DETAILED ACTION
1. Applicant's amendments and remarks submitted on February 17, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1 and 26 have been amended. Claims 1-34 are still pending on this application, with claims 1-17 and 25-28 being rejected, and claims 18-24 and 29-34 being withdrawn. All new grounds of rejection were necessitated by the amendments to claims 1 and 26. 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) 1-17 and 25, 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub No 2020/0092650 A1 to Ham et al. (“Ham”) in view of US Patent Pub No 2015/0358721 A1 to Wang.
As to claim 1, Ham discloses an apparatus, comprising: a vibration member (100, see figures 1-3; pg. 3, ¶ 0054 - ¶ 0055); a vibration apparatus configured to vibrate the vibration member (210, see figures 1-3; pg. 3, ¶ 0054 - ¶ 0055); a supporting member disposed at a rear surface of the vibration member (300, see figures 3-4; pg. 3, ¶ 0054; pg. 4, ¶ 0057); an enclosure disposed at a rear surface of the supporting member overlapping with the vibration apparatus (400, see figure 4; pg. 4, ¶ 0067).
Ham does not disclose a porous member disposed between the rear surface of the supporting member and the enclosure.
Wang discloses a similar acoustic device, and further discloses the speaker having a back cavity enclosure, and the back cavity including a porous absorbent material positioned within at least a portion of the cavity (see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0005, ¶ 0012).
Ham and Wang are analogous art because they are both drawn to acoustic devices.
It would have been an obvious choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a porous member as taught by Wang in the speaker box enclosure of the apparatus as taught by Ham. The motivation being to provide a virtual enlargement of the resonance space and improved performance for the sound generating device, particularly for low frequencies (Wang pg. 1, ¶ 0002 - ¶ 0003).
Ham in view of Wang does not expressly disclose wherein the porous member has a thickness less than a distance between a bottom inner surface of the enclosure and the rear surface of the supporting member. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Ham in view of Wang, as Ham in view of Wang teaches the distance between the rear surface of supporting member 300 and the bottom inner surface of the enclosure 400 being greater than the overall height of the enclosure (Ham figure 4), and further teaches the porous material being positioned at least partially within the back cavity 101 but not fully filling the speaker cabinet 10 (Wang figure 1). The claimed configuration is therefore considered obvious when incorporating the porous material as taught by Wang within the enclosure 400 as taught by Ham, particularly as the porous material would only fill a portion of the enclosure given the teachings of Wang, therefore the thickness of the porous material would be less than the enclosure height, and less than the distance between the rear surface of supporting member 300 and the bottom inner surface of the enclosure 400 (Ham figure 4).
As to claim 2, Ham in view of Wang further discloses wherein the supporting member comprises at least one first hole overlapping with the vibration apparatus (Ham 310, see figures 3-4; pg. 4, ¶ 0062).
As to claim 3, Ham in view of Wang further discloses wherein the at least one first hole is disposed between a first space between the vibration member and the supporting member and a second space disposed between the rear surface of the supporting member and the enclosure (Ham figure 4).
As to claim 4, Ham in view of Wang further discloses wherein the first space is connected with the second space by the at least one first hole (Ham figure 4).
As to claim 5, Ham in view of Wang further discloses wherein the vibration apparatus comprises at least one second hole accommodated into the at least one first hole of the supporting member and connected with the second space (Ham 217, see figure 4; pg. 4, ¶ 0067).
As to claim 6, Ham in view of Wang further discloses wherein the at least one second hole overlaps with the at least one first hole (Ham figure 4).
As to claim 7, Ham in view of Wang does not expressly disclose wherein the porous member is spaced apart from the rear surface of the supporting member. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Ham in view of Wang, and further as it has been held that rearranging parts is involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this case, Ham in view of Wang teaches the speaker box enclosure as being positioned spaced apart from a rear surface of the supporting member (Ham figure 4) and the porous member being positioned to partially fill the cavity or enclosure (Wang figure 1). Positioning the porous member as spaced apart from the rear surface of the supporting member is therefore considered merely a straightforward possibility when incorporating a porous member as taught by Wang in the speaker box as taught by Ham, and further depending on the overall shape and size of the speaker box, as long as the porous member is configured to only partially fill the speaker box, as already taught by Ham in view of Wang.
As to claim 8, Ham in view of Wang does not expressly disclose wherein the porous member has a constant thickness. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Ham in view of Wang, and further as it has been held that changes in shape and/or relative dimensions involve only routine skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, the porous member having a constant thickness can depend on various design factors, including the size and shape of the porous member itself, as well as the shape, size, and available space within the speaker box enclosure the porous member is placed in. The porous member having a constant thickness is therefore considered an obvious variation given the teachings of Ham in view of Wang, as long as the porous member can be accommodated within the speaker box enclosure and provide the desired acoustic improvement (Wang pg. 1, ¶ 0016).
As to claim 9, Ham in view of Wang further discloses wherein the vibration apparatus comprises: a frame connected with the supporting member and including the at least one second hole (Ham 216, see figure 4; pg. 4, ¶ 0067); a magnet disposed on the frame (Ham 211, see figure 4; pg. 4, ¶ 0060); a bobbin disposed around the magnet; and a coil disposed around the bobbin (Ham 213, see figure 4; pg. 5, ¶ 0074 - ¶ 0075).
As to claim 10, Ham in view of Wang does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one second hole overlaps with the bobbin and the coil. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Ham in view of Wang, and further as it has been held that rearranging parts is involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this case, repositioning the second hole in the frame to overlap with the bobbin and the coil is merely a straightforward possibility given the teachings of Ham in view of Wang and can depend on various design factors such as the size and shape of the speaker components, as long as the second hole is formed in the frame to provide communication between the speaker and the speaker box (Ham pg. 4, ¶ 0067).
As to claim 11, Ham in view of Wang does not expressly disclose wherein the porous member is spaced apart from a rear surface of the frame. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Ham in view of Wang, and further as it has been held that rearranging parts is involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this case, Ham in view of Wang teaches the speaker box enclosure as being positioned spaced apart from a rear surface of the frame (Ham figure 4) and the porous member being positioned to partially fill the cavity or enclosure (Wang figure 1). Positioning the porous member as spaced apart from the rear surface of the frame is therefore considered merely a straightforward possibility when incorporating a porous member as taught by Wang in the speaker box as taught by Ham, and further depending on the overall shape and size of the speaker box, as long as the porous member is configured to only partially fill the speaker box, as already taught by Ham in view of Wang.
As to claim 12, Ham in view of Wang further discloses wherein the frame comprises: a first frame into which the magnet, the bobbin, and the coil are accommodated; and a second frame protruding downward from a periphery of the first frame, wherein the second frame is fixed to the supporting member (Ham 216a and 216b, see figure 4; pg. 5, ¶ 0071).
As to claim 13, Ham in view of Wang does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one second hole is disposed in the first frame. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Ham in view of Wang, and further as it has been held that rearranging parts is involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this case, positioning the second hole in the first frame is merely a straightforward possibility given the teachings of Ham in view of Wang and can depend on various design factors such as the number of frame pieces, as well as the size and shape of the speaker components in general including the frame, as long as the second hole is formed in the frame to provide communication between the speaker and the speaker box (Ham pg. 4, ¶ 0067).
As to claim 14, Ham in view of Wang further discloses wherein a rear surface of the first frame protrudes more downward from the rear surface of the supporting member than a rear surface of the second frame (Ham figure 4).
As to claim 15, Ham in view of Wang does not expressly disclose wherein the porous member is spaced apart from the rear surface of the first frame. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Ham in view of Wang, and further as it has been held that rearranging parts is involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this case, Ham in view of Wang teaches the speaker box enclosure as being positioned spaced apart from a rear surface of the frame (Ham figure 4) and the porous member being positioned to partially fill the cavity or enclosure (Wang figure 1). Positioning the porous member as spaced apart from the rear surface of the first frame is therefore considered merely a straightforward possibility when incorporating a porous member as taught by Wang in the speaker box as taught by Ham, and further depending on the overall shape and size of the speaker box, as long as the porous member is configured to only partially fill the speaker box, as already taught by Ham in view of Wang.
As to claim 16, Ham in view of Wang does not expressly disclose wherein the porous member is spaced apart from the rear surface of the second frame. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Ham in view of Wang, and further as it has been held that rearranging parts is involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In this case, Ham in view of Wang teaches the speaker box enclosure as being positioned spaced apart from a rear surface of the frame (Ham figure 4) and the porous member being positioned to partially fill the cavity or enclosure (Wang figure 1). Positioning the porous member as spaced apart from the rear surface of the second frame is therefore considered merely a straightforward possibility when incorporating a porous member as taught by Wang in the speaker box as taught by Ham, and further depending on the overall shape and size of the speaker box, as long as the porous member is configured to only partially fill the speaker box, as already taught by Ham in view of Wang.
As to claim 17, Ham in view of Wang does not expressly disclose wherein the porous member has different thicknesses. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Ham in view of Wang, and further as it has been held that changes in shape and/or relative dimensions involve only routine skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, the porous member having different thicknesses can depend on various design factors, including the size and shape of the porous member itself, as well as the shape, size, and available space within the speaker box enclosure the porous member is placed in. The porous member having a different thicknesses is therefore considered an obvious variation given the teachings of Ham in view of Wang, as long as the porous member can be accommodated within the speaker box enclosure and provide the desired acoustic improvement (Wang pg. 1, ¶ 0016).
As to claim 25, Ham in view of Wang further discloses wherein the enclosure is provided at the rear surface of the supporting member to cover the at least one second hole (Ham figure 4).
As to claim 27, Ham in view of Wang further discloses wherein the porous member comprises one or more materials of porous coordination polymer, metal organic framework, zeolite, and activated carbon (Wang pg. 1, ¶ 0003, ¶ 0005, ¶ 0012).
As to claim 28, Ham in view of Wang further discloses wherein the vibration member comprises one or more materials of metal, plastic, fiber, leather, wood, cloth, rubber, carbon, glass, and paper (Ham pg. 7, ¶ 0099).
4. Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Ham in view of Wang, and further in view of US Patent Pub No 2019/0208300 A1 to Lee et al. (“Lee”).
As to claim 26, Ham in view of Wang discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Ham in view of Wang further discloses further comprising a partition member disposed between the vibration member and the supporting member and surrounding the vibration apparatus (Ham 600, see figures 3-4 and 10A-10G; pg. 9, ¶ 0110), but does not expressly disclose wherein the partition member comprises one or more of a silicone-based polymer, paraffin wax, a urethane-based polymer, and an acrylic-based polymer. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Lee, which discloses a similar apparatus, and further discloses a partition 700 positioned between the vibration member and the supporting member and surrounding a sound generator, wherein the partition can include a urethane-based polymer material like polyurethane (see figures 22A-23; pg. 22, ¶ 0286 - ¶ 0290). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being depending on the design of the apparatus, and particularly as such materials can provide some elasticity to the structure as well as enable the partition to separate the sound generator regions, thereby improving sound output characteristics (Lee pg. 22, ¶ 0288 - ¶ 0290).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed February 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues “Wang’s zeolite absorbent has no spacing relation with the rear of the speaker unit (or rear cover 300 in Ham),” and “even in arranged in a manner suggested by Examiner, no relationship between the thickness of Wang’s zeolite absorbent 40 and the distance between a bottom inner surface of the enclosure (speaker box 400 in Ham) and the rear surface of the supporting member (rear cover in Ham) is suggested.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ham teaches supporting member as rear cover 300 and the enclosure as speaker box 400, with the enclosure or speaker box being positioned at a rear surface of the supporting member or rear cover 300 (see figure 4). Wang similarly discloses an enclosure in the form of speaker cabinet 10, and further discloses the speaker cabinet as having a porous material positioned at least partially within the back cavity 101 of the speaker cabinet 10 but not fully filling the speaker cabinet 10 (Wang figure 1). That is, the thickness of the porous material in Wang is less than the thickness of the speaker cabinet itself, and a space remains within the back cavity (see figure 1). In addition, in Ham the distance between the rear surface of supporting member 300 and the bottom inner surface of the enclosure 400 is greater than the overall thickness of the enclosure 400 (see figure 4). The proposed modification would involve incorporating a porous material as taught by Wang in the enclosure 400 as taught by Ham, and given the teachings of Ham and Wang, incorporating said porous material to partially fill the enclosure as taught by Ham would therefore result in the porous material having a thickness less than a distance between a bottom inner surface of the enclosure and the rear surface of the supporting member as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, Applicant argues “the particular shape of the internal space defined in Ham’s speaker box 400 rather supports the non-obviousness of the claimed features” because “Wang explicitly discloses that ‘a space 31 is formed by the cabinet 10 together with the speaker unit 20 that is filled with the zeolite absorbent 40’” and “Wang teaches that the entire space 31 of the cabinet 10 to be filled with the zeolite absorbent 40 in order to increase absorption of the nonpolarity gas 50 therein, to thereby enhance low-pitched sound reproduction.” Therefore, “in light of Wang’s teaching, since the internal space in Ham’s speaker box 400 clearly does not have a constant thickness, allegedly employing Wang’s zeolite absorbent 40 therein to fill the space would certainly not result in the zeolite absorbent 40 to have a constant thickness.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wang teaches the porous material or zeolite absorbent 40 as only partially filling the speaker back cavity 101 or sealed room 30, and there are spaces within the back cavity that do not include the zeolite absorbent 40 (see figure 1). Space 31 appears to refer to the portion of sealed room 30 that is filled by the zeolite absorbent 40, however the room or back cavity itself is not fully filled by the zeolite absorbent 40 (see figure 1; pg. 1, ¶ 0014 - ¶ 0016). Given the teachings of Ham of a uniform rectangular speaker box and the teachings of Wang regarding a partially filled speaker cabinet, Examiner maintains the claimed limitations as being obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as such a configuration would involve a change in shape and/or relative dimensions of the speaker box and/or the porous material, and such changes have been held as involving only routine skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, the porous member having a constant thickness can depend on various design factors, including the size and shape of the porous member itself, as well as the shape, size, and available space within the speaker box enclosure the porous member is placed in. The porous member having a constant thickness is therefore considered an obvious variation given the teachings of Ham in view of Wang, as long as the porous member can be accommodated at least partially within the speaker box enclosure and provide the desired acoustic improvement (Wang pg. 1, ¶ 0016).
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 26 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
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