NON-FINAL ACTION
This is a patent reissue proceeding involving U.S. Pat. 10,893,367 (“’367 patent). Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are pending.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 10,893,367 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Reissue Declaration
The reissue declaration filed with this application is defective because it fails to identify at least one error which is relied upon to support the reissue application. See 37 CFR 1.175 and MPEP § 1414.
Although the patent owner has indicated that this proceeding is intended to amend claim 1, no specific claim language in the original has been identified wherein lies the error or how it renders the original patent whole or party inoperative or invalid.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 251
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
The nature of the defect(s) in the declaration is set forth in the discussion above in this Office action.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being an impermissible recapture of broadened claimed subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent upon which the present reissue is based. In re McDonald, 43 F.4th 1340, 1345, 2022 USPQ2d 745 (Fed. Cir. 2022); Greenliant Systems, Inc. et al v. Xicor LLC, 692 F.3d 1261, 103 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Youman, 679 F.3d 1335, 102 USPQ2d 1862 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Shahram Mostafazadeh and Joseph O. Smith, 643 F.3d 1353, 98 USPQ2d 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2011); North American Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 75 USPQ2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Pannu v. Storz Instruments Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 59 USPQ2d 1597 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Hester Industries, Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 46 USPQ2d 1641 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 45 USPQ2d 1161 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Ball Corp. v. United States, 729 F.2d 1429, 1436, 221 USPQ 289, 295 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The reissue application contains claim(s) that are broader than the issued patent claims. The record of the application for the patent family shows that the broadening aspect (in the reissue) relates to claimed subject matter that applicant previously surrendered during the prosecution of the application. Accordingly, the narrow scope of the claims in the patent was not an error within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 251, and the broader scope of claim subject matter surrendered in the application for the patent cannot be recaptured by the filing of the present reissue application.
Claims 1-6 and 8-14 are broader than the issued patent claims at least in that they do not include “the magnet separation distance (dm) being equal to a width (ws) of a voice coil of the n voice coils in the axial direction.”
During prosecution of the application that matured into the ’367 patent, this feature was the subject of an amendment to the claims, and it was expressly argued as a distinguishing feature over the prior art Ohasi reference. App. 16/335,609, Response (Jul. 17, 2020), pp. 2, 5-6. Thus, this feature is considered a surrender generating limitation.
This feature has been entirely removed from the claims in this reissue application. The claims have not been materially narrowed in other respects, as related to this surrendered subject matter.
Accordingly, the removal of this feature constitutes an improper recapture of surrendered subject matter.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2004/0156527 (“Stiles ’527”) in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2006/0251286 (“Stiles ’286”).
Regarding claim 1, Stiles ’527 discloses a loudspeaker unit having a membrane and a plurality of drive units driving the membrane, wherein each of the plurality of drive units comprises n voice coils and at least n+1 magnets, n being an integer larger than or equal to 1, wherein the at least n+1 magnets are magnets with an axial magnetization which are stacked in axial direction with similar pole parts of adjacent ones of the at least n+1 magnets facing each other, and the at least n+1 magnets are separated in the stack over a magnet separation distance (dm), and wherein the at least n+1 magnets are fixed at the magnet separation distance (dm) by a spacer. See, e.g., Stiles ’527, Fig. 12 and the associated text.
In Fig. 12 of Stiles ’527, driver plates 138 and 142 serve as spacers. Although Stiles ’527 does not disclose the drive plates of Fig. 12 as being of a non-magnetic material, Stiles ’527 does additionally teach the use of a non-magnetic spacer between drive plates in Fig. 13. Stiles ’286 further teaches the use of similar non-magnetic (aluminum) spacers between pairs of magnets, adding that the spacer provides a thermal path to the centering post and basket, thereby both reducing heating of the motor and extracting heat from the transducer.” See, e.g., Stiles ’286, Fig. 3, ¶¶ [0045], [0053].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to utilize non-magnetic (e.g., aluminum) spacers, as taught by Stiles ’527 and Stiles ’286, between magnets within the multi-driver arrangement of Fig. 12 of Stiles ’527 in order to gain the advantage of reducing/extracting heat.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Stiles ’527 shows a loudspeaker unit with n voice coils mechanically fixed to the membrane via attachment to a cylinder shaped bobbin or voice coil former. See, e.g., Stiles ’527 at ¶¶ [0006]-[0008], [0054].
Regarding claim 4, Stiles ’527 shows the plurality of drive units being positioned in a parallel configuration. See, e.g., Stiles ’527 at Fig. 12 and associated text.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Stiles ’527 shows the n+1 magnets being flattened ring shaped magnets; a flattened ring is a cylinder. See, e.g., Stiles ’527 at Fig. 12, ¶¶ [0005]-[0006], [0019].
Regarding claim 8, Stiles ’527 shows the n+1 magnets being fixedly attached to a loudspeaker base frame. See, e.g., Stiles ’527 at Fig. 12 and associated text.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2004/0156527 (“Stiles ’527”) in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2006/0251286 (“Stiles ’286”) and U.S. Pat. 5,748,760 (“Button”).
Regarding claim 5, Stiles ’527 and Stiles ’286 teach the elements of claim 1, including n+1 magnets. Stiles ’527 and Stiles ’286 are silent as to the material used for the magnets. However, Buttons teaches that using neodymium magnets in loudspeaker construction reduces the weight of the assembly because a neodymium magnet provides more magnetic flux per weight than a standard magnet (e.g., ceramic or alnico). See Button, 2:62-3:1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to use neodymium magnets with the structures taught by Stiles ’527 and Stiles ’286 in order to gain the advantage of reducing the weight of the resulting loudspeaker.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2004/0156527 (“Stiles ’527”) in view of U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2006/0251286 (“Stiles ’286”) and U.S. Pat. App. Pub. 2007/0183620 (“Stiles ’620”).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Stiles ’527 and Stiles ’286 teach the elements of claim 1, including using a plurality of drive units. Stiles ’527 and Stiles ’286 are silent as to how the multiple voice coils are connected. However, Stiles ’620 teaches a loudspeaker constructed with multiple voice coils, where the voice coils “can be combined in any permutation of series/parallel connections, to select any one of a predetermined set of impedance values for the transducer.” See, e.g., Stiles ’620, Abstract, ¶¶ [0007], [0022]-[0027]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to connect n voice coils in parallel or combined parallel and series circuit configurations in order to gain the advantage of being able to readily select the desired impedance of the loudspeaker, as taught by Stiles ’620.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 251, as set forth above.
The examiner notes, however, that the prior art of record fails to teach or fairly suggest n being an integer larger than 2, wherein the n voice coils are positioned in an axial direction over a coil separation distance (ds), the coil separation distance (ds) being equal to a width (wm) in the stack direction of the magnet, as recited in claims 9-11, in the context of the remaining limitations of parent claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC B KISS whose telephone number is (571)272-3699. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Andrew Fischer can be reached on 571-272-6779. 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.
/Eric B. Kiss/Patent Reexam Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/Cameron Saadat/Patent Reexam Specialist, Art Unit 3992
/ANDREW J. FISCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights