DETAILED ACTION
1. Applicant's amendments and remarks submitted on June 12, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-2 have been amended. Claim 3 has been cancelled. Claims 1-2 and 4-15 are still pending on this application, with claims 1-2 and 4-15 being rejected. All new grounds of rejection were necessitated by the amendments to claim 1. 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, 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over International Application WO 2020/125940 A1 to Wölfl in view of Japanese Application JP 2004-032121 A to Sawaki et al. (“Sawaki”).
As to claim 1, Wölfl discloses a speaker device installed in an electronic device (see pg. 1, ¶ 0002), the speaker device comprising: a speaker module, including: a casing, having a main sound cavity and a sound outlet; and a speaker unit, disposed in the casing (see figures 1A-2D; pgs. 6-7, ¶ 0037 - ¶ 0038), wherein the speaker unit includes a diaphragm which is communicated with the sound outlet (see pg. 6, ¶ 0037); and a first loop tube, having a first end and a second end, wherein the first end is connected to the casing (see figures 1C and 2D; pg. 6, ¶ 0037); wherein a length of the first loop tube is at least 10 mm, and an internal diameter of the first loop tube is at least 2 mm (see pg. 11, ¶ 0045), wherein the casing has a rectangular structure (see figures 1A-2D), and the first loop tube has a first segment and a second segment, wherein the first end and the second end are respectively located in the first segment and the second segment, the first segment is parallel to a first side surface of the rectangular structure, and the second segment is parallel to and adjacent to a second side surface of the rectangular structure (see figure 7).
Wölfl discloses the pipe being bent in order to fit within a desired enclosure shape, including within audio devices (see pg. 17, ¶ 0058), but does not disclose wherein the first loop tube is made of a soft material, nor does it expressly disclose the first segment of the first loop tube being adjacent to the first side surface of the rectangular structure. However such a configuration is considered obvious depending on the specific size of the enclosure and the length of the pipe, particularly as Wölfl discloses the dimensions of folded pipes as not being to scale (see figure 7; pg. 17, ¶ 0058). In addition, the use of a soft material is further known in the art, as taught by Sawaki, which discloses a similar ported speaker structure, and further discloses the port being made of a flexible material (see pg. 8, lines 16-19 of the English translation) and being bent and positioned to be closely adjacent to the enclosure (see figures 2-7). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being to provide a port or tube element that can be flexibly installed in the available space within a housing, therefore allowing sufficient length for the port to enhance bass frequencies even within limited space (Sawaki pg. 8, lines 16-21; pg. 9, line 1).
Wölfl in view of Sawaki further discloses the pipe structure being accommodated within a space of an electronic device housing (Wölfl pg. 17, ¶ 0058; Sawaki pg. 8, lines 16-19), and further wherein the length of the pipe can be accommodated within a space of the device in a direction away from the speaker sound outlet (Wölfl figures 1C, 3F, 5A-5D, 25 and 27-28), but is silent on additional components within the electronic device, therefore does not expressly disclose wherein the second segment is bent from the first segment to extend toward an accommodating space of the electronic device, the second segment is disposed between the casing and one electronic component of the electronic device, and the electronic component is disposed adjacent to the second segment.
However such a configuration is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, depending on the type of device the speaker is being incorporated in and the available space within said device, as well as the size, shape and relative dimensions of the speaker device, the electronic device, and its internal components. Positioning the second segment of the loop tube toward an accommodating space of the electronic device and between the casing and an electronic component of the device is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Wölfl in view of Sawaki regarding the positioning of pipes within housing structures of electronic devices, and further as it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of design choice involving only routine skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, the second segment being positioned between the casing and an electronic component, as well as adjacent to said electronic component, is merely a straightforward possibility a skilled person would select when designing the loop tube in a folded configuration to fit within an electronic device housing, as already taught by Wölfl in view of Sawaki, particularly as the loop tube is coupled to the speaker, which is likely to be adjacent or relatively close the casing as well as to additional electronic components such as a processor, a microphone, a battery, etc., depending on the type of electronic device.
As to claim 9, Wölfl in view of Sawaki further discloses wherein the speaker device further includes a first expansion unit, the second end of the first loop tube is connected to the first expansion unit, and a first secondary sound cavity formed by the first expansion unit is communicated with the first loop tube and the main sound cavity via the second end (Wölfl figure 3G; pg. 9, ¶ 0042), but is silent on additional components of the electronic device, therefore does not expressly disclose the first expansion unit corresponding to the shape of at least one internal component of the electronic device. However such a configuration is considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, depending on the type of device the speaker is being implemented in, available space within the device, as well as the size, shape and relative dimensions of both the speaker device and the electronic device, and further as it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of design choice involving only routine skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, the first expansion unit corresponding to the shape of at least one internal component of the electronic device is merely a straightforward possibility a skilled person would select when designing the first expansion unit to fit within an electronic device, particularly as the first expansion unit is coupled to the speaker, which is likely to be adjacent or relatively close to additional electronic components such as a processor, a microphone, a battery, etc.
As to claim 12, Wölfl in view of Sawaki discloses the pipe being coupled to the enclosure and the intermediate chamber (Wölfl figure 3G; pg. 9, ¶ 0042) but is silent on the construction and specific coupling of the pipe and chamber elements and therefore does not expressly disclose wherein a connecting junction of the first end and the casing is sealed by a sealing element, and a connecting junction of the second end and the first expansion unit is sealed by another sealing element, wherein the sealing elements include silicone or a sealing ring. However the use of a sealing element such as silicone or a sealing ring to seal a connection junction between two structures is known in the art, particularly for separate structures that are joined together to form a single structure. The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, depending on the construction of the pipe and chamber elements forming the ported structure, if they are separate elements with different manufacturing processes, made of different materials, etc. The motivation being to provide a secure coupling to the cavities at both ends of the pipe, and further to prevent leaks and ensure sound waves travel through the pipe or transmission line and into the intermediate chamber (Wölfl pg. 9, ¶ 0042).
4. Claim(s) 2 and 4-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wölfl in view of Sawaki, and further in view of US Patent Pub No 2022/0337940 A1 to Qin et al. (“Qin”).
As to claim 2, Wölfl in view of Sawaki discloses the speaker device as claimed in claim 1.
Wölfl in view of Sawaki further discloses wherein the first end has a first opening which is communicated with the main sound cavity (Wölfl figures 1C and 2D), but does not expressly disclose the second end has a second opening which is communicated with the accommodating space of the electronic device. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Qin which discloses a similar speaker device installed within an electronic device, and further discloses the speaker cavity being coupled to an accommodating space of the electronic device via guide boards forming an airflow channel (see figures 5-6A; pg. 5, ¶ 0068, ¶ 0073). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being to increase the size of the speaker main or rear cavity by using the cavity inside the electronic device as an extension of the speaker rear cavity, ensuring a large low-frequency extension and dynamic performance of the speaker (Qin pg. 5, ¶ 0073).
As to claim 4, Wölfl in view of Sawaki and Qin further discloses wherein the speaker device further includes an adjusting unit (Qin figures 9-10; pg. 2, ¶ 0027 - ¶ 0028), but does not expressly disclose the adjusting unit being disposed in the first loop tube, and the adjusting unit is disposed adjacent to the second opening. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the combined teachings of Wölfl in view of Sawaki and Qin, particularly as Qin teaches the adjusting unit as being disposed in the space between the speaker cavity and the device cavity to decrease the flow rate of the airflow (Qin figures 9-10; pg. 7, ¶ 0091). Disposing the adjusting unit in the first loop proximate to the second opening that communicates with the device cavity is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Wölfl in view of Sawaki and Qin, the motivation being to provide an adjusting element in the cavity connecting structure, particularly to decrease the flow rate of the airflow between the speaker cavity and the device cavity, ensuring the airflow enters the device cavity at a low flow rate and reduce vibrations caused by the airflow within the device (Qin pgs. 7-8, ¶ 0091 - ¶ 0092).
As to claim 5, Wölfl in view of Sawaki and Qin does not expressly disclose wherein a distance between the adjusting unit and the second opening is ten to twenty percent of a total length of the first loop tube. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Wölfl in view of Sawaki and Qin, and further as it has been held that the particular placement or rearrangement 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, positioning the adjusting unit at ten to twenty percent of the total length of the first loop tube is merely a straightforward possibility from which a skilled person would select, depending on the size, shape and overall dimensions of the first loop tube, as long as it provides the adjusting function and ensures the airflow enters the device cavity at a low flow rate to reduce vibrations caused by the airflow within the device (Qin pgs. 7-8, ¶ 0091 - ¶ 0092).
As to claim 6, Wölfl in view of Sawaki and Qin further discloses wherein the adjustment unit is made from of PU foam, PE foam, special rubber foam, melamine cotton, glass fiber cotton, rock wool, OFAN polyester fiber sound-absorbing cotton, melamine sound-absorbing cotton, activated carbon or a combination thereof (Qin pg. 8, ¶ 0092 - ¶ 0093).
As to claim 7, Wölfl in view of Sawaki and Qin further discloses wherein the first loop tube is a tubular structure (Wölfl pg. 9, ¶ 0042), but does not expressly disclose the adjusting unit is a cylindrical structure, wherein the adjusting unit conforms to the first loop tube. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Wölfl in view of Sawaki and Qin, the motivation being to ensure the adjusting unit can be effectively positioned within the first loop tube, thereby ensuring the airflow enters the device cavity at a low flow rate and reduce vibrations caused by the airflow within the device (Qin pgs. 7-8, ¶ 0091 - ¶ 0092).
As to claim 8, Wölfl in view of Sawaki and Qin does not expressly disclose wherein the first loop tube is a rectangular tubular structure, the adjusting unit is correspondingly a rectangular columnar structure, and the cross-sections of the first loop tube and the adjusting unit are rectangles. However it does disclose the pipes can have any arbitrary shape (Wölfl pg. 9, ¶ 0042). Providing the tube and adjusting unit as rectangular structures is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Wölfl in view of Sawaki and Qin, and further as it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of design choice involving only routine skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). The proposed configuration is therefore considered obvious, as long as the first loop tube provides a transmission line between spaces and the adjusting unit can be effectively positioned within the first loop tube, ensuring the airflow enters the device cavity at a low flow rate to reduce vibrations caused by the airflow within the device (Wölfl pg. 9, ¶ 0042; Qin pgs. 7-8, ¶ 0091 - ¶ 0092).
5. Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wölfl in view of Sawaki, and further in view of Chinese Application CN 115643332 A to Zhao et al. (“Zhao”).
As to claim 10, Wölfl in view of Sawaki discloses the speaker device as claimed in claim 9.
Wölfl in view of Sawaki does not expressly disclose wherein the first expansion unit is made of metal. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Zhao, which discloses a similar speaker device, and further discloses an additional cavity structure that is constructed using rigid materials such as a metal, iron or aluminum (see figure 2; pg. 7, ¶ 0036; pg. 12, ¶ 0064 of the English translation). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being as such materials can provide rigidity to the structure as well as provide acoustical properties via their structural design (Wölfl pg. 7, ¶ 0036; pg. 12, ¶ 0064).
As to claim 11, Wölfl in view of Sawaki and Zhao further discloses wherein the first secondary sound cavity is filled with a porous material which includes zeolite powder, activated carbon, or both (Zhao pg. 8, ¶ 0044; pg. 11, ¶ 0055 - ¶ 0058).
6. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wölfl in view of Sawaki, and further in view of European Application EP 3432600 A1 to Chen et al. (“Chen”).
As to claim 13, Wölfl in view of Sawaki discloses the speaker device as claimed in claim 9.
Wölfl in view of Sawaki does not disclose wherein the first expansion unit is a recyclable and inflatable bag.
Chen discloses a similar speaker device, and further discloses wherein the speaker includes a cavity expansion element in the form of an inflatable and flexible bag that is connected to the speaker via a pipe, and wherein the bag can be made of recyclable materials such as rubber (see figure 1; pg. 2, ¶ 0018; pg. 4, ¶ 0041).
Wölfl in view of Sawaki and Chen are analogous art because they are drawn to speaker devices with extended cavities.
It would have been an obvious choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an inflatable bag as taught by Chen in the speaker device as taught by Wölfl in view of Sawaki. The motivation being to provide an adjustable chamber for the speaker that can deform to fill limited remaining space within an electronic device, which can be particularly advantageous for smaller or thinner electronic devices (Chen pg. 2, ¶ 0004, ¶ 0018; pg. 3, ¶ 0028).
7. Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wölfl in view of Sawaki, and further in view of International Application WO 2021/218581 A1 to Ding et al. (“Ding”).
As to claim 14, Wölfl in view of Sawaki discloses the speaker device as claimed in claim 9.
Wölfl in view of Sawaki does not disclose wherein the speaker device further includes a second loop tube and a second expansion unit, the second loop tube is connected between the first expansion unit and the second expansion unit, so that a second secondary sound cavity formed by the second expansion unit is communicated with the first secondary sound cavity and the main sound cavity via the second loop tube.
Ding discloses a similar speaker device, and further discloses the resonating structure can include two chambers communicatively connected in series via a tube element (see figure 4; pg. 13, ¶ 0085 of the English translation).
Wölfl in view of Sawaki and Ding are analogous art because they are both drawn to speaker devices with resonant structures.
It would have been an obvious choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a second expansion unit as taught by Ding in the device as taught by Wölfl in view of Sawaki. The motivation being to provide two resonating chambers that can be tuned to different frequencies (Ding pg. 13, ¶ 0085).
As to claim 15, Wölfl in view of Sawaki and Ding discloses the pipe being coupled to the enclosure and the intermediate chamber (Wölfl figure 3G; pg. 9, ¶ 0042), but is silent on the construction and specific coupling of the pipe and chamber elements and therefore does not expressly disclose wherein a connecting junction of the second loop tube and the second expansion unit and a connecting junction of the second loop tube and the first expansion unit are sealed by two sealing elements. However the use of a sealing element to seal a connection junction between two structures is known in the art, particularly for separate structures that are joined together to form a single structure. The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, depending on the construction of the pipe and chamber elements forming the ported structure, if they are separate elements with different manufacturing processes, made of different materials, etc. The motivation being to provide a secure coupling to the cavities at both ends of the pipe, and further to prevent leaks and ensure sound waves travel through the pipe or transmission line and into the intermediate chamber (Wölfl pg. 9, ¶ 0042).
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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
9. 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.
10. 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