DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 13, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 41-42, 44-47 and 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub No 2018/0270569 A1 to Boyd in view of US Patent No 7873179 B2 to Takewa, and further in view of US Patent Pub No 2010/0166201 A1 to Shim.
As to claim 41, Boyd discloses an electroacoustic transducer comprising: a chassis (cover 108/112; pg. 2, ¶ 0031 - ¶ 0032); a planar diaphragm supported by the chassis (102, see figures 1 and 4A; pg. 2, ¶ 0031, ¶ 0033); a dynamic coil mechanically coupled to the diaphragm, wherein the dynamic coil is arranged on or in and wound along at least a portion of the diaphragm (208a-c, see figures 2-2A and 4B; pg. 2, ¶ 0034, ¶ 0038; pg. 3, ¶ 0055); an additional dynamic coil arranged on or in the diaphragm, wherein the additional dynamic coil is spaced from the dynamic coil along a thickness of the diaphragm (208d-f, see figures 2-2A and 4B; pg. 2, ¶ 0038; pgs. 3-4, ¶ 0055 - ¶ 0056); and a suspension configured to suspend the diaphragm, wherein the suspension is formed by slits surrounding the dynamic coil on or in the diaphragm (216/218, see figure 2; pg. 2, ¶ 0034 - ¶ 0035; pg. 7, ¶ 0113).
Boyd does not expressly disclose wherein the additional dynamic coil is wound in the same direction as the dynamic coil, viewed from one side of the diaphragm. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Boyd, which discloses the symmetrical sub coil pairs being wound such that current flows in the same direction (see pg. 2, ¶ 0041), and further as taught by Takewa, which discloses upper and lower coils being symmetrical with currents passing through in the same direction, the coils therefore being wound in the same direction when looked from one side (see col. 9, lines 27-38). The claimed invention is therefore considered obvious given the combined teachings of Boyd and Takewa, as Boyd already teaches the upper and lower coil pairs configured for current to flow in the same direction, and Takewa discloses the coil configuration for currents flowing in the same direction as being upper and lower coils wound in a same direction when viewed from one side of the diaphragm (Boyd pg. 2, ¶ 0041; Takewa col. 9, lines 27-38).
Boyd in view of Takewa further does not expressly disclose a static field coil or magnet arranged with respect to the dynamic coil to electromagnetically interact with the dynamic coil, the static field coil or magnet being arranged in a plane parallel to the plane of the diaphragm, wherein the diaphragm and the static field coil or magnet are arranged in the chassis to restrict movement of the static field coil or magnet with respect to the chassis.
Shim discloses a similar transducer, and further discloses the use of an additional or counter coil that can be static or fixed within the transducer in a variety of configurations, including fixed to the housing, the counter coil further being configured to electromagnetically interact with the voice coil of the transducer (see figures 1C, 2A-2L and 3A-3L; pg. 5, ¶ 0027, ¶ 0029; pg. 25, ¶ 0174 - ¶ 0175).
Boyd in view of Takewa and Shim are analogous art because they are drawn to electroacoustic transducers.
It would have been an obvious choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a static field coil as taught by Shim in the transducer as taught by Boyd in view of Takewa. The motivation being to provide the repulsive and/or attractive forces required for generating audio sounds while also cancelling or minimizing irradiation of harmful waves (Shim pg. 25, ¶ 0174 - ¶ 0176).
As to claim 42, Boyd in view of Takewa and Shim further discloses wherein at least one of: the dynamic coil is embedded in the diaphragm (Boyd figure 2; pg. 3, ¶ 0045, ¶ 0047); and the static field coil is electrically connected to the same input or output terminal as the dynamic coil (Shim pg. 14, ¶ 0092; pg. 25, ¶ 0175; pg. 28, ¶ 0188).
As to claim 44, Boyd in view of Takewa and Shim further discloses wherein the additional dynamic coil is concentrically arranged with respect to the dynamic coil (Boyd figures 2-2A and 4B).
As to claim 45, Boyd in view of Takewa and Shim further discloses wherein the dynamic coil is wound in a spiral extending in a plane of the diaphragm (Boyd figures 2-2A and 4B).
As to claim 46, Boyd in view of Takewa and Shim further discloses wherein the dynamic coil is embedded in the diaphragm (Boyd figures 2-2A and 4B; pg. 3, ¶ 0045, ¶ 0047).
As to claim 47, Boyd in view of Takewa and Shim further discloses wherein the slits comprise angular slits, circumferentially extending around a portion of a circumference of the dynamic coil (Boyd figures 2-2A; pg. 2, ¶ 0035).
As to claim 56, Boyd in view of Takewa and Shim further discloses and further comprising a static field magnet supported by the chassis adjacent to the diaphragm and configured to electromagnetically interact with the dynamic coil (Boyd 104/106, see figures 1 and 3C-4B; pg. 2, ¶ 0031; pg. 3, ¶ 0054 - ¶ 0055).
4. Claim(s) 48-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyd in view of Takewa and Shim, and further in view of US Patent No 3436494 A to Bozak.
As to claim 48, Boyd in view of Takewa and Shim discloses the electroacoustic transducer according to claim 41.
Boyd in view of Takewa and Shim further discloses the slits being arranged circumferentially around the coil (Boyd figures 2-2A) but does not expressly disclose wherein the slits comprise inner angular slits arranged in the diaphragm and extending circumferentially around a portion of the circumference of the dynamic coil and outer angular slits arranged in the diaphragm and extending circumferentially around a portion of the circumference of the inner angular slits. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Bozak, which discloses a similar electroacoustic transducer, and further discloses inner and outer cutouts 34a and 34b arranged circumferentially to form a suspension element (see figure 6; col. 4, lines 1-14). The proposed modification is therefore considered merely a straightforward possibility from which a skilled person would select when designing a suspension that includes slits or cutouts to form leaf spring elements, which provide high compliance and axial stability (Bozak col. 2, lines 30-43).
As to claim 49, Boyd in view of Takewa, Shim and Bozak further discloses wherein the inner angular slits and the outer angular slits are spaced in radial direction relative to the dynamic coil arranged on or in the diaphragm (Boyd figures 2-2A; Bozak figure 6).
As to claim 50, Boyd in view of Takewa, Shim and Bozak further discloses wherein the inner angular slits and the outer angular slits overlap in radial direction relative to the dynamic coil (Boyd figures 2-2A; Bozak figure 6).
As to claim 51, Boyd in view of Takewa, Shim and Bozak further discloses wherein the slits comprise at least one radial slit (Bozak 34c, see figure 6).
As to claim 52, Boyd in view of Takewa, Shim and Bozak further discloses wherein the slits comprise at least one radial slit having an angular component (Bozak 34a/b, see figure 6).
As to claim 53, Boyd in view of Takewa, Shim and Bozak further discloses wherein the slits comprise inner angular slits in the diaphragm and around the dynamic coil and outer angular slits extending in the diaphragm and circumferentially around a portion of the circumference of the inner angular slits, and at least one radial slit extending between the inner angular slits and the outer angular slits (Boyd figures 2-2A; Bozak figure 6; col. 4, lines 1-14).
As to claim 54, Boyd in view of Takewa, Shim and Bozak further discloses wherein the slits comprise inner angular slits arranged in the diaphragm and extending circumferentially around a portion of the circumference of the dynamic coil and outer angular slits arranged in the diaphragm and extending circumferentially around a portion of the circumference of the inner angular slits (Bozak figure 6; col. 4, lines 1-14), and wherein the radial slits connect to the inner angular slits and protrude towards a radial dimension corresponding to the outer angular slits (Bozak figure 6).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed January 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 41, Applicant argues that “Shim has a stationary field generator, but no additional dynamic field coil, and thus the skilled person cannot use Shim to adapt the teachings of Boyd to arrive at an assembly of features as defined in claim 41,” “although it is noted Boyd have static field magnets 104/106 that could qualify as static field generators.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Boyd discloses the dynamic coil pairs as recited in the claim, and as noted by Applicant, further discloses a static field generator in the form of magnets interacting with the dynamic coils. Shim further discloses the use of dynamic or moving coils in combination with static or fixed coils, and in particular discloses a transducer with a moving voice coil (see figures 1B-1C; pg. 24, ¶ 0170) in combination with an additional or counter coil that can be static or fixed within the transducer in a variety of configurations, such as being fixed to the housing, and can further be incorporated in the transducer with or without a static magnet element (see figures 1B-1C; pg. 25, ¶ 0178). The static counter coil of Shim is configured to electromagnetically interact with the moving voice coil of the transducer (see figures 2A-2L and 3A-3L; pg. 5, ¶ 0027, ¶ 0029; pg. 25, ¶ 0174 - ¶ 0175). The proposed modification of incorporating a static field coil as taught by Shim in the transducer as taught by Boyd is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Boyd and Shim, as such a configuration could provide the repulsive and/or attractive forces required for generating audio sounds while also cancelling or minimizing irradiation of harmful waves (Shim pg. 25, ¶ 0174 - ¶ 0176).
Regarding Bozak, Applicant further argues that “Bozak discusses a Bakelite sheet, that would be unsuitable to act as a diaphragm, regardless of how cutouts 34 are formed in the Bakelite therein to form a number of solid leaf springs 36.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that Boyd already teaches the use of a diaphragm with slits being arranged circumferentially around the coil to form leaf springs that function as a suspension element for the diaphragm (see figures 2-2A; pg. 2, ¶ 0034 - ¶ 0035; pg. 7, ¶ 0113). Bozak is therefore relied on not for teaching a diaphragm, but for teaching a similar cutout arrangement in a suspension element for a transducer, and specifically for teaching the use of inner and outer cutouts 34a and 34b arranged circumferentially to form the suspension element (see figure 6; col. 4, lines 1-14). That is, Bozak teaches a variation of slits forming the suspension element, which includes inner and outer slits arranged circumferentially around the slit portions. The proposed modification is therefore considered merely a straightforward possibility from which a skilled person would select when designing a suspension that includes slits or cutouts to form leaf spring elements, as various shapes and configurations of slits can be employed to form said leaf spring elements, which provide high compliance and axial stability (Bozak col. 2, lines 30-43).
Conclusion
6. 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