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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of Patent 12192696 in view of Harmke (US 2020/0204894). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: claim 9 of patent 12192696 teaches all the limitations in the claims 2 and 15 of instant application except an exterior portion of the microphone body that is adjacent the audio transducer for receiving a user swappable grille. Harmke teaches an exterior portion of the microphone body that is adjacent the audio transducer for receiving a user swappable grille (Harmke ¶0032, “The front microphone grille 405…removably coupled to the housing 105” and ¶0026 “The rear microphone grille 130… is removably coupled to the housing 105”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Harmke to improve the known Microphone of Patent 12192696 to achieve the predictable result of improved speech intelligibility (Harmke ¶0020).
Dependent claims 3-14 are also rejected because they are obvious variants of the patented claims. See mapping for 103 rejections below.
Dependent claims 4-13 are also rejected over Patent 12192696 in view of Harmke
Dependent claim 3 is rejected over Patent 12192696 in view of Harmke in further view of Zhang (US 20220103930). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Zhang to improve the known microphone of Patent 12192696 to achieve the predictable result of a conveniently removable microphone grille.
Dependent claim 14 is rejected over Patent 12192696 in view of Harmke in further view of Hamer (US 8989420). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Hamer to improve the known microphone of Patent 12192696 to achieve the predictable result of a secure connection of components.
Patent 12192696
Instant Application 18/969117
1. A microphone with swappable grilles, the microphone comprising: a microphone body having a lower portion and an upper portion; electronics disposed in at least the lower portion; an audio transducer disposed in the upper portion and electronically coupled to the electronics; two grilles each disposed on an opposite side of the upper portion, where the two grilles are configured to removably attach to the upper portion; and two more grilles each disposed on an opposite side of the lower portion, where the two more grilles are configured to removably attach to the lower portion.
8. The microphone of claim 1, the microphone comprising: two additional grilles, wherein the two additional grilles replace the two grilles, further wherein: the two additional grilles, when removably attached to the microphone body, are configured to manipulate incoming sound waves to produce a first manipulated audio to be received by the audio transducer; and the two grilles, when removably attached to the microphone body, are configured to manipulate incoming sound waves to produce a second manipulated audio to be received by the audio transducer.
9. The microphone of claim 8, wherein the electronics are configured to produce a first frequency response corresponding to the first manipulated audio, and the electronics are configured to produce a second frequency response corresponding to the second manipulated audio, further wherein the first frequency response is not the same as the second frequency response.
2. An acoustically alterable microphone, comprising: a microphone body; an audio transducer disposed within the microphone body; an exterior portion of the microphone body that is adjacent the audio transducer for receiving a user swappable grille that is configured to be selected by a user from multiple grilles each having different acoustic properties; and the user swappable grille disposed at the exterior portion.
15. A user-swappable microphone grille, comprising: a physical feature for providing an acoustic property; mounting provisions for coupling to a microphone body, wherein the microphone body comprises: an audio transducer disposed within the microphone body; an exterior portion of the microphone body that is adjacent the audio transducer for receiving the user swappable grille; and the user swappable grille disposed at the exterior portion.
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.
Claim 7 is 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. The limitation “wherein the other exterior portion and the other user swappable grille have different shapes that the portion and user swappable grille, respectively,” appears to have a typo or grammatical error that renders the claim unclear as to what the relation of “the portion” and “user swappable grille” is to the rest of the claim. In addition, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation “user swappable grille” is referring to “a user swappable grille” as recited in claim 1, or the newly recited “other user swappable grille.”
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) 2, 4-10, 12-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmke (US 2020/0204894) in view of StClair (US 2017/0289664).
Regarding claim 2, Harmke teaches An acoustically alterable microphone, comprising: a microphone body (Harmke figures 1-4, RSM 100); an audio transducer disposed within the microphone body (Harmke figures 2-3, and ¶0026-0029, microphone array 230 and 325); an exterior portion of the microphone body that is adjacent the audio transducer (Harmke figures 2-3, housing of RSM 100) for (Note : “for receiving a user swappable grille that is configured to be selected by a user from multiple grilles each having different acoustic properties” is interpreted as a intended use limitation) receiving a user swappable grille that is configured to be selected by a user from multiple grilles (Harmke ¶0032, “The front microphone grille 405…removably coupled to the housing 105” and ¶0026 “The rear microphone grille 130… is removably coupled to the housing 105”) each having different acoustic properties (Harmke ¶0033-0034, “one of more of the first plurality of slats 515 may have a configuration other than parallel, such as a curvilinear configuration. Accordingly, one or more of the first plurality of channels 520 may also have a configuration other than parallel, such as a curvilinear configuration” and “one or more of the second plurality of channels 535 may also have a configuration other than parallel, such as a curvilinear configuration” and ¶0035, “the first plurality of slats 515 intersects the second plurality of slats 530 at the first angle 545,” ¶0041-0042, “slat width,” figure 7A and ¶0047 “the first slat thickness 730, and the second slat thickness 735, influence a resonant frequency of the front microphone cavity 305, one or more of a channel width, a slat width, a slat thickness, and a volume of the front microphone cavity 305 may be configured to reduce an impact of the resonant frequency on audio captured by the front microphone array 325”); and the user swappable grille disposed at the exterior portion (Harmke figure 2, microphone grille 130), however does not explicitly teach each of the multiple grilles having different acoustic properties.
StClair teaches each of the multiple grilles having different acoustic properties (StClair figures 5 and 9, ¶0023, “mate with a variety of covers,” ¶0027, “an extremely wide variety of microphone covers are possible. For example, the microphone opening 3 may be made up of a wide variety of acoustic materials, including foam, acoustic meshes made from plastic, metal, woven meshes, and many other materials. The microphone covers shown here may contain many combinations of reticulated and non-reticulated foams, baffles made from a variety of materials, and a variety of other structures intended to modify the passage of air vibrations to the microphone capsules. The apertures 12 on the directional phase cancellation microphone may be of various shapes, including but not limited to slits, ovals, circles, and other shapes.” Wherein a change in the air passage will change the frequency response which is considered an acoustic property. In addition, see pertinent art Schoepf ¶0001, ¶0008, Schoepf teaches the use of different material, mesh arrangement, basket geometry to manipulate the sound).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of StClair to improve the known microphone of Harmke to achieve the predictable result of adjustable frequency response for a microphone.
Regarding claim 4, Harmke in view of StClair teaches wherein the exterior portion is recessed within the microphone body (Harmke figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, Harmke in view of StClair teaches wherein the user swappable grille is substantially planar to an exterior surface of the microphone body (Harmke figure 1B).
Regarding claim 6, Harmke in view of StClair teaches another exterior portion adjacent to the audio transducer (Harmke figure 3, front microphone cavity 305) for (Note: “receiving another user swappable grill that is configured to be selected by the user from the multiple grilles each having different acoustic properties” is considered intended use) receiving another user swappable grill (Harmke figure 4, front microphone grille 405) that is configured to be selected by the user from the multiple grilles each having different acoustic properties (StClair figures 5 and 9, ¶0023, “mate with a variety of covers,” ¶0027, “an extremely wide variety of microphone covers are possible. For example, the microphone opening 3 may be made up of a wide variety of acoustic materials, including foam, acoustic meshes made from plastic, metal, woven meshes, and many other materials. The microphone covers shown here may contain many combinations of reticulated and non-reticulated foams, baffles made from a variety of materials, and a variety of other structures intended to modify the passage of air vibrations to the microphone capsules. The apertures 12 on the directional phase cancellation microphone may be of various shapes, including but not limited to slits, ovals, circles, and other shapes.” Wherein a change in the air passage will change the frequency response which is considered an acoustic property. In addition, see pertinent art Schoepf ¶0001, ¶0008, Schoepf teaches the use of different material, mesh arrangement, basket geometry to manipulate the sound).
Regarding claim 7, Harmke in view of StClair teaches wherein the other exterior portion and the other user swappable grille have different shapes (Harmke figure 4, the housing 105 has a shape that accommodates the whole bezel 125, and is different than the shape of the swappable grille 405, or ¶0033-0034 figures 5A show the two grilles have different slats of different direction) that the portion and user swappable grille, respectively.
Regarding claim 8, Harmke in view of StClair teaches wherein the other exterior portion is on an opposite side of the microphone body than the exterior portion (Harmke figures 2 and 4, rear grille 130 and front grille 405).
Regarding claim 9, Harmke in view of StClair teaches wherein the audio transducer includes at least one of a condenser microphone (StClair ¶0004, “The enclosure may contain a one or more microphone capsules of condenser, electret, MEMS”), a ribbon microphone, or a dynamic microphone.
Regarding claim 10, Harmke in view of StClair teaches wherein the multiple grilles each having different acoustic properties includes: a first grille with a first acoustic property for filtering incoming audio in a first manner; and a second grille with a second acoustic property, different from the first acoustic property, for filtering incoming audio in a second manner (Harmke ¶0033-0034, “one of more of the first plurality of slats 515 may have a configuration other than parallel, such as a curvilinear configuration. Accordingly, one or more of the first plurality of channels 520 may also have a configuration other than parallel, such as a curvilinear configuration” and “one or more of the second plurality of channels 535 may also have a configuration other than parallel, such as a curvilinear configuration” and ¶0035, “the first plurality of slats 515 intersects the second plurality of slats 530 at the first angle 545,” ¶0041-0042, “slat width,” figure 7A and ¶0047 “the first slat thickness 730, and the second slat thickness 735, influence a resonant frequency of the front microphone cavity 305, one or more of a channel width, a slat width, a slat thickness, and a volume of the front microphone cavity 305 may be configured to reduce an impact of the resonant frequency on audio captured by the front microphone array 325”).
Regarding claim 12, Harmke in view of StClair teaches wherein each of the multiple grilles each have different cutouts through them to in part produce the different acoustic properties (Harmke ¶0033-0034, “one of more of the first plurality of slats 515 may have a configuration other than parallel, such as a curvilinear configuration. Accordingly, one or more of the first plurality of channels 520 may also have a configuration other than parallel, such as a curvilinear configuration” and “one or more of the second plurality of channels 535 may also have a configuration other than parallel, such as a curvilinear configuration” and ¶0035, “the first plurality of slats 515 intersects the second plurality of slats 530 at the first angle 545,” ¶0041-0042, “slat width,” figure 7A and ¶0047 “the first slat thickness 730, and the second slat thickness 735, influence a resonant frequency of the front microphone cavity 305, one or more of a channel width, a slat width, a slat thickness, and a volume of the front microphone cavity 305 may be configured to reduce an impact of the resonant frequency on audio captured by the front microphone array 325”).
Regarding claim 13, Harmke in view of StClair teaches wherein at least some of the multiple grilles are constructed using multiple layers of material that each contribute to providing acoustic properties (Harmke figure 5A, the plurality of slats are considered layers with BRI and ¶0047 teaches change in acoustic properties).
Regarding claim 15, Harmke teaches A user-swappable microphone grille, comprising: a physical feature for providing an acoustic property (Harmke ¶0033-0034, “one of more of the first plurality of slats 515 may have a configuration other than parallel, such as a curvilinear configuration. Accordingly, one or more of the first plurality of channels 520 may also have a configuration other than parallel, such as a curvilinear configuration” and “one or more of the second plurality of channels 535 may also have a configuration other than parallel, such as a curvilinear configuration” and ¶0035, “the first plurality of slats 515 intersects the second plurality of slats 530 at the first angle 545,” ¶0041-0042, “slat width,” figure 7A and ¶0047 “the first slat thickness 730, and the second slat thickness 735, influence a resonant frequency of the front microphone cavity 305, one or more of a channel width, a slat width, a slat thickness, and a volume of the front microphone cavity 305 may be configured to reduce an impact of the resonant frequency on audio captured by the front microphone array 325”); mounting provisions (Harmke figure 2, fastener 210 and fastener opening 205) for coupling to a microphone body (Harmke figures 1-4, RSM 100), wherein the microphone body comprises: an audio transducer disposed within the microphone body (Harmke figures 2-3, and ¶0026-0029, microphone array 230 and 325); an exterior portion of the microphone body that is adjacent the audio transducer (Harmke figures 2-3, housing of RSM 100) for (Note : “for receiving a user swappable grille” is interpreted as a intended use limitation) receiving the user swappable grille (Harmke ¶0032, “The front microphone grille 405…removably coupled to the housing 105” and ¶0026 “The rear microphone grille 130… is removably coupled to the housing 105”); and the user swappable grille disposed at the exterior portion (Harmke figure 2, microphone grille 130), however does not explicitly teach the user-swappable microphone grille comprising a physical feature for providing an acoustic property.
StClair teaches a physical feature for providing an acoustic property (StClair figures 5 and 9, ¶0023, “mate with a variety of covers,” ¶0027, “an extremely wide variety of microphone covers are possible. For example, the microphone opening 3 may be made up of a wide variety of acoustic materials, including foam, acoustic meshes made from plastic, metal, woven meshes, and many other materials. The microphone covers shown here may contain many combinations of reticulated and non-reticulated foams, baffles made from a variety of materials, and a variety of other structures intended to modify the passage of air vibrations to the microphone capsules. The apertures 12 on the directional phase cancellation microphone may be of various shapes, including but not limited to slits, ovals, circles, and other shapes.” Wherein a change in the air passage will change the frequency response which is considered an acoustic property. In addition, see pertinent art Schoepf ¶0001, ¶0008, Schoepf teaches the use of different material, mesh arrangement, basket geometry to manipulate the sound).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of StClair to improve the known microphone of Harmke to achieve the predictable result of adjustable frequency response for a microphone.
Claim(s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmke (US 2020/0204894) in view of StClair (US 2017/0289664) in further view of Zhang (US 2022/0103930).
Regarding claim 3, Harmke in view of StClair does teach wherein the user swappable grille is secured in the exterior portion (Harmke figure 2, microphone grille 130), however does not explicitly teach secured via one or more magnets.
Zhang teaches securing via one or more magnets (Zhang ¶0087, “Magnets 824 can be adhesively secured to flange 822 and positioned to magnetically couple with base plate 812 when replaceable assembly 810 is positioned within the opening 850. Magnets 824 can be selected to generate a sufficiently strong magnetic field to secure base plate 812 during normal operation and during a drop event or similar impact event while still enabling the replaceable assembly to be removed from the earphone when replacement is desired”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Zhang to improve the known microphone of Harmke in view StClair to achieve the predictable result of a conveniently removable microphone grille.
Regarding claim 11, Harmke in view of StClair in further view of Zhang teaches wherein the user swappable grille is attached to and removed from the exterior portion without the use of tools (Zhang ¶0087, “Magnets 824 can be adhesively secured to flange 822 and positioned to magnetically couple with base plate 812 when replaceable assembly 810 is positioned within the opening 850. Magnets 824 can be selected to generate a sufficiently strong magnetic field to secure base plate 812 during normal operation and during a drop event or similar impact event while still enabling the replaceable assembly to be removed from the earphone when replacement is desired”).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harmke (US 2020/0204894) in view of StClair (US 2017/0289664) in further view of Hamer (US 8989420).
Regarding claim 14, Harmke in view of StClair teaches user swappable grille is secured in the exterior portion (Harmke figure 2) but does not explicitly teach wherein the user swappable grille is secured in the exterior portion via one or more clips.
Hamer teaches securing two parts via one or more clips (Hamer figures 1 and 6, clip fastener 17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known technique of Hamer to improve the known microphone of Harmke in view of StClair to achieve the predictable result of a secure connection of components.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Schoepf (DE 202006017786).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NORMAN YU whose telephone number is (571)270-7436. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 11am-7pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ahmad Matar can be reached on 571-272-7488. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Va. 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, for formal communications intended for entry and for
informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”.
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Arlington, VA 22314
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NORMAN YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights