DETAILED ACTION
1. Applicant's amendments and remarks submitted on January 20, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1 and 4-6 have been amended. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claims 1 and 4-8 are still pending on this application, with claims 1, 4 and 7-8 being rejected, and claims 5-6 being objected to. All new grounds of rejection were necessitated by the amendments to claims 1 and 4. Accordingly, this action is made final.
2. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Application JP 59-195891 U to Fujitsu (provided by Applicant) in view of US Patent Pub No 2011/0293131 A1 to Kobayashi et al. (“Kobayashi”), and further in view of Japanese Application JP H0595594 A to Tokumitsu.
As to claim 1, Fujitsu discloses a speaker, comprising: a speaker unit (speaker 4, see figures 1-3; pg. 3, lines 15-16 of the English translation provided by Applicant); and a holding member configured to hold the speaker unit, wherein the holding member is formed of a resilient material (carrier 8 made of rubber, see figures 2-5; pg. 3, lines 15-19), and has a holding portion configured to hold the speaker unit (inner surface of carrier 8 with recess 11, see figure 3; pg. 3, lines 21-22) and an attachment portion provided integrally with the holding portion and configured to be fixed to an attachment target (outer surface of carrier 8 with fitting projections 16/17/23 for mounting to case 1; see figures 3-5; pg. 5, lines 1-5), wherein a rectangular groove configured to hold an outer peripheral portion of the speaker unit is formed at the holding portion (recess 11, see figure 3), wherein the speaker unit includes: a main body having a diaphragm, a magnetic circuit, and a frame (inherent features of a speaker unit as shown in the figures, see figures 1-3); and wherein the rectangular groove is constituted by: a vertical side face facing a side face of the speaker unit, a front side face extending radially inward from a front end of the vertical side face, and a rear side face extending radially inward from a rear end of the vertical side face (recess 11 formed to accommodate speaker flange 6, see figure 3; pg. 3, lines 21-22).
Fujitsu discloses the speaker having a frame 5 (see figure 3), but does not expressly disclose wherein the speaker unit includes: a front cover attached to the main body and having a front face portion and a side face portion, and wherein the side face portion of the front cover constitutes the outer peripheral portion of the speaker unit. However such a configuration is known in the art, a taught by Kobayashi, which discloses a similar speaker unit that includes a main body having a diaphragm, a magnetic circuit, and a frame (see figure 1), and further discloses the speaker having a frame cover 30, the cover having front and side portions constituting an outer peripheral flange portion of the speaker (see figures 1-2 and 5; pg. 1, ¶ 0017).
The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as such a configuration for a speaker housing structure is known in the art, and further as it has been held that constructing an integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). In this case, constructing the speaker frame of Fujitsu to include a frame cover is considered an obvious matter of design choice in view of Kobayashi, as such a configuration can provide ease of access to speaker components within the frame via a separate and removable cover element, which can be useful for testing, troubleshooting, and/or replacing speaker components if necessary.
Fujitsu in view of Kobayashi discloses the holding portion and the attachment portion being integrally formed, and further discloses the holding portion extending to surround the speaker side face (Fujitsu figures 3-5), but does not expressly disclose wherein the holding member has an enclosure portion surrounding a rear face of the speaker unit, the enclosure portion being provided integrally with the holding portion and the attachment portion. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Tokumitsu, which discloses a similar speaker device with a holding element 21/31/41 made of rubber and configured to surround and hold the speaker unit, the holder having a cup shape and configured to extend around and surround the rear face of the speaker (see figures 1-4; pg. 3, ¶ 0010 of the English translation). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being as a matter of design, particularly as such a configuration can ensure the speaker is secured in place and held closely by an elastic member such that unnecessary vibrations are absorbed (Tokumitsu figures 1-4; pg. 4, ¶ 0016).
4. Claim(s) 4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujitsu in view of Kobayashi and Tokumitsu, and further in view of US Patent Pub No 2006/0256995 A1 to Abe et al. (“Abe”).
As to claim 4, Fujitsu in view of Kobayashi and Tokumitsu discloses the speaker of claim 1.
Fujitsu in view of Kobayashi and Tokumitsu does not disclose wherein: a linear projection protruding toward the outer peripheral portion is formed at the rear side face of the rectangular groove, and the holding portion closely contacts the outer peripheral portion via the linear projection.
Abe discloses a similar speaker device, and further discloses the speaker support groove 20 includes one or more rib portions 21 positioned on any surface of the groove and configured to be in contact with the outer flange edge of the speaker (see figures 8 and 15-16; pg. 3, ¶ 0043 - ¶ 0044; pg. 4, ¶ 0065, ¶ 0069).
Fujitsu in view of Kobayashi and Tokumitsu, and Abe are analogous art because they are drawn to speaker devices.
It would have been an obvious choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of ribs or projections as taught by Abe in the device as taught by Fujitsu in view of Kobayashi and Tokumitsu. The motivation being to provide a secure and airtight connection between the speaker and the holding element, thereby ensuring an enhanced seal, and avoiding sound leakage to prevent the degradation of acoustic characteristics (Abe pg. 4, ¶ 0060 - ¶ 0061).
As to claim 7, Fujitsu in view of Kobayashi, Tokumitsu and Abe further discloses wherein a linear projection is provided on the vertical side face of the rectangular groove, the linear projection protruding toward the side face portion of the front cover and closely contacting the side face portion of the front cover (Abe figures 8 and 15-16; pg. 3, ¶ 0043 - ¶ 0044; pg. 4, ¶ 0069).
As to claim 8, Fujitsu in view of Kobayashi, Tokumitsu and Abe does not expressly disclose wherein a linear projection is provided on the front side face of the rectangular groove, the linear projection protruding toward the front face portion of the front cover and closely contacting the front face portion of the front cover. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Fujitsu in view of Kobayashi, Tokumitsu and Abe, and further as it has been held that a rearrangement or repositioning of parts involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this case, the projections being provided on the front side face of the rectangular groove and protruding toward the front face portion of the front cover is merely a straightforward possibility from which a skilled person would select when incorporating protruding structures within a support groove, as taught by Fujitsu in view of Kobayashi and Abe. The proposed modification is therefore considered an obvious variation of the speaker as taught by Fujitsu in view of Kobayashi, Tokumitsu and Abe, as it can depend on the available surface space and dimensions within the support groove, and further as such a configuration would not modify the operation of the device, as long as the projections are configured to abut on the peripheral surface of the speaker and airtightly cut off a clearance defined between the edge and the groove to provide a sealing function (Abe pg. 3, ¶ 0043 - ¶ 0044; pg. 4, ¶ 0060 - ¶ 0061, ¶ 0069).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 5-6 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.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026 regarding claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “Tokumitsu does not provide a proper basis for modifying Fujitsu,” as “Tokumitsu relates to attaching a speaker unit to a plate-like member, whereas Fujitsu does not use such a structure,” therefore “there is no clear reason provided in the references or known in the art to combine these different attachment concepts.” Applicant therefore argues that “it would not be reasonable to expect that a skilled artisan would have extracted only an enclosure-related aspect from Tokumitsu and apply it to Fujitsu.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted in the rejection, Fujitsu in view of Kobayashi discloses a holding portion as recited in the claim, including the holding portion having an attachment portion provided integrally with the holding portion for fixing to an attachment target (Fujitsu carrier 8 with fitting projections 16/17/23 for mounting to case 1; see figures 3-5; pg. 5, lines 1-5). Fujitsu in view of Kobayashi discloses the holding portion as extending to surround the side face of the speaker (Fujitsu figures 3-5), but does not expressly disclose the holding portion extending further to surround a rear face of the speaker via an enclosure portion. Tokumitsu is therefore relied on for disclosing a similar holding member made of rubber and configured to hold a speaker unit, the holding member having a cup shape that extends to surround the speaker sides (as already disclosed by Fujitsu in view of Kobayashi), and further extends to enclose and surround the rear face of the speaker (holding member 21/31/41, see figures 1-4; pg. 3, ¶ 0010 of the English translation).
The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being as a matter of design, particularly as such a configuration can ensure the speaker is secured in place and held closely by an elastic member such that unnecessary vibrations are absorbed (Tokumitsu figures 1-4; pg. 4, ¶ 0016). That is, Tokumitsu is not relied on for the attachment to the frame opening structure as argued by Applicant, and is instead relied on for the holding member surrounding the speaker from all sides including the rear. This configuration would allow the speaker unit to be enclosed entirely by the holding member made of an elastic material, and therefore can enable the absorption of unnecessary vibrations, including from the rear of the speaker (Tokumitsu figures 1-4; pg. 4, ¶ 0016). Examiner respectfully maintains the claimed features as obvious in view of the combined teachings of Fujitsu, Kobayashi and Tokumitsu.
Conclusion
7. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
8. 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
Prosecution Insights