The arguments and amendments submitted 04/20/2026 have been considered. In light of amendments made, all prior USC § 112(b) rejections are hereby withdrawn. The merits of the claims, however, remain unpatentable over the prior art as set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (US PG Pub 2021/0136497) in view of Chan (US PG Pub 2006/0171557).
Regarding claim 1 and new claims 11-13, Cheng teaches a diaphragm manufacturing method (paras. 0021, 0029, 0036, and other citations below), comprising steps of:
a) providing a base (40 in Figs. 1, 3, and 8), the base is assembled from a main body portion (inner portion of 40 as shown in Fig. 3), an external portion (outer wall of 40), and connecting portions formed on a top surface of the main body (connecting portions 47 in Fig. 3), wherein the center of the main body portion is provided with a through hole (as shown in Figs. 3); the external portion is configured on the periphery of the main body portion (as shown in Figs. 3 and 8), and is mutually joined thereto by means of connecting portions (as shown in Fig. 3); connecting grooves that afford passage to the through hole (45 in Figs. 3 or 8 and paras. 0035 or 0038) are formed on the external portion and the connecting portions (as shown in Fig. 8);
b) providing a membrane (50 in Fig. 3 and para. 0032), the membrane is fitted at a central location of the through hole (as shown in Fig. 3), and forms an interspace in the main body portion (as shown in Fig. 1, 3);
c) providing a molding step (paras. 0021, 0029, 0036), the molding step comprises molding a suspending edge between the main body portion and the membrane (60 in para. 0036 and Fig. 3), the suspending edge connects the main body portion and the membrane (per para. 0036 and as shown in Fig. 1), and the suspending edge is formed with extended portions that correspondingly extend into the respective connecting groove (extended portions 62 in paras. 0035-0036 and 0038 and as shown in Fig. 3); and
d) providing a cutting step (para. 0036), the cutting step comprises a cutting operation carried out on connecting areas between the main body portion and the connecting portions (para. 0036 and as shown in Fig. 3), concurrently cutting the connecting portions and the extended portions (para. 0036); the diaphragm is thereby formed from the main body portion, the membrane, and the suspending edge (as shown in Fig. 1).
Cheng does not teach the connecting portions extend into a top surface of the main body, as recited in presently amended claim 1.
Cheng also does not teach the new features of claims 11-13.
However, all of these newly added features are conventional elements for speaker baskets used for mounting and holding of a speaker diaphragm, as taught for example, by Chan.
Chan teaches a speaker basket (1 in Figs. 1-6) wherein the connecting portions (13) are formed on and extend into (as shown in Fig. 3) a top surface of a main body of a base (111 in Fig. 3), as recited in presently amended claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Chan teaches that the connecting portions are positioned (as shown in Fig. 3) between the main body portion and an external portion of the basket (uppermost and outermost portion of the basket is the external portion to the main body portion).
Regarding claim 12, Chan teaches that the basket can be designed so that the connecting portions include four connecting portions (as shown in Fig. 6) and the connecting grooves include two connecting grooves disposed between the connecting portions (1311 in Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 13, Chan teaches the four connecting portions are distributed equidistantly between the external portion and the main body portion (as shown in Fig. 6; see also para. 0018).
Chan teaches that these design features provide a speaker basket which dissipates heat and eliminates noises during speaker operation (paras. 0002, 0007, and 0010).
In view of Chan’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Cheng’s base to include these conventional speaker basket elements to predictably obtain the benefits taught by Chan as cited above.
Regarding claim 2, Cheng teaches the suspending edge (60 in Fig. 3) further comprises a first joining portion that connects to the membrane (first joining portion 61), a second joining portion that connects to the main body portion (second joining portion 43 as shown in Fig. 3), and an elastic portion positioned between the first joining portion and the second joining portion (drum portion 63 in para. 0035 which is elastic since it is made from silica gel per para. 0036; see also Fig. 3); moreover, the elastic portion is positioned in the interspace (as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Cheng teaches the extended portions are formed to extend from the second joining portion into the corresponding connecting groove (as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Cheng teaches the suspending edge is formed by injection molding using silica gel material (para. 0036).
Regarding claim 6, Cheng teaches the membrane is formed from metallic material (para. 0003).
Regarding claim 7, Cheng teaches wherein after forming the diaphragm, first cut-out sections are formed on the side of the main body portion located at the positions corresponding to the connecting portions (as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 8, Cheng teaches wherein after forming the diaphragm, second cut-out sections are formed on the side of the suspending edge located at the positions corresponding to the extended portions (as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 9, Cheng teaches a plurality of protruding portions are formed on the external portion (Fig. 3 shows two protruding portions 62).
Regarding claim 10, Cheng teaches a plurality of positioning holes are formed on the external portion (64 in Fig. 3 and para. 0036).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng in view of Chan, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of True (US PG Pub 2005/0111689).
Regarding claim 5, Cheng teaches the base is formed as an integral body (as shown in Fig. 3).
Cheng does not explicitly teach that the base is formed using plastic material.
However, it is conventional in the loudspeaker diaphragm arts to form the base as an integral body using plastic material, as taught for example by True (abstract, claim 1, para. 0013).
In view of True’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the base in the method of Cheng in view of Chan as an integral body using plastic material, as taught by True, to predictably obtain suitable means for obtaining the base component in a manner compatible with low-cost, high volume injection molding.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the previous prior art rejection of claim 1 have been fully considered.
However, these arguments are directed toward the new features added to claim 1 via the present amendment and have been addressed in the rejections above, which are necessitated by the present amendments. In particular, the newly cited Chan reference teaches the new features and renders them obvious modifications to the Cheng reference, thus rendering the arguments regarding the failure of the previous references to teach these new features moot.
Conclusion
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 JIM R SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9-6 MST.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
/JRS/
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/PHILIP C TUCKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights