DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The Office Action is responsive to amendments filed for application 18/404,304 filed on 01/20/2026. Please note claims 1-20 remain in the application.
In response to the amendments filed to claim 13, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b) has been withdrawn.
In response to the amendments to the title, the previous objection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 10, 11-12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ingaki et al (hereinafter Ingaki), US-PG-PUB No. 2006/0191742.
Regarding claim 1, Ingaki discloses a diaphragm (¶[0018], line 3) provided in an electroacoustic transducer (¶[0018], line 3), the diaphragm comprising at least:
(As shown in Fig. 1, (annotated below)) a first portion (P1), a second portion (P2), and a third portion (P3) that are arranged around a predetermined reference axis (All portions are bounded within lines 13 and 15, and arranged around reference axis (O) ) extending in a vibration direction (Axis (O) extends out from the faces of the diaphragm), and each have a different cross-sectional shape along a plane that includes the predetermined reference axis (The radius of the inclined sections varies along the circumference of the diaphragm, providing different cross-sectional shapes.....¶[0101], lines 1-4),
wherein the cross-sectional shape of the first portion is an arc (Shown in Fig. 1, 2B, and 8C, each identified portion is bounded on the sides by a curved line (16), forming a curved surface of a circular or elliptical arc depending on the position around the circumference.....¶[0090], lines 3-4, ¶[0129], lines 1-4) having a first radius of curvature (Shown in Fig. 2B, the radius of curvature included in the arc varies from Rmin to Rmax, depending on the circumferential direction.....¶[0101], lines 1-4),
the cross-sectional shape of the second portion is an arc (¶[0090], lines 3-4, ¶[0129], lines 1-4) having a second radius of curvature different from the first radius of curvature (The radius of curvature varies between each portion, so long as the portions aren’t located symmetrically across line S1 of Fig. 2 the radii will be different.....¶[0101], lines 1-4),
the cross-sectional shape of the third portion is a part of an ellipse (Shown in Fig. 2B (annotated below), the curve with Rmin, bounded by lines 13 and 15, corresponding to the middle of P3, aligns with a portion of the annotated ellipse), and
the predetermined reference axis is located at a center of the diaphragm ((O) is the central axis of the diaphragm.....¶[0023], lines 6-8), and the first portion, the second portion, and the third portion each have a different cross-sectional shape along the plane that includes the predetermined reference axis (The radius of the inclined sections varies along the circumference of the diaphragm, providing different cross-sectional shapes.....¶[0101], lines 1-4).
PNG
media_image1.png
646
835
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ingaki, Annotated Fig. 1
[AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image2.png
330
391
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ingaki, Annotated Fig. 2B
Regarding claim 2, Ingaki discloses the diaphragm according to claim 1, further comprising: a fourth portion (P4 of annotated Fig. 1) arranged in a circumferential direction with the first portion, the second portion, and the third portion (Shown in annotated Fig. 1), wherein a cross-sectional shape of the fourth portion is a part of an ellipse (Shown in annotated Fig. 2B (b) below, the cross sectional shape including Rmax, corresponding to the center of portion P4, is part of an ellipse).
[AltContent: oval]
PNG
media_image3.png
469
595
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ingaki, Annotated Fig. 2B (b)
Regarding claim 3, Ingaki discloses the diaphragm according to claim 2, wherein the cross-sectional shape of the third portion and the cross-sectional shape of the fourth portion are different (The third and fourth cross-sectional shapes are defined by the different values Rmin and Rmax, respectively).
Regarding claim 4, Ingaki discloses the diaphragm according to claim 1, further comprising: a connecting portion that continuously connects the first portion and the third portion (Shown in Annotated Fig. 1, the gray portion extending clockwise from P1 (towards and including P4)).
Regarding claim 5, Ingaki discloses the diaphragm of claim 4, wherein in a plan view, boundary lines between the connecting portion and the first portion, and a boundary line between the connecting portion and the third portion are arranged in parallel (Shown in Annotated Fig. 1, the boundary lines span across the center point as a single line starting at marker (10)).
Regarding claim 8, Ingaki discloses the diaphragm of claim 1, wherein the diaphragm includes paper (¶[0093], line 2).
Ingaki does not explicitly teach wherein the paper is made from a material that contains at least one of chemical fiber or pulp.
However, Official Notice (MPEP 2144.03) is taken that both the concepts and advantages of manufacturing paper from cellulose pulp is well known and expected in the art.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have manufactured the paper diaphragm taught by Noro using cellulose pulp, for doing so would allow the diaphragm to be mass-produced by contemporary means.
Regarding claim 10, Ingaki discloses the diaphragm according to claim 1, wherein the wherein the diaphragm includes a press-molded sheet (¶[0264], lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 11, Ingaki discloses the diaphragm according to claim 1, comprising: a neck portion (Shown in Figs. 1-3, center section (11) (a neck portion).....¶[0094], lines 4-6) that surrounds the predetermined reference axis extending in the vibration direction (The center section extends from center axis O, surrounding it.....¶[0092], lines 3-4); and at least the first portion, the second portion, and the third portion outside the neck portion (Shown in annotated Fig. 1, P1, P2, and P3 are outside of neck portion (11)), wherein a cross-sectional shape of the neck portion, along any plane including the predetermined reference axis, is a uniform curve (The neck portion has a curved surface dented inwards, and a uniform radius (D1) from the center to the edge around it’s circumference, conveying uniformity.....¶[0094], lines 4-5, ¶[0092], lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 12, Ingaki discloses the diaphragm according claim 11, wherein the cross-sectional shape of the neck portion is an arc (Shown in Fig. 3, the cross-sectional shape is an arc.....¶[0094], lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 14, Ingaki discloses (In Fig. 3 and paragraphs [0102]-[0104]) an electroacoustic transducer (50) comprising: the diaphragm according to claim 1 (10); a magnetic circuit (34); a frame (housing (31)) that holds the magnetic circuit and the diaphragm; and a voice coil (22) coupled to the diaphragm (coupled by bobbin (21)) and disposed in a magnetic gap (between pole piece (25) and yoke wall (23b)) included in the magnetic circuit (visible in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Ingaki discloses the electroacoustic transducer according to claim 14, further comprising: an edge (edge (30).....¶[0103], lines 4) interposed between the diaphragm and the frame (connecting the housing and the housing (frame).....¶[0103], lines 4-6) and having an annular shape (Edge follows the outer diameter of the diaphragm, thus creating an annular shape.....¶[0103], lines 4-6), wherein the edge includes a diaphragm connecting portion that follows a shape of an outer peripheral edge portion of the diaphragm (¶[0103], lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 16, Ingaki discloses the electroacoustic transducer according to claim 14, wherein the diaphragm includes: a neck portion (Shown in Figs. 1-3, center section (11) (a neck portion).....¶[0094], lines 4-6) that surrounds the predetermined reference axis extending in the vibration direction (The center section extends from center axis O, surrounding it.....¶[0092], lines 3-4); and at least the first portion, the second portion, and the third portion outside the neck portion (Shown in annotated Fig. 1, P1, P2, and P3 are outside of neck portion (11)), wherein a cross-sectional shape of the neck portion, along any plane including the predetermined reference axis, is a uniform curve (The neck portion has a curved surface dented inwards, and a uniform radius (D1) from the center to the edge around it’s circumference, conveying uniformity.....¶[0094], lines 4-5, ¶[0092], lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 17, Ingaki discloses the diaphragm according to claim 1, wherein an entire cross-sectional shape of the first portion is a single arc having the first radius of curvature (Shown in Fig. 2B, any cross-sectional shapes of portions bounded by inner radius (13) and outer radius (15) around the circumference of the diaphragm comprises a single circular or elliptical arc containing the first radius of curvature (between Rmax and Rmin).....¶[0129], lines 1-4), and an entire cross-sectional shape of the second portion is a single arc having the second radius of curvature (¶[0129], lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 18, Ingaki discloses the diaphragm according to claim 1, wherein an entire cross-sectional shape of the first portion, along any plane including the predetermined reference axis, is a single arc having the first radius of curvature (Shown in Fig. 2B, any cross-sectional shapes of portions bounded by inner radius (13) and outer radius (15) around the circumference of the diaphragm (passing through reference axis (O)) comprises a single circular or elliptical arc containing the first radius of curvature (between Rmax and Rmin).....¶[0129], lines 1-5), and an entire cross-sectional shape of the second portion, along any plane including the predetermined reference axis, is a single arc having the second radius of curvature (¶[0129], lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 19, Ingaki discloses the diaphragm according to claim 1, wherein the first portion extends continuously to an outer edge of the diaphragm (Shown in Fig. 8C (Annotated below), the portions may extend out from the marked portions of Fig. 1 (between boundaries (13) and (15)) to the outer edge of the diaphragm (14).....¶[0134], lines 1-4), and an entire cross-sectional shape of the first portion, along any plane including the predetermined reference axis, is a single arc (Further shown in annotated Fig. 8C, the cross-sectional shape of a portion (12a+12b, on the right), forms a single elliptical arc (the dashed line superimposed over the cross-section).....¶[0134], lines 1-4) having the first radius of curvature (as the full arc includes section 12a, it includes the first radius of curvature), and the second portion extends continuously to the outer edge of the diaphragm, and an entire cross-sectional shape of the second portion, along any plane including the predetermined reference axis, is a single arc having the second radius of curvature (The art as applied to the first portion may also be applied to all other portions of the diaphragm).
[AltContent: arc]
PNG
media_image4.png
357
765
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ingaki, Annotated Fig. 8C
Regarding claim 20, Ingaki discloses the diaphragm according to claim 2, wherein the first portion and the second portion are arranged such that the first portion and the second portion are not adjacent to each other in the circumferential direction (Shown in annotated Fig. 1, there is a buffer portion between P1 and P2).
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.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingaki in view of Ernest (US Patent No. 1,990,409, previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, Ingaki discloses the diaphragm according to claim 1, further comprising: a neck portion (Shown in Figs. 1-3, center section (11) (a neck portion).....¶[0094], lines 4-6) connected to a voice coil (Shown in Fig. 3, the neck portion is connected to voice coil (22) by bobbin (21).....¶[0105], lines 1-3).
Ingaki fails to disclose wherein a thickness at a boundary of the neck portion with the first portion is different from a thickness at a boundary of the neck portion with the third portion.
Ernest teaches a diaphragm divided into four portions (Shown in Fig. V), wherein a thickness at a boundary of the interior portion (analogous to the neck portion) with the first portion is different from a thickness at a boundary of the interior portion with the third portion (Shown in Fig. VI, portions 15, 16, 17, and 18 are all different thicknesses, from the interior boundary to the exterior boundary…..Col. 2, lines 14-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Ingaki to incorporate the teachings of Ernest, and provide wherein a thickness at a boundary of the neck portion with the first portion is different from a thickness at a boundary of the neck portion with the third portion. This would provide the benefit of a diaphragm which has improved sensitivity over a wider range of frequencies (Ernest, Col. 1, lines 5-11).
Regarding claim 7, Ingaki discloses the diaphragm according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a thickness at an outer peripheral edge portion of the third portion is greater than a thickness at an outer peripheral edge portion of the first portion.
Ernest teaches a diaphragm divided into four portions (Shown in Fig. V), wherein a thickness at an outer peripheral edge portion of the third portion is greater than a thickness at an outer peripheral edge portion of the first portion (Shown in Fig. VI, portions 16, 17, and 18 (analogous to P2, P3, and P4) are all thicker at the outer periphery than portion 15 (analogous to P1)…..Col. 2, lines 14-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Ingaki to incorporate the teachings of Ernest, and provide wherein a thickness at an outer peripheral edge portion of the third portion is greater than a thickness at an outer peripheral edge portion of the first portion. This would provide the benefit of a diaphragm which has improved sensitivity over a wider range of frequencies (Ernest, Col. 1, lines 5-11).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingaki in view of White (US Patent No. 3,961,378).
Regarding claim 9, Ingaki discloses the diaphragm according to claim 1, further comprising wherein the diaphragm includes resin (¶[0264], line 5).
Ingaki fails to disclose wherein the diaphragm includes injection-molded resin.
However, White teaches a similar diaphragm wherein the diaphragm includes injection-molded resin (Plastic (resin) is injected into a mold to form the cone (diaphragm) body…..Col. 9, lines 35-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Ingaki to incorporate the teachings of White, and provide wherein the diaphragm includes injection-molded resin. This would provide the benefit of a method of manufacture that can reliably produce thin parts such as the diaphragm (White, Col. 9, lines 35-42).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noro in view of Manrique, US-PG-PUB No. 2005/0094836.
Regarding claim 13, while Ingaki discloses the diaphragm according to claim 12, and additionally teaches wherein a radius of curvature of the neck portion may be any radius (The size of the center section may be arbitrarily set, affecting radius of curvature…..¶[0145]), Ingaki fails to explicitly disclose wherein a radius of curvature of the neck portion is one-tenth or less of the smaller of the first radius of curvature and the second radius of curvature.
Manrique teaches wherein the ratio between the radius of curvature of a neck portion (design values are set for a radius of a throat (neck).....¶[0014], lines 3-4) and the radius of curvature of a diaphragm (A curved waveguide profile, including a radius of curvature.....¶[0014], lines 13-17) may vary depending on the desired performance of a transducer (The slope (a function of radius of curvature) of a waveguide (diaphragm) may be designed according to the radius of curvature of the throat (neck portion), desired acoustic reactance, and desired depth of the waveguide.....¶[0014], lines 1-10, ¶[0016], lines 4-7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the disclosure of Ingaki by incorporating the teachings of Manrique to provide alternate design choices incorporating any ratio between radius of curvature of the neck portion and the smaller of the first and second radii of curvatures, including a ratio of less than 1:10. This would provide the benefit of a transducer meeting specific design performance standards (Manrique, ¶[0014], lines 17-22).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
O’Brien, US-PG-PUB No. 2022/0150618 teaches a diaphragm with radially distinct portions.
Sugata et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2003/0219141 teaches a diaphragm with radially distinct portions.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN RINEHART whose telephone number is (571)272-2778. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 6:00 PM ET.
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, Fan Tsang can be reached on (571) 272-7547. 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.
/SEAN M RINEHART/Examiner, Art Unit 2694
/FAN S TSANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694