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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the Final Office Action for application number 18/989,617 LIMITING STRUCTURE, SUPPORT MECHANISM, AND AUDIO STAND filed on 12/20/2024. Claims 1-7, 9 and 10 are pending. This Final Office Action is in response to applicant’s reply dated 5/13/2026. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent No. 11,293,586 to Kallas et al.
With regards to claim 1, Kallas et al. teaches a device (10) having a mounting component (54) configured to install a microphone boom (30, See Col. 1, lines 12-13, “a boom stand for use with heavy equipment including microphones”) wherein the mounting component comprises a limiting part (50) having
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]a limiting slot
PNG
media_image1.png
222
305
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(See Figure 4), a support component (52), movably connected to the mounting component; and a locking component
PNG
media_image2.png
138
178
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a first end of the locking component connected to the support component (52) and a second end of the locking component housed within the limiting slot of the limiting part, the locking component being configured to operate in a locked state connected to the mounting component to secure or release the support component and the mounting component, and an unlocked state to release the support component and the mounting component, wherein the limiting part is configured to rotate with the microphone boom relative to the support component, thereby enabling the microphone boom to perform movements, in response to unlocking of the locking component. (See Figures 1, 3 and 4)
With regards to claim 2, Kallas et al. teaches, wherein in response to unlocking of the locking component, the locking component is moveable in a length direction of the limiting slot, enabling the support component to move relative to the mounting component; and wherein in response to locking of the locking component, the locking component is secured at a position within the limiting slot, thereby locking the support component and the mounting component. (See Figure 4)
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow] With regards to claim 3, Kallas et al. teaches wherein the locking component comprises an operating part
PNG
media_image3.png
139
179
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and a movable part
PNG
media_image3.png
139
179
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein a first end of the movable part is connected to the support component (52), and a second end of the movable part is provided with a sliding body configured to glide within
[AltContent: arrow]the limiting slot
PNG
media_image3.png
139
179
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and wherein the operating part is connected to an end of the movable part distant from the limiting slot, and in response to an operation of the operating part, the sliding body is lockable within the limiting slot or slidable along the limiting slot.
With regards to claim 5, Kallas et al. teaches mounting component further comprises a mounting part (54) and a limiting part; and wherein the limiting part is provided between the mounting part and the support component (52), the limiting part comprises the limiting slot (See Above), and the limiting slot is configured to limit a movement range for the locking component.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s argument are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 6 and 7 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.
Claims 9 and 10 are allowed.
With regards to claim 4, the prior art does not each wherein a limiting projection extends inwardly from a peripheral wall of the limiting slot, restricting the sliding body within the limiting slot.
With regards to claim 6, the prior art does not teach wherein the limiting part comprises a connecting strip, a stiffener, and a limiting frame; wherein a first end of the connecting strip is provided between the support component and the mounting part, and a second end of the connecting strip is connected to the limiting frame; and wherein the limiting frame comprises the limiting slot, and a first end of the stiffener is connected to one end of the limiting frame, and a second end of the stiffener is connected to an end of the connecting strip distant from the limiting frame.
With regards to claim 9, the prior art does not teach A support mechanism, comprising a support rod, a limiting structure, and a regulating component; wherein the limiting structure comprises:a mounting component configured to install a microphone boom;a support component, movably connected to the mounting component; and a locking component, a first end of the locking component connected to the support component and a second end of the locking component connected to the mounting component to secure or release the support component and the mounting component; and wherein the support rod is movably connected to the support component; further comprising a regulating component, comprising wherein the regulating component comprises a connected regulating part and a resistance part; wherein the support component is movably connected to the support rod and comprises a first mounting hole; and wherein the regulating part is movably disposed within the first mounting hole, enabling the resistance part to shift relative to the support component to resist the support rod.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 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 date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Amy J. Sterling at telephone number 571-272-6823 or to Supervisor Jonathan Liu at 571-272-8227, if the examiner cannot be reached. The fax machine number for the Technology center is 571-273-8300 (formal amendments) or 571-273-6823 (informal communications only). Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the Technology Center receptionist at 571-272-3600.
/AMY J. STERLING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631 6/10/26
Prosecution Insights