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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant is advised that the new art unit number is 2692. Please use the new art unit number for all future communications.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/20/2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Comment
Page 15 of Applicant’s Specification defines “longitudinally” as “toward and away from the panel (201) and the cover (503)”, in other words in the direction along the dotted lines in Fig. 2. This contradicts the Merriam-Webster dictionary which defines “longitudinal” as “placed or running lengthwise” or “of or relating to length or the lengthwise dimension”. In other words, using the Merriam-Webster definition, “longitudinally” would be the up/down direction in Fig. 2 because the lengthwise direction of the heat sink (501) is the up/down direction. Due to this contradiction, it is being noted here that “longitudinally” will be interpreted using the definition given by page 15 of the specification only, and not using conventional definitions such as the Merriam-Webster definition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-5, 7-10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Azima et al. (US 6956957) hereinafter Azima957.
Regarding claim 1, Azima957 discloses a distributed mode loudspeaker (DML) assembly (Fig. 7) comprising:
a rigid panel (14) (detx9, col. 5, lines 27-37);
a frame (Fig. 7: the bottom 70’s) forming a perimeter of said rigid panel (detx10, col. 5, lines 37-47, and see Fig. 7);
an exciter (12) adhered at a front of said exciter to a back of said panel via an adhesive (bstx4, col. 1, lines 18-41: 20 of exciter 12 in Fig. 1 is bonded to 14 via adhesive, which would be the same case for 20 of exciter of Fig. 4 which is what appears in Fig. 7) (detx9, col. 5, lines 27-37, and see Fig. 8); and
a heat sink module (94, 74, and 66) including:
a heat sink (94) connected to said exciter on a back side of said exciter opposing said front side of said exciter (detx12, paragraph spanning cols 5-6, and see Fig. 13); and
a cover (Fig. 7: 66, 68, and the upper 70’s) attached to said heat sink and said frame (see Fig. 13);
wherein said heat sink can move toward and away (axial direction) from said cover (see Fig. 13 and bstx19-20, col. 3, lines 13-40, and note that since heat sink 94 is fixed to the exciter, the heat sink moves with the exciter in the axial direction); and
wherein,
said exciter generally cannot move laterally (orthogonally of the axial direction) relative to either said cover or said rigid panel (see Fig. 13 and bstx19-20, col. 3, lines 13-40, and note that since heat sink 94 is fixed to the exciter, the heat sink, like the exciter, is prevented from motion orthogonally of the axis).
Regarding claim 2, Azima957 discloses the DML assembly of claim 1, wherein said exciter is one of a plurality of exciters (two excites as seen in Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 3, Azima957 discloses the DML assembly of claim 2, wherein said plurality of exciters are all adhered at respective front sides to said back of said panel (bstx4, col. 1, lines 18-41: 20 of exciter 12 in Fig. 1 is bonded to 14 via adhesive, which would be the same case for 20 of exciter of Fig. 4 which is what appears in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 4, Azima957 discloses the DML assembly of claim 3, wherein said plurality of exciters are all connected on respective back sides to said heat sink (detx12, paragraph spanning cols 5-6, and note that the plurality of heat sinks (94) can be given the name “heat sink”).
Regarding claim 5, Azima957 discloses the DML assembly of claim 4, wherein said cover inhibits lateral motion due to an external force of all said plurality of exciters (detx19-20, col. 3, lines 13-40).
Regarding claim 7, Azima957 discloses the DML assembly of claim 1, wherein said cover is formed of a major surface (66) with a pair of flanges (Fig. 7: the 68’s on the four sides of 66; or alternatively the upper 70’s) extending therefrom (detx10, col. 5, lines 37-47, and see Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 8, Azima957 discloses the DML assembly of claim 7, wherein said major surface is perforated (detx10, col. 5, lines 37-47, and see Figs. 7/9).
Regarding claim 9, Azima957 discloses the DML assembly of claim 7, wherein said flanges (the 68’s) extend longitudinally from said major surface of said cover toward said panel (see Fig. 7, and see Examiner’s Comment section of this Office Action).
Regarding claim 10, Azima957 discloses the DML assembly of claim 1, wherein said panel is generally rectilinear in shape (see Fig. 10).
Regarding claim 12, Azima957 discloses the DML assembly of claim 1, wherein said heat sink is connected to said exciter via a screw (96) (detx12, paragraph spanning cols 5-6, and see Fig. 13).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azima957 in view of Perkins et al. (US 6259798).
Regarding claim 6, Azima957 discloses the DML assembly of claim 1.
Azima957 is not relied upon to disclose wherein electronics for driving said exciter are mounted on said heat sink.
In a similar field of endeavor, Perkins discloses wherein electronics (49) for driving a speaker are mounted on said heat sink (26) (Figs. 14-15 and detx4, col. 5, lines 45-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein electronics for driving said exciter are mounted on said heat sink, the motivation being to cool the electronics (Perkins – detx4, detx4, col. 5, lines 45-62).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azima957 in view of Azima et al. (WO 9709842) hereinafter Azima842.
Regarding claim 11, Azima957 discloses the DML assembly of claim 1.
Azima957 is not relied upon to disclose wherein said panel is comprised of a foil faced foam board.
In a similar field of endeavor, Azima842 discloses wherein said panel is comprised of a foil (21) faced foam (97) board (Fig. 2b) (page 42, lines 14-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: substitute the panel of Azima957 with that of Azima842, which would result in: wherein said panel is comprised of a foil faced foam board, the motivation being to provide benefits of shielding against radio-frequency emissions (Azima842 – page 50, lines 8-15), fire retardancy, and/or low cost (Azima842 – page 68, lines 12-19).
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azima957 in view of Goebel (DE 10246792 using an English machine translation).
Regarding claim 13, Azima957 discloses the DML assembly of claim 1.
Azima957 is not relied upon to disclose further comprising a sleeve into which said panel is placed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Goebel discloses a panel (I) for attaching exciters (5) to (Fig. 3), and a sleeve (7) into which said panel (I) is placed (Fig. 5);
wherein said sleeve (7) includes an opening corresponding to a location of said exciter (5) (7 surrounds I, thus forming a large rectangular opening and the exciters 5 are locating in the opening, see Figs. 4 and 5);
further comprising a frame (9) (¶ 0075-0076: Fig. 5 is cross section of the periphery), wherein said frame pinches said sleeve between said frame (9 and 9a) and said panel (I) (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: configure the frame of Azima957 to hold the panel of Azima957 using a sleeve in the manner shown in Fig. 5 of Goebel, which would result in:
further comprising a sleeve into which said panel is placed;
wherein said sleeve includes an opening corresponding to a location of said heat sink module;
wherein said frame pinches said sleeve between said frame and said panel,
the motivation being to allow less than 30 dB of the panel’s original signal to be transferred to the frame (Goebel - ¶ 0021).
Regarding claim 14, Azima957-Goebel discloses the DML assembly of claim 13, wherein said sleeve includes an opening corresponding to a location of said heat sink module (as already set forth in the claim 13 rejection above).
Regarding claim 15, Azima957-Goebel discloses the DML assembly of claim 13, wherein said frame pinches said sleeve between said frame and said panel (as already set forth in the claim 13 rejection above).
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azima957 in view of Bank (US 2002/0021812).
Regarding claim 18, Azima957 discloses the DML assembly of claim 1.
Azima957 is not relied upon to disclose wherein said DML assembly is configured to generated sound of volume above 70 DB.
In a similar field of endeavor, Bank discloses wherein said DML assembly is configured to generated sound of volume above 70 DB (¶ 0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein said DML assembly is configured to generated sound of volume above 70 DB, the motivation being to produce an alarm signal (Bank - ¶ 0015).
Regarding claim 19, Azima957 discloses the DML assembly of claim 1, wherein said DML assembly is configured to generated sound of volume above 80 DB.
Azima957 is not relied upon to disclose wherein said DML assembly is configured to generated sound of volume above 80 DB.
In a similar field of endeavor, Bank discloses wherein said DML assembly is configured to generated sound of volume above 80 DB (¶ 0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein said DML assembly is configured to generated sound of volume above 80 DB, the motivation being to produce an alarm signal (Bank - ¶ 0015).
Regarding claim 20, Azima957discloses the DML assembly of claim 1.
Azima957 is not relied upon to disclose wherein said DML assembly is configured to generated sound of volume above 100 DB.
In a similar field of endeavor, Bank discloses wherein said DML assembly is configured to generated sound of volume above 100 DB (¶ 0015).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: wherein said DML assembly is configured to generated sound of volume above 100 DB, the motivation being to produce an alarm signal (Bank - ¶ 0015).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azima957 in view of Park et al. (KR 2013-0081782 using an English machine translation).
Regarding claim 21, Azima957 discloses the DML assembly of claim 1, wherein said heat sink is connected to said cover via a load screw (96)
Azima957 is not relied upon to disclose wherein said heat sink is connected to said cover via a load screw (96) and an anti-vibration bushing.
In a similar field of endeavor, Park discloses an anti-vibration bushing (360) between a load screw (370) and a bracket (350) to prevent vibration generated by a speaker (100) from being delivered to a mounting structure (wall) (¶ 0053 and see Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to: configure an anti-vibration busing between the load screw (96 of Azima957) and the mounting structure (in this case, 74 and 94 of Azima957) to prevent vibration generated by exciter (12 of Azima957) from being delivered to mounting structure (66 of Azima957),
which would result in: wherein said heat sink is connected to said cover via a load screw and an anti-vibration bushing,
the motivation being to prevent vibration generated by exciter (12 of Azima957) from being delivered to the mounting structure (66 of Azima957) (Park - ¶ 0053).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks: page 1) that:
“Firstly, Applicant recognizes that Applicant and the Examiner appear to simply disagree as to the accepted and common meaning of the term "longitudinally." However, as such meaning is irrelevant to the present claims as it has already been recognized that the present claims and specification clearly define the movement as toward and away from the cover, in order to advance prosecution Applicant has simply dropped the term "longitudinally" from independent claim 1, leaving the motion as "toward and away" from the cover, mooting the issue.”
In response, the examiner submits that while the term “longitudinally” has been dropped from claim 1 thereby mooting the issue with respect to claim 1, the term still appears in claim 9, which is why the “Examiner’s Comment” section of this Office Action still mentions it.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK FISCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-3549. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 1-6, 7:30-11:59pm 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, CAROLYN R EDWARDS can be reached on 571-270-7136. 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.
/MARK FISCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692