloses a similar apparatus, and further discloses the speaker having a support board that is coupled to the housing via longitudinal ribs or grooves (see figures 1-4; col. 2, lines 1-17). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being to provide a stabilizing structure for positioning the speaker within the housing (Lin col. 2, lines 48-54).
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claims 3-5, 7 and 17-18 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
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABRINA DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 5712727488. 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.
/SABRINA DIAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/AHMAD F. MATAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights