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 Objections
Claims 3, 8, and 10-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
It is unclear whether the term “the insert” as recited in line 1 of claim 3 refers to "the insert component" as recited in claim 2. If that is the case, then Applicant should modify the term by adding the word "component" to improve clarity. If Applicant intended to refer to a different companion electronic device, then Applicant may consider changing " the insert" to "a second insert" to improve clarity of the scope of the claim.
It is unclear whether the term “a base component” as recited in line 9 of claim 8 refers to "a base component" as recited in line 3 of the same claim. If that is the case, then Applicant should modify the term "a base component” to “the base component " to improve clarity. If Applicant intended to refer to a different companion electronic device, then Applicant may consider changing "a base component " to " a second base component" to improve clarity of the scope of the claim.
It is unclear whether the term “a first target directivity” as recited in line 1 of claim 10 and line 2 of claim 11 refers to " a first target directivity" as recited in line 6 of claim 8. If that is the case, then Applicant should modify the term " a first target directivity” to “the first target directivity" to improve clarity. If Applicant intended to refer to a different companion electronic device, then Applicant may consider changing " a first target directivity" to " a second target directivity " to improve clarity of the scope of the claim.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated over Smolen et al. (US 20240298110 A1)
Regarding claim 8, Smolen teaches:
A method for redistributing acoustic energy in a listening environment, the method comprising the steps of (a method for the limitations below, see: “Customizable waveguides for use in a loudspeaker and associated systems and methods are disclosed herein”, Abstract; acoustic energy is in form of acoustic waves, the target area is a listening environment, waveguide directing the acoustic waves toward the target area is redistributing acoustic energy into a listening environment, see [0019]: “The waveguide 115 (sometimes also referred to herein as a “speaker horn,” a “horn waveguide,” and/or the like) directs the acoustic waves away from the loudspeaker 112 toward the target area 102”, also see Fig. 1):
positioning a loudspeaker driver in an opening of a fixed front surface of a base component, the loudspeaker driver reproduces acoustic energy to be distributed into the listening environment (a housing 202 is a base component, the front baffle 204 is a fixed front surface of a base component, a compression driver 222 hidden inside the housing 202, or Element 405 in Fig. 4, is a loudspeaker driver, the loudspeaker driver is positioning in an opening of a fixed front surface of a base component, see Figs 2 and 4, see [0022]: “In the illustrated embodiment, the horn-speaker component 220 includes a compression driver 222 (or other suitable driving element) and a customizable waveguide 230”, see [0037]: “As a result of the operable coupling between the compression driver 405 and the throat 412, acoustic waves generated by the compression driver 405 are directed into the waveguide 400”);
defining a first target directivity for redistributing the acoustic energy being reproduced by the loudspeaker component (at least a second angel B can be a first target directivity for redistributing the acoustic energy being reproduced by the loudspeaker component; the process of determining a second angel B can be defining, see [0020]: ”…the customized waveguide 115 can have a beamwidth asymmetrical about the primary plane. For example, as illustrated by a second sound path 130, the customized waveguide 115 can shape the acoustic wave to exit the loudspeakers 112 at a second angle B toward the center of the target area 102…”, see Fig. 1);
customizing a topology of an insert component based on the first target directivity (at least the waveguide 115 can be part of an insert component, the shape, i.e. a topology, of the waveguide 115 is customized for the second sound path, i.e. based on the first target directivity, see [0020]: ”…the customized waveguide 115 can have a beamwidth asymmetrical about the primary plane. For example, as illustrated by a second sound path 130… the second sound path 130 provides better coverage over the target area 102…Such loudspeakers with the specifically shaped waveguide 115 to fit the particular target area”, see Fig. 1); and
attaching the insert component onto the fixed front surface of a base component ( The waveguide 230 is the insert component and the front baffle 204 is the front surface of a base component, coupling the waveguide to the front baffle 204 is attaching the insert component onto the fixed front surface of a base component, see [0022]: ”The waveguide 230 has a frame 232 coupled between the compression driver 222 and the front baffle 204.”, see Fig. 2);
wherein the acoustic energy is redistributed into the listening environment according to the first target directivity (the acoustic wave is the acoustic energy from the compression driver 222, it is shaped, i.e. redistributed by the waveguide or the insert component into the listening environment according to a second angel B, i.e. the first target directivity, see [0020]: “…the customized waveguide 115 can shape the acoustic wave to exit the loudspeakers 112 at a second angle B toward the center of the target area 102…”).
Regarding claim 9, Smolen teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 8’s 102 rejection.
Smolen also teaches:defining a second target directivity for redistributing the acoustic energy being reproduced by
the loudspeaker component (a third angle C can be a second target directivity for redistributing the acoustic energy being reproduced by the loudspeaker component; the process of determining a third angle C can be defining, see [0020]: ”… the customized waveguide 115 can shape the acoustic wave to exit the loudspeakers 112 at a second angle B toward the center of the target area 102 and a third angle C toward the sides of the target area 102”, see Fig. 1),
customizing a topology of a replacement insert component based on the second target directivity (the updated waveguide insert is a replacement insert component, its shape or configuration can be updated and/or changed, i.e. its topology can be customized, the customization is based on the need for adjusting the coverage angle, e.g. a third angle C, i.e. based on the second target directivity, see [0022]: “ the waveguide insert 240 having one shape or configuration can be easily and quickly removed from the frame 232 and replaced with another waveguide insert 240 with a different shape or configuration (and/or components of the waveguide insert 240 can be updated and/or changed to create a different shape or configuration), thereby adjusting the coverage angles for the loudspeaker 200” ); and
replacing the insert component with the replacement insert component (previous waveguide or
waveguide insert is the insert component, the updated waveguide insert is the replacement insert component, previous waveguide or waveguide insert is replaced with the updated waveguide insert, i.e. the insert component is replaced by the replacement insert component, see [0022]: “ the waveguide insert 240 having one shape or configuration can be easily and quickly removed from the frame 232 and replaced with another waveguide insert 240 with a different shape or configuration (and/or components of the waveguide insert 240 can be updated and/or changed to create a different shape or configuration), thereby adjusting the coverage angles for the loudspeaker 200”);
wherein the acoustic energy is redistributed into the listening environment according to the second target directivity (a given space can be the second target directivity into the listening environment, acoustic energy is customized or redistributed into the listening environment according to the second target directivity, see [0022]: “The customizability of the waveguide insert 240 enables the loudspeaker 200 to be customized to a given space”).
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bothe (US 20220279257 A1) in view of Nakatani (US 20100272295 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bothe teaches the limitations except where underlined:
A modular apparatus for customizing a redistribution of acoustic energy into a listening environment, the apparatus comprising ( the speaker including an insert, which can be interchangeably attached, is modular, see [0007]: “The speaker horn can also include an insert which is rotatably mounted…”; the insert can rotate the sound radiation pattern and change the horizontal and vertical plane in the radiation area, i.e. a listening environment, thus customize a redistribution of acoustic energy into audient areas, i.e. a listening environment, see [0006-0007]: “An object of the disclosure can be seen in creating a speaker horn which provides a radiation characteristic which can be varied in a horizontal and vertical plane in a simple manner…. in the radiation area…The speaker horn can also include an insert which is rotatably mounted…thus producing the rotatable radiation characteristic of the speaker horn”, see [0003]: “This is generally used specifically to provide uniform coverage of audience areas of different geometry”):
a base component having a top surface, a bottom surface, a front surface having a fixed contoured shape, and an opening in the front surface (Speaker box 500 is a base component, see [0053]: ”In such a speaker box 500…”, having a having a top surface (A), a bottom surface (B), a front surface having a fixed contoured shape (C), and an opening in the front surface (D), see Modified and Annotated Bothe, Figs 5 and 2C);
PNG
media_image1.png
767
1453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified and Annotated Bothe, Figs 5 and 2C
a loudspeaker driver component positioned at the opening (Element 150 is the loudspeaker driving pointed at the opening (D), see Modified and Annotated Bothe, Figs 5 and 2C, also see [0053]: ”In such a speaker box 500, the speaker driver 150…”); and
an insert component attached to the front surface of the base component, the insert component has a topography that is customizable and interchangeable to shape and direct the redistribution of acoustic energy (The mounted insert is an insert component, see [0007]: “The speaker horn can also include an insert which is rotatably mounted…”; different geometries correspond to different topography, and “different” means customizable, user can exchange inserts, i.e. insert is interchangeable, see [0023]: ”The rotatable insert can be interchangeably attached to the base body. This allows rotatable inserts with different geometries to be used. In addition, it is possible for the user to exchange inserts”; acoustic wave is radiated in the form of acoustic energy and the insert can change the acoustic radiation characteristic by rotating the sound radiation pattern and changing the horizontal and vertical plane, , therefore, thus shape and direct the redistribution of acoustic energy, see [0006-0007]: “An object of the disclosure can be seen in creating a speaker horn which provides a radiation characteristic which can be varied in a horizontal and vertical plane in a simple manner…. in the radiation area…The speaker horn can also include an insert which is rotatably mounted…thus producing the rotatable radiation characteristic of the speaker horn”).
Bothe teaches the insert is attached to the speaker horn (see [0007]: “The speaker horn can also include an insert which is rotatably mounted…”) but does not specifically disclose the insert is attached to the front surface of the base component.
Nakatani teaches an insert component attached to the front surface of the base component (the directivity adjustment panels 5 or 6 can be an insert and it is attached to the front baffle of the speaker box 1, i.e. the front surface of the base component, see [0076]: “As shown in the cross-sectional view of FIG. 3, the directivity adjustment panels 5, 6 have an L-shaped cross-section along the longitudinal direction (up and down direction in FIG. 3), and include supporting portions 5a, 6a fixed to the front baffle unit 10…”, see Figs 1 and 3).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have attached the insert component to the front surface of the base component as taught by Nakatani in the modular apparatus as taught by Bothe. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to for “a simple configuration and at low cost” (see [0026]).
Regarding claim 2, Bothe in view of Nakatani teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Bothe also teaches the insert component has a topology that is configured to satisfy a first predetermined target directivity (the area covered by the 90° radiation angle is a first predetermined target directivity, and the shaping or topology of thee insert component is configured to satisfy this target directivity, see [0037]: “… the insert 120 specifies a radiation angle of 90° as a result of corresponding shaping of the sound guiding surfaces 120_1, 120_2”, also see Fig. 2A).
Regarding claim 3, Bothe in view of Nakatani teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 2’s 103 rejection.
Bothe also teaches the limitations except where underlined:
the insert further comprises fastening features for attaching to the front surface of the base component so that it may be interchanged with an insert component having a topology that is configured to satisfy a second predetermined target directivity (the pivot bearing in the insert component is the fastening features for attaching to a structure to make it interchangeable, see [0041]: “The insert may be attached either to the base body of the speaker horn, as described above, or to the speaker driver via a pivot bearing”; the insert component can be interchanged with a different insert component of a different geometry, i.e. topology, see [0023]: ”The rotatable insert can be interchangeably attached to the base body. This allows rotatable inserts with different geometries to be used. In addition, it is possible for the user to exchange inserts”; the area covered by the 90° radiation angle is a second predetermined target directivity satisfied by a different topology of a different insert component, see [0042]: ”FIG. 3 shows an example of a speaker horn 100 that differs from the speaker horn 100 shown in FIGS. 2A to 2C only in that a wider coverage angle of, for example, 110° is provided by the insert 120”, also see Fig. 3).
Bothe does not specifically disclose the insert is attached to the front surface of the base component.
Nakatani teaches an insert component attached to the front surface of the base component (the directivity adjustment panels 5 or 6 can be an insert and it is attached to the front baffle of the speaker box 1, i.e. the front surface of the base component, see [0076]: “As shown in the cross-sectional view of FIG. 3, the directivity adjustment panels 5, 6 have an L-shaped cross-section along the longitudinal direction (up and down direction in FIG. 3), and include supporting portions 5a, 6a fixed to the front baffle unit 10…”, see Figs 1 and 3).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have attached the insert component to the front surface of the base component as taught by Nakatani in the modular apparatus as taught by Bothe. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to for “a simple configuration and at low cost” (see [0026]).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bothe (US 20220279257 A1) in view of Nakatani (US 20100272295 A1) further in view of Gunness (US 5020630 A).
Regarding claim 4, Bothe in view of Nakatani teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Bothe in view of Nakatani does not specifically disclose the insert component has a topology
that is configured to redistribute acoustic energy in a wide beamwidth and a single main lobe focused towards a center of the listening environment.
Gunness teaches different horn constructions (see Figs 3-8) that could redistribute acoustic energy in a wide beamwidth and a single main lobe pattern (Fig. 9 shows a single main lobe pattern covering multiple listening positions, including the left and right positions of the 0-degree center, therefore the beamwidth is wide, see Fig. 9), the substantially 0 degree of the lobe in Fig. 9 is focused towards a center of the listen environment, any of the horn constructions can be a topology of the insert component (see: “FIG. 9 is a vertical polar response graph at 2000 Hz for a loudspeaker constructed in accordance with a preferred construction of the loudspeaker of FIGS. 3 through 8; FIG. 10 is a graph showing a three dimensional response pattern at 2000 Hz for the loudspeaker with the polar response of FIG. 9”, col. 3, ln. 60-66, see Figs 3-8).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected an insert component topology that is configured to redistribute acoustic energy in a wide beamwidth and a single main lobe focused towards a center of the listening environment as taught by Gunness in the modular apparatus as taught by Bothe in view of Nakatani. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “produces a sound intensity pattern at the listening area which is substantially constant” (see col. 1, ln. 38-40).
Regarding claim 5, Bothe in view of Nakatani teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 1’s 103 rejection.
Bothe in view of Nakatani does not teach the insert component has a topology that is configured to redistribute acoustic energy in a plurality of lobes wherein each main lobe of the plurality of lobes is focusing toward a distinct listening position in the listening environment.
Gunness teaches the insert component has a topology that is configured to redistribute acoustic energy in a plurality of lobes wherein each main lobe of the plurality of lobes is focusing toward a distinct listening position in the listening environment (two horns can be constructed together by a bifurcated coupler, which can be the insert component, “…two horns constructed according to the present invention driven by a common driver, either by means of a bifurcated coupler or directly from the diaphragm of the driver”, col. 12, ln. 66-68; each horn has a main lobe focused toward a position in the listening environment, see: “FIG. 9 is a vertical polar response graph at 2000 Hz for a loudspeaker constructed in accordance with a preferred construction of the loudspeaker of FIGS. 3 through 8; FIG. 10 is a graph showing a three dimensional response pattern at 2000 Hz for the loudspeaker with the polar response of FIG. 9”, col. 3, ln. 60-66, see Figs 3-8; the two horns of the insert component can direct in different positions, e.g. 0 and 180-degree opposite directions. Since the main lobe is substantially inline with where the horn points to, e.g. the 0-degree direction in Fig. 9, each main lobe of the two lobes is focusing in 0 and 180 degrees respectively, i.e. each main lobe of the plurality of lobes is focusing toward a distinct listening position in the listening environment, see “It is also an object of the present invention to provide a loudspeaker with two horn structures directed in opposite directions in a single unit which functions in the manner of the two loudspeakers mounted in back to back relation referred to above” col. 2, ln. 14-18, col. 13, ln. 1)
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the two-horn construction as an insert component topology as taught by Gunness in the modular apparatus as taught by Bothe in view of Nakatani. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to achieve that a single unit “functions in the manner of the two loudspeakers” (see col. 2, ln. 16-17).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bothe (US 20220279257 A1) in view of Nakatani (US 20100272295 A1) in view of Gunness (US 5020630 A) further in view of Saiki (EP 0457487 A2).
Regarding claim 6, Bothe in view of Nakatani further in view of Gunness teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 6’s 103 rejection.
Bothe does not teach the listening environment is a vehicle cabin.
Nakatani teaches a speaker can be used as a car audio, i.e. inside a vehicle cabin, therefore the
listening environment is a vehicle cabin (see [0004]: “Such a coaxial speaker device is used as a car audio…”).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have uses the speaker in a vehicle cabin and made the vehicle cabin the listening environment as taught by Nakatani in the modular apparatus as taught by Bothe. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “to enhance the spatial efficiency in a vehicle” (see [0004]).
Bothe in view of Nakatani further in view of Gunness does not teach the plurality of lobes is a dual-lobe configuration, a first main lobe is focused toward a first listening position in a front portion of the vehicle cabin and a second main lobe is focused toward a second listening position in the front portion of the vehicle cabin.
Saiki teaches the plurality of lobes is a dual-lobe configuration (the first set of horns, units 11-13, corresponds to a first lobe, the second set of horns, units 8-10, corresponds to a second lobe, i.e. a dual-lobe configuration, see Fig. 8),
a first main lobe is focused toward a first listening position in a front portion of the vehicle cabin and a second main lobe is focused toward a second listening position in the front portion of the vehicle cabin (the driver’s seat and assistant driver’s seat are a first and second listening position in a front portion of the vehicle cabin respectively, the mouths of one set of horns are directed to the driver’s seat, i.e. a first main lobe is focused toward a first listening position in a front portion of the vehicle cabin, and the mouths of the other set of horns are directed to the assistant driver’s seat, i.e. a second main lobe is focused toward a second listening position in a front portion of the vehicle cabin, see “in such a manner that the horn mouths thereof are directed toward to the driver's seat…that the horn mouths thereof are directed toward the assistant driver's seat..”, col. 5, ln. 44-54, also see Fig. 7).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adopted a dual-lobe configuration and focused two main lobes toward two listening positions in a front portion of the vehicle cabin as taught by Saiki in the modular apparatus as taught by Bothe in view of Nakatani in view of further in view of Gunness. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “easily realized an arbitrary directional characteristic by horn units with the same shape” (see col. 1, ln. 41-43).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bothe (US 20220279257 A1) in view of Nakatani (US 20100272295 A1) in view of Gunness (US 5020630 A) further in view of Sladeczek et al. (US 20170085990 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Bothe in view of Nakatani further in view of Gunness teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 6’s 103 rejection.
Bothe does not teach the listening environment is a vehicle cabin.
Nakatani teaches a speaker can be used as a car audio, i.e. inside a vehicle cabin, therefore the
listening environment is a vehicle cabin (see [0004]: “Such a coaxial speaker device is used as a car audio…”).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have uses the speaker in a vehicle cabin and made the vehicle cabin the listening environment as taught by Nakatani in the modular apparatus as taught by Bothe. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “to enhance the spatial efficiency in a vehicle” (see [0004]).
Bothe in view of Nakatani further in view of Gunness does not teach the plurality of lobes is a triple-lobe configuration, a first main lobe is focused toward a first listening position in a front portion of the vehicle cabin, a second main lobe is focused toward a second listening position in the front portion of the vehicle cabin, and a third main lobe is focused to a third listening position in a rear portion of the vehicle cabin.
Sladeczek teaches a first main lobe is focused toward a first listening position in a front portion of the vehicle cabin (a first main lobe, see Element 22a in Fig. 1a, Element 10 in Fig. 1a is the vehicle cabin), a second main lobe is focused toward a second listening position in the front portion of the vehicle cabin(see Element 22b in Fig. 1a), and a third main lobe is focused to a third listening position in a rear portion of the vehicle cabin (see Element 22c or 22d in Fig. 1a). Sladeczek discloses a four-lobe configuration and does not specifically disclose a triple-lobe configuration, however, it would have been the designer’s choice to pick a triple-lobe configuration, i.e. a first lobe for a first listening position in a front portion of the vehicle cabin, a second lobe for a second listening position for in a front portion of the vehicle cabin, and a third lobe for a third listening position for in a rear portion of the vehicle cabin, based on the needs for acoustic separation (see [0005]) and this choice will not produce unexpected results.
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a triple-lobe configuration in a vehicle cabin as taught by Sladeczek in the modular apparatus as taught by Bothe in view of Nakatani further in view of Gunness. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for “high acoustic separation” (see [0005]).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smolen et al. (US 20240298110 A1) in view of Saiki (EP 0457487 A2).
Regarding claim 10, Smolen teaches all the claim elements previously stated in claim 8’s 102
rejection.
Smolen does not teach the step of defining a first target directivity further comprises defining a target directivity having at least one main lobe focused toward a listening position in the listening environment.
Saiki teaches defining a target directivity having at least one main lobe focused toward a listening position in the listening environment (the first set of horns, units 11-13, corresponds to one main lobe, the driver’s seat can be a listening position, the sound path from the first set or horns to the driver’s seat can be a target directivity, the vehicle cabin containing the driver’s seat is in the listening environment, the first lobe toward the driver’s seat is to focus one main lobe toward a listening position in the listening environment, the process of configuring the first set of horns to make the main lobe toward the driver’s seat is defining a target directivity, see Fig. 8, see: “the first set of horns are arranged in such a manner that the horns radiate sounds toward the driver's seat, while the second set of horns are arranged in such a manner that the horns are made inclined to the first set of horns and radiate sounds toward the assistant driver's seat”, col. 8, ln. 11-14).
At the time of the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have integrated defining a target directivity having at least one main lobe focused toward a listening position in the listening as taught by Saiki in the step of defining a first target directivity as taught by Smolen. It would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to take advantage of “the directional characteristic of the horn speaker” (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Smolen in view of Saiki teaches all the claim elements previously stated in
claim 10’s 103 rejection.
Smolen also teaches the listening environment further comprises a plurality of listening positions (a different space with a different target area is a plurality of listening positions in the listening environment, see [0020]: “…the loudspeakers were to be used in a different space 101 with a different target area 102”)
Smolen does not teach the step of defining a first target directivity further comprises defining a target directivity having a plurality of main lobes, and wherein each main lobe is focused toward a corresponding listening position in the plurality of listening positions.
Saiki teaches defining a target directivity having a plurality of main lobes, and wherein each main lobe is focused toward a corresponding listening position in the plurality of listening positions (
the first set of horns, units 11-13, corresponds to a first main lobe, the second set of horns, units 8-10, corresponds to a second main lobe, together both lobes can form a target directivity, the process of configuring these two sets of horns to determine these two main lobes is defining a target directivity
see Fig. 8
see Fig. 8, see: “the first set of horns are arranged in such a manner that the horns radiate sounds toward the driver's seat, while the second set of horns are arranged in such a manner that the horns are made inclined to the first set of horns and radiate sounds toward the assistant driver's seat”, col. 8, ln. 11-14).
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Greenberger (US 5870484 A) teaches a single main lobe in a wide beamwidth with a gradient loudspeaker (see: “FIG. 2b shows a number of geometrical arrangements that can be used for a single transducer gradient loudspeaker. The open end of the enclosure and the front of the transducer are then separated in space. The enclosure acts as an acoustical delay element for sound from the back side of the transducer. (It takes a finite amount of time for a sound wave to travel from the rear of the transducer diaphragm to the enclosure opening.) This will generate the same condition as above where there are two sources displaced in space and one source is delayed and inverted in polarity with respect to the other”, col. 15, ln. 15-25, see lower two arrangements in Fig. 2b; see “FIG. 1b shows the frequency response magnitude and directivity pattern of a delay type uni-directional first order gradient loudspeaker where the delay is equal to the path length delay”, col. 28, ln. 20-23, also see left two patterns in Fig. 1b)
Ureda (US 20020038740 A1), teaches a two-horn structure with a common throat (see Figs 5-6)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIN LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8-5 pm ET.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7848. 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.
/SHIN LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2695
/VIVIAN C CHIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2695
Prosecution Insights