DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to communications filed 2/7/2025:
Claims 1-15 are pending
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
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 1-15 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.
Regarding claim 1, it recites “substantially constant directivity” but fails to clearly define/give boundaries as to what is considered “constant directivity”.
Regarding claim 1, it recites “substantially unattenuated” but fails to clearly define/give boundaries.
Claims 2-15 are considered indefinite as being dependent upon an indefinite parent claim.
Regarding claims 3-4, 6-7, and 15, they are considered to be indefinite as they recite the limitation “…during an intended operational use of the transducer system.” However, there are no clear boundaries as to what constitutes “intended operational use” vs “unintentional operational use”.
Claims 5 and 8 are dependent upon an indefinite parent claim and therefore also indefinite.
Regarding claim 5, it recites “substantially two times greater than the second amplitude level.” However, there lacks clear boundaries as to “how much” is considered “substantially two times greater….”
Regarding claim 12, it recites “wherein at least one of the transducer units of the plurality of transducer units is facing in a direction substantially opposite than a remainder of the plurality of transducer units.” There lacks proper definition as to what is considered “substantially opposite”. The Examiner notes that the drawings submitted by the Applicant fail to exemplify this.
Regarding claim 14, it recites “substantially unattenuated.” However, there is no clear definition as to what is considered “substantially unattenuated.”
Regarding claim 15, it recites “…drive at substantially the same phase….” However, there lacks proper boundaries/definition as to what is considered “substantially the same phase”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keele (US20040240697).
Regarding claim 1, Keele teaches a transducer system for outputting sound in a radiation pattern having a substantially constant directivity across a frequency range (abstract, loudspeaker system outputting substantially constant beamwidth over a wide frequency range), the transducer system comprising:
an input (Fig. 20, input); and
a plurality of transducer units, each transducer unit connected to the input for receiving an electric signal and converting the electric signal to sound (Fig. 20, plurality of transducer units connected to same input and converting the input signal for sound output),
the plurality of transducer units arranged on a curve, the curve having a finite radius (Fig. 1, transducers arranged on a curve),
the plurality of transducer units comprising at least a first transducer unit, a second transducer unit, and a third transducer unit (Fig. 1, plurality of transducers comprising at least three transducers), and
each transducer unit of the plurality of transducer units connected to the input substantially unattenuated (Fig. 20, at least three of the plurality of transducers are connected to the input and substantially unattenuated).
Regarding claim 2, Keele teaches wherein each transducer unit of the plurality of transducer units is connected to the input without resistor networks (¶73, at least a first and second sub-array of the transducer system can be arranged without a resistor network).
Regarding claim 3, Keele teaches wherein the plurality of transducer units driven exclusively at two amplitude levels or gain shading levels includes a first amplitude level and a second amplitude level during intended operational use of the transducer system (Fig. 20, ¶103, each transducer of the array can be individually driven by an amplifier and therefore there exists a scenario in which each transducer can be driven at two levels).
Regarding claim 4, Keele teaches wherein the plurality of transducer units are driven at more than one amplitude level and no more than two amplitude levels during intended operational use of the transducer system (Fig. 20, ¶103, each transducer of the array can be individually driven by an amplifier and therefore there exists a scenario in which each transducer can be driven at two levels).
Regarding claim 5, Keele teaches wherein the first amplitude level is substantially two times greater than the second amplitude level (Fig. 20, ¶122, each transducer of the array can be individually driven by an amplifier and therefore it is considered to be a design choice to set one amplifier at one level and another amplifier at another level and should the design call for a 2x (or alternatively 0.5x) amplitude adjustment, it can be done with the individual amplifiers).
Regarding claim 6, Keele teaches wherein the second transducer unit is driven at the first amplitude level during an intended operational use of the transducer system (Fig. 20, ¶103, each transducer has an individual amplifier capable of driving the individual transducer at a first amplitude level).
Regarding claim 7, Keele teaches wherein the first transducer unit and the third transducer unit are driven at the second amplitude level during an intended operational use of the transducer system (Fig. 20, ¶103, each transducer has an individual amplifier capable of driving the individual transducer at a first amplitude level).
Regarding claim 8, Keele teaches wherein the second amplitude level is equal to 50% plus or minus 10% of the first amplitude level (Fig. 20, ¶103, each transducer has an individual amplifier capable of driving the individual transducer at a set amplitude level wherein the “set amplitude level” is considered a design choice and adjusted by the audio engineer for the occasion).
Regarding claim 9, Keele teaches wherein the first transducer unit has a first impedance, the second transducer unit has a second impedance, and the third transducer unit having has a third impedance, the first impedance is different from the second impedance (¶76, for mass production, it may be desirable to fabricate the speaker drivers 102-136 with differing impedances by custom winding the coils included in each of the speaker drivers 102-136).
Regarding claim 10, Keele teaches wherein the first impedance is equal to the third impedance plus or minus 15% (¶73-74, impedance of the first sub-array can be within the +/- 15% range from the fourth sub-array; ¶76, transducers units can also be manufactured at a set impedance).
Regarding claim 11, Keele teaches wherein the second impedance being equal to 50% plus or minus 10% of the first impedance (¶76, for mass production, it may be desirable to fabricate the speaker drivers 102-136 with differing impedances by custom winding the coils included in each of the speaker drivers 102-136).
Regarding claim 13, Keele teaches wherein the first transducer unit and the third transducer unit are connected in series to the input (¶73, array units can be arranged in series/parallel to achieve a desired impedance).
Regarding claim 14, Keele teaches wherein the second transducer unit is connected substantially unattenuated in parallel with the first transducer unit and the third transducer unit is coupled to the input (¶73, Fig. 3, transducer units can be arranged in series/parallel to achieve a desired impedance).
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keele (US20040240697) in view of Horbach (US20230050161).
Regarding claim 12, Keele fails to explicitly teach wherein at least one of the transducer units of the plurality of transducer units is facing in a direction substantially opposite than a remainder of the plurality of transducer units.
Horbach teaches wherein at least one of the transducer units of the plurality of transducer units is facing in a direction substantially opposite than a remainder of the plurality of transducer units (¶37, Fig. 2, at least one transducer facing in an opposite direction than another transducer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of sound radiation pattern (as taught by Horbach) to the speaker array system (as taught by Keele). The rationale to do so is to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of achieving horizontal radiation pattern control (Horbach, ¶37).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keele (US20040240697) in view of Hardesty (US20180227663).
Regarding claim 15, Keele fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of transducer units are driven at substantially the same phase during intended operational use of the transducer system.
Hardesty teaches wherein the plurality of transducer units are driven at substantially the same phase during intended operational use of the transducer system (¶127, 129, driven phases can be substantially similar because phase deviations can be kept to a minimum with the appropriate modifications).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the technique of decreasing transducer-to-transducer distance (as taught by Hardesty) to the speaker array system (as taught by Keele). The rationale to do so is to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield the predictable result of improving phase and frequency response (Hardesty, ¶151).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of References Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIN ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-1304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-4PM EST.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-7503. 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.
/QIN ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights