Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Art Rejections
Obviousness
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 1–9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0365769 (published 17 December 2015) (“Yoon”); US Patent Application Publication 2004/0086150 (published 06 May 2004) (“Stiles”) and US Patent Application Publication 2015/0271605 (published 24 September 2015) (“Zhang”).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yoon, Stiles, Zhang and US Patent Application Publication 2008/0205690 (published 28 August 2008) (“Danovi”).
Claims 14, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yoon, Stiles and Danovi.
Claims 15–17, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Yoon, Stiles, Danovi and Zhang.
Claim 1 is drawn to “a magnetic circuit for inclusion in a loudspeaker.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed magnetic circuit and the Yoon reference.
Claim 1
The Yoon Reference
“1. A magnetic circuit for inclusion in a loudspeaker, the magnetic circuit comprising:
The Yoon reference similarly describes a magnetic circuit for use in a loudspeaker. Yoon at Abs., ¶¶ 3, 56–74, 88, 91, 92, FIGs.1, 3, 7.
“a first plate having a distal surface and a proximal surface;
“a second plate having a distal surface and a proximal surface opposite the distal surface, the distal surface of the second plate disposed along the proximal surface of the first plate,
Yoon’s magnetic circuit 400 similarly includes two stacked plates 440 and 450. Id. at ¶¶ 88–93, FIG.7. The proximal surface of plate 450 is disposed along the distal surface of spacer 460. Id. In the FIG.7 embodiment spacer 460 is formed integrally with plate 440. Id. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would have understood that the proximal surface of plate 450 effectively sits along the distal surface of plate 440.
“
N/A
“a magnet having a distal surface and a proximal surface, the distal surface of the magnet disposed along the proximal surface of the second plate;
Yoon’s magnetic circuit further includes a magnet 110 whose distal surface is disposed along the proximal surface of plate 440. Id.
“a second magnet configured to increase magnetic flux within the magnetic circuit; and
Yoon describes alternative embodiments that include a second magnet. However, those embodiments are mutually exclusive from the FIG.7 embodiment that includes a plate having two radial portions of different axial dimensions. Id. at ¶¶ 105–112, FIGs.13–15.
“a yoke disposed along the proximal surface of the magnet, the yoke shaped to form first and second magnetic circuit gaps radially between the yoke and the first and second plates, respectively;
Yoon’s magnetic circuit 400 includes yoke 181 that similarly sits along the proximal surface of magnet 110 and forms two magnetic gaps 441, 451 between yoke 181 and plates 440, 460. Id. at ¶¶ 88–93, FIG.7.
“wherein the first plate and the second plate each have a respective first radial portion with a smaller axial dimension than a respective second radial portion; and
Viewing spacer 460 as an integral portion of plate 440, plate 440 includes two portions of different axial dimension in a radial direction. Id. However, plate 450 does not include a first radial portion with a smaller axial dimension than a second radial portion.
“wherein the first plate and the second plate are interchangeable parts.”
This claim requires that both the first plate and the second plate are interchangeable parts. Yoon’s first and second plates are not interchangeable parts because they have different geometries.
Table 1
The table above shows the correspondence between the claimed magnetic circuit and magnetic circuit 400 of the Yoon reference. Yoon does not anticipate the claimed second magnet. Further, Yoon does not form first and second plates 440 and 450 as interchangeable parts that both include a first radial portion with a smaller axial dimension than a respective second radial portion.
Second Magnet
The differences between the claimed invention and the Yoon reference are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed. The Yoon reference describes a multi-gap magnetic circuit 400 that includes two plates 440, 450 that direct magnetic flux through respective magnetic gaps 441, 451 to yoke 181. While Yoon teaches adding a second magnet in some embodiments to increase magnetic flux, Yoon does not teach combining the second magnets with a plate that has two different radial portions of different axial length. Yoon at ¶¶ 105–112, FIGs.13–15.
The Stiles reference, like the Yoon reference and the claimed invention, similarly describes a multi-gap magnetic circuit for a loudspeaker. Stiles teaches adding additional magnets to create a multi-gap magnetic circuit. For example, Stiles describes simply stacking additional magnets on an existing plate. Stiles at ¶¶ 29–30, 34, 39, 41, 45, FIGs.2A, 3A, 4, 5A, 6.
Read in light of Yoon’s teachings on secondary magnets, the Stiles reference’s various mechanisms for adding secondary magnets would have reasonably suggested modifying Yoon by fixing a second magnet on top of plate 450.
Interchangeable Plates Having a Shorter Radial Portion
Yoon describes a multi-gap magnetic circuit created in part by plates 440 and 450, which have different geometries (i.e., they are not interchangeable). Plate 440 includes two radial portions (440, 460) of different axial extent, while plate 450 has a single portion. Providing plate 440 with two radial portions creates a space that receives element 470. The Zhang reference, however, similarly describes a multi-gap magnetic circuit and further teaches and suggests an alternative embodiment that forms multiple gaps with two identical plates (stacked on top of each other in an inverted manner) that have a shorter radial portion and a longer radial portion. Zhang at ¶¶ 111–112, FIG.8. This teaching would have reasonably suggested modifying Yoon’s magnetic circuit 400 so that plate 440 and plate 450 are (1) formed from interchangeable parts that (2) include shorter and longer radial portions to define respective magnetic gaps. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Yoon, the Stiles and the Zhang references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the yoke forms a U-shape.”
Similarly, Yoon’s yoke is U-shaped. Yoon at FIG.7. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Yoon, the Stiles and the Zhang references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the first and second magnetic circuit gaps are sized to receive a voice coil therein.”
Yoon’s magnetic gaps 441, 451 are spaced to receive voice coil 190. Yoon at ¶ 72, FIGs.3, 7. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Yoon, the Stiles and the Zhang references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3 and further requires the following:
“wherein the first radial portions form an axial gap between the first and second plates.”
Similarly, by modifying Yoon’s plates 440 and 450 to be like Zhang’s plates 203A and 203B, the narrower portions of the plates close to Yoon’s gap 441 will form an axial gap to receive Yoon’s spacer 460. See Yoon at FIG.7; Zhang at FIG.8. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Yoon, the Stiles and the Zhang references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 5 depends on claim 4 and further requires the following:
“wherein the axial gap is configured to receive a shorting ring therein.”
Yoon includes a shorting ring 470 in the gap between plates 440 and 450. Yoon at ¶ 90, FIG.7. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Yoon, the Stiles and the Zhang references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the magnet comprises a ring magnet.”
Yoon’s magnetic circuit 400 is annular and includes a ring magnet 110. Yoon at ¶ 59, 90, FIGs.1, 7. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Yoon, the Stiles and the Zhang references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the magnet is configured to generate a higher magnetic flux than ferrite.”
Yoon describes embodying ring magnet 110 from ferrite or neodymium, which one of ordinary skill would recognize as having a higher magnetic flux than ferrite. Yoon at ¶ 59. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Yoon, the Stiles and the Zhang references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 8 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the magnet comprises neodymium.”
Yoon describes embodying ring magnet 110 from neodymium. Yoon at ¶ 59. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Yoon, the Stiles and the Zhang references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 9 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the second magnet comprises a proximal surface disposed along the distal surface of the first plate.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of adding a secondary magnet to the distal surface of plate 450 to increase flux and create a third gap. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Yoon, the Stiles and the Zhang references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 10 depends on claim 9 and further requires the following:
“wherein the second magnet comprises a distal surface disposed distally beyond a most distal surface of the yoke.”
The combination of Yoon and Stiles does not describe, teach or suggest that a distal surface of a second magnet extends distally beyond a distal surface of yoke 180. Yoon forms its yoke 180 so that the yoke forms a central portion of the magnetic circuit while its magnet 110 and flux-directing plates 440, 450 form a peripheral portion. Yoon at FIG.7. The Danovi reference teaches an alternative approach, where the yoke forms a peripheral portion of the magnetic circuit and the magnets and flux-directing plates form a central portion of the magnetic circuit. Danovi at 59–61, FIGs.9, 10. Danovi’s yoke is shorter in axial length than the central magnetic portion. Id. Additionally, Danovi couples the yoke to a basket, or frame, to form a flux collector 106 through which magnetic field flux passes. Id.
Danovi’s alternative approach to forming a magnetic circuit would have reasonably suggested modifying Yoon in a similar fashion while retaining Yoon’s multiple magnetic gaps that are not present in Danovi. For example, Yoon’s yoke 180 would form a peripheral wall that is shorter in axial length than a central magnetic stack. Yoke 180 would further connect at a distal end to a flux collector frame. Yoon’s magnet 110, plates 440, 450, 460 would be stacked on a central portion of yoke 180. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Yoon, the Stiles, the Zhang and the Danovi references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 11 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“further comprising a frame coupled to a distal end of the yoke, wherein the first magnet is disposed relative to the yoke such that magnetic field flux from the magnet is configured to substantially pass through the frame.”
The combination of Yoon and Stiles does not describe, teach or suggest coupling a frame to a distal end of yoke 180. Yoon forms its yoke 180 so that the yoke forms a central portion of the magnetic circuit while its magnet 110 and flux-directing plates 440, 450 form a peripheral portion. Yoon at FIG.7. The Danovi reference teaches an alternative approach, where the yoke forms a peripheral portion of the magnetic circuit and the magnets and flux-directing plates form a central portion of the magnetic circuit. Danovi at 59–61, FIGs.9, 10. Danovi’s yoke is shorter in axial length than the central magnetic portion. Id. Additionally, Danovi couples the yoke to a basket, or frame, to form a flux collector 106 through which magnetic field flux passes. Id.
Danovi’s alternative approach to forming a magnetic circuit would have reasonably suggested modifying Yoon in a similar fashion while retaining Yoon’s multiple magnetic gaps that are not present in Danovi. For example, Yoon’s yoke 180 would form a peripheral wall that is shorter in axial length than a central magnetic stack. Yoke 180 would further connect at a distal end to a flux collector frame. Yoon’s magnet 110, plates 440, 450, 460 would be stacked on a central portion of yoke 180. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Yoon, the Stiles, the Zhang and the Danovi references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 13 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein each of the first radial portions are nearer the first magnetic gap than is the second radial portion.”
Similarly, by modifying Yoon’s plate portions 440 and 450 to be formed like Zhang’s plates 203A, 203B, Yoon’s plates 440 and 450 will have a portion of smaller axial extent closer to gap 441 than a portion of larger axial extent, assuming the axial extent is measured along the vibration axis of the speaker. See Yoon at FIG.7; Zhang at FIG.8. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Yoon, the Stiles and the Zhang references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 14 is drawn to “a speaker.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed speaker and the Yoon reference.
Claim 14
The Yoon Reference
“14. A speaker comprising:
“a magnetic circuit comprising:
The Yoon reference similarly describes a magnetic circuit for use in a loudspeaker. Yoon at Abs., ¶¶ 3, 56–74, 88, 91, 92, FIGs.1, 3, 7.
“a first plate having a distal surface and a proximal surface, the distal surface of the first plate disposed along the proximal surface of the first magnet;
“a second plate having a distal surface and a proximal surface, the distal surface of the second plate disposed along the proximal surface of the first plate;
Yoon’s magnetic circuit 400 similarly includes two stacked plates 440 and 450. Id. at ¶¶ 88–93, FIG.7. The proximal surface of plate 450 is disposed along the distal surface of spacer 460. Id. In the FIG.7 embodiment spacer 460 is formed integrally with plate 440. Id. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would have understood that the proximal surface of plate 450 effectively sits along the distal surface of plate 440.
“a first magnet having a distal surface and a proximal surface; …
“a second magnet having a distal surface and a proximal surface, the distal surface of the second magnet disposed along the proximal surface of the second plate; and
Yoon’s magnetic circuit further includes a magnet 110 whose distal surface is disposed along the proximal surface of plate 440. Id. at ¶¶ 88–93, FIG.7. Yoon’s magnet 110 corresponds to the claimed second magnet.
Yoon describes alternative embodiments that include an additional magnet. However, those embodiments are mutually exclusive from the FIG.7 embodiment that includes a plate having two radial portions of different axial dimensions. Id. at ¶¶ 105–112, FIGs.13–15. Accordingly, Yoon does not anticipate the claimed first magnet whose distal surface extends beyond the most distal surface of a yoke.
“a yoke disposed along the proximal surface of the second magnet, the yoke shaped to form first and second magnetic circuit gaps radially between the yoke and the first and second plates, respectively;
Yoon’s magnetic circuit 400 includes yoke 181 that similarly sits along the proximal surface of magnet 110 and forms two magnetic gaps 441, 451 between yoke 181 and plates 440, 460. Id. at ¶¶ 88–93, FIG.7.
“wherein the distal surface of the first magnet is disposed distally beyond a most distal surface of the yoke;
Yoon does not describe, teach or suggest that a distal surface of a first magnet extends distally beyond a distal surface of yoke 180.
“a voice coil configured to be disposed between at least the first and second magnetic circuit gaps;
Yoon’s magnetic gaps 441, 451 are spaced to receive voice coil 190. Id. at ¶ 72, FIGs.3, 7.
“a diaphragm engaged with the voice coil; and
Frame 196 supports diaphragm 192 via edge 193. Id. at ¶ 72, FIGs.1, 3.
“a frame configured to support the diaphragm and to be operatively coupled to the yoke.”
Yoon similarly includes a frame 196 coupled to yoke 180 via the magnetic stack of elements 110, 440, 450, 460. Yoon at FIGs.1, 7. Frame 196 supports diaphragm 192 via edge 193. Id. at ¶ 72, FIGs.1, 3.
Table 2
The table above shows the correspondence between the claimed magnetic circuit and magnetic circuit 400 of the Yoon reference. Yoon does not anticipate the claimed first magnet. Yoon also does not anticipate locating a distal surface of a first magnet distally beyond a most distal surface of yoke 180.
The differences between the claimed invention and the Yoon reference are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed. The Yoon reference describes a multi-gap magnetic circuit 400 that includes two plates 440, 450 that direct magnetic flux through respective magnetic gaps 441, 451 to yoke 181. While Yoon teaches adding a second magnet in some embodiments to increase magnetic flux, Yoon does not teach combining the second magnets with a plate that has two different radial portions of different axial length. Yoon at ¶¶ 105–112, FIGs.13–15.
The Stiles reference, like the Yoon reference and the claimed invention, similarly describes a multi-gap magnetic circuit for a loudspeaker. Stiles teaches adding additional magnets to create a multi-gap magnetic circuit. For example, Stiles describes simply stacking additional magnets on an existing plate. Stiles at ¶¶ 29–30, 34, 39, 41, 45, FIGs.2A, 3A, 4, 5A, 6.
Read in light of Yoon’s teachings on secondary magnets, the Stiles reference’s various mechanisms for adding secondary magnets would have reasonably suggested modifying Yoon by fixing a second magnet on top of plate 450.
Additionally, the combination of Yoon and Stiles does not describe, teach or suggest coupling a frame to a distal end of yoke 180 and positioning a first magnet whose distal surface extends beyond the most distal surface of a yoke. Yoon forms its yoke 180 so that the yoke forms a central portion of the magnetic circuit while its magnet 110 and flux-directing plates 440, 450 form a peripheral portion. Yoon at FIG.7. The Danovi reference teaches an alternative approach, where the yoke forms a peripheral portion of the magnetic circuit and the magnets and flux-directing plates form a central portion of the magnetic circuit. Danovi at 59–61, FIGs.9, 10. Danovi’s yoke is shorter in axial length than the central magnetic portion. Id. Additionally, Danovi couples the yoke to a basket, or frame, to form a flux collector 106 through which magnetic field flux passes. Id.
Danovi’s alternative approach to forming a magnetic circuit would have reasonably suggested modifying Yoon in a similar fashion while retaining Yoon’s multiple magnetic gaps that are not present in Danovi. For example, Yoon’s yoke 180 would form a peripheral wall that is shorter in axial length than a central magnetic stack. Yoke 180 would further connect at a distal end to a flux collector frame. Yoon’s magnet 110, plates 440, 450, 460 would be stacked on a central portion of yoke 180. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Yoon, the Stiles and the Danovi references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 15 depends on claim 14 and further requires the following:
“wherein an outer radial portion of the first plate has a smaller axial dimension than an inner radial portion of the first plate, and wherein an outer radial portion of the second plate has a smaller axial dimension than an inner radial portion of the second plate.”
The Yoon reference describes forming plate 440 with a shorter radial portion, but does not describe similarly forming plate 450 with a shorter radial portion. The Zhang reference, however, similarly describes multi-gap magnetic circuit and further teaches and suggests an alternative embodiment that forms multiple gaps with two plates that have shorter and longer radial portions. Zhang at ¶¶ 111–112, FIG.8. This teaching would have reasonably suggested modifying Yoon’s magnetic circuit 400 so that plate 440 and plate 450 both include shorter and longer radial portions to define respective magnetic gaps. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Yoon, the Stiles, the Danovi and the Zhang references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 16 depends on claim 15 and further requires the following:
“wherein the inner radial portions of the first and second plates form an axial gap.”
According to the rejection of claim 15, incorporated herein, plates 440 and 450 have shorter radial portions that would form a gap between plate 440 and plate 450. See Yoon at FIG.7; Zhang at FIG.8. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Yoon, the Stiles, the Danovi and the Zhang references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 17 depends on claim 16 and further requires the following:
“wherein the axial gap is configured to receive a shorting ring therein.”
Yoon includes a shorting ring 470 in the gap between plates 440 and 450. Yoon at ¶ 90, FIG.7. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Yoon, the Stiles, the Danovi and the Zhang references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 18 depends on claim 14 and further requires the following:
“wherein the first magnet is disposed relative to the yoke such that the frame is configured to conduct magnetic field flux from the first magnet.”
The combination of Yoon and Stiles does not describe, teach or suggest coupling a frame to a distal end of yoke 180. Yoon forms its yoke 180 so that the yoke forms a central portion of the magnetic circuit while its magnet 110 and flux-directing plates 440, 450 form a peripheral portion. Yoon at FIG.7. The Danovi reference teaches an alternative approach, where the yoke forms a peripheral portion of the magnetic circuit and the magnets and flux-directing plates form a central portion of the magnetic circuit. Danovi at 59–61, FIGs.9, 10. Danovi’s yoke is shorter in axial length than the central magnetic portion. Id. Additionally, Danovi couples the yoke to a basket, or frame, to form a flux collector 106 through which magnetic field flux passes. Id.
Danovi’s alternative approach to forming a magnetic circuit would have reasonably suggested modifying Yoon in a similar fashion while retaining Yoon’s multiple magnetic gaps that are not present in Danovi. For example, Yoon’s yoke 180 would form a peripheral wall that is shorter in axial length than a central magnetic stack. Yoke 180 would further connect at a distal end to a flux collector frame. Yoon’s magnet 110, plates 440, 450, 460 would be stacked on a central portion of yoke 180. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Yoon, the Stiles and the Danovi references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 19 is drawn to “a speaker.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed speaker and the Yoon reference.
Claim 19
The Yoon Reference
“19. A speaker comprising:
“a magnetic circuit comprising:
The Yoon reference similarly describes a magnetic circuit for use in a loudspeaker. Yoon at Abs., ¶¶ 3, 56–74, 88, 91, 92, FIGs.1, 3, 7.
“a first plate and a second plate each disposed between a first magnet and a second magnet, at least one of the first or second plates exhibiting non-symmetry across a horizontal axis; and
Yoon’s magnetic circuit 400 similarly includes two stacked plates 440 and 450. Id. at ¶¶ 88–93, FIG.7. The proximal surface of plate 450 is disposed along the distal surface of spacer 460. Id. In the FIG.7 embodiment spacer 460 is formed integrally with plate 440. Id. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would have understood that the proximal surface of plate 450 effectively sits along the distal surface of plate 440.
Yoon does not describe a first magnet as claimed.
“a yoke disposed along the second magnet, the yoke shaped to form first and second magnetic circuit gaps radially between the yoke and the first and second plates, respectively;
Yoon’s magnetic circuit 400 includes yoke 181 that similarly sits along the proximal surface of magnet 110 and forms two magnetic gaps 441, 451 between yoke 181 and plates 440, 460. Id. at ¶¶ 88–93, FIG.7.
“a voice coil configured to be disposed between at least the first and second magnetic circuit gaps;
Yoon’s magnetic gaps 441, 451 are spaced to receive voice coil 190. Id. at ¶ 72, FIGs.3, 7.
“a diaphragm engaged with the voice coil; and
Frame 196 supports diaphragm 192 via edge 193. Id. at ¶ 72, FIGs.1, 3.
“a frame configured to support the diaphragm,
Yoon similarly includes a frame 196 coupled to yoke 180 via the magnetic stack of elements 110, 440, 450, 460. Yoon at FIGs.1, 7. Frame 196 supports diaphragm 192 via edge 193. Yoon at ¶ 72, FIGs.1, 3.
“wherein the first magnet is disposed relative to the yoke such that the frame is configured to conduct magnetic field flux from the first magnet.”
Yoon does not describe that frame 196 conducts magnetic field flux from a first magnet 110.
Table 3
The table above shows the correspondence between the claimed magnetic circuit and magnetic circuit 400 of the Yoon reference. Yoon does not anticipate the claimed first magnet. Yoon also does not describe conducting magnetic field flux with a frame.
Second Magnet
The differences between the claimed invention and the Yoon reference are such that the invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this Application was effectively filed. The Yoon reference describes a multi-gap magnetic circuit 400 that includes two plates 440, 450 that direct magnetic flux through respective magnetic gaps 441, 451 to yoke 181. While Yoon teaches adding a second magnet in some embodiments to increase magnetic flux, Yoon does not teach combining the second magnets with a plate that has two different radial portions of different axial length. Yoon at ¶¶ 105–112, FIGs.13–15.
The Stiles reference, like the Yoon reference and the claimed invention, similarly describes a multi-gap magnetic circuit for a loudspeaker. Stiles teaches adding additional magnets to create a multi-gap magnetic circuit. For example, Stiles describes simply stacking additional magnets on an existing plate. Stiles at ¶¶ 29–30, 34, 39, 41, 45, FIGs.2A, 3A, 4, 5A, 6.
Read in light of Yoon’s teachings on secondary magnets, the Stiles reference’s various mechanisms for adding secondary magnets would have reasonably suggested modifying Yoon by fixing a second magnet on top of plate 450.
Conducting Magnetic Field Flux with a Frame
Additionally, the combination of Yoon and Stiles does not describe, teach or suggest conducting flux from a first magnet through a frame. Yoon forms its yoke 180 so that the yoke forms a central portion of the magnetic circuit while its magnet 110 and flux-directing plates 440, 450 form a peripheral portion. Yoon at FIG.7. The Danovi reference teaches an alternative approach, where the yoke forms a peripheral portion of the magnetic circuit and the magnets and flux-directing plates form a central portion of the magnetic circuit. Danovi at 59–61, FIGs.9, 10. Danovi’s yoke is shorter in axial length than the central magnetic portion. Id. Additionally, Danovi couples the yoke to a basket, or frame, to form a flux collector 106 through which magnetic field flux passes. Id.
Danovi’s alternative approach to forming a magnetic circuit would have reasonably suggested modifying Yoon in a similar fashion while retaining Yoon’s multiple magnetic gaps that are not present in Danovi. For example, Yoon’s yoke 180 would form a peripheral wall that is shorter in axial length than a central magnetic stack. Yoke 180 would further connect at a distal end to a flux collector frame. Yoon’s magnet 110, plates 440, 450, 460 would be stacked on a central portion of yoke 180. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Yoon, the Stiles and the Danovi references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 20 depends on claim 19 and further requires the following:
“wherein an outer radial portion of the first plate has a smaller axial dimension than an inner radial portion of the first plate, and wherein an outer radial portion of the second plate has a smaller axial dimension than an inner radial portion of the second plate.”
The Yoon reference describes forming plate 440 with a shorter radial portion, but does not describe similarly forming plate 450 with a shorter radial portion. The Zhang reference, however, similarly describes multi-gap magnetic circuit and further teaches and suggests an alternative embodiment that forms multiple gaps with two plates that have shorter and longer radial portions. Zhang at ¶¶ 111–112, FIG.8. This teaching would have reasonably suggested modifying Yoon’s magnetic circuit 400 so that plate 440 and plate 450 both include shorter and longer radial portions to define respective magnetic gaps. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Yoon, the Stiles, the Zhang and the Danovi references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 21 depends on claim 19 and further requires the following:
“wherein the first plate and the second plate are interchangeable parts.”
Yoon describes a multi-gap magnetic circuit created in part by plates 440 and 450, which have different geometries (i.e., they are not interchangeable). Plate 440 includes two radial portions (440, 460) of different axial extent, while plate 450 has a single portion. Providing plate 440 with two radial portions creates a space that receives element 470. The Zhang reference, however, similarly describes a multi-gap magnetic circuit and further teaches and suggests an alternative embodiment that forms multiple gaps with two identical plates (stacked on top of each other in an inverted manner) that have a shorter radial portion (i.e., the portion closest to the magnetic gap) and a longer radial portion. Zhang at ¶¶ 111–112, FIG.8. This teaching would have reasonably suggested modifying Yoon’s magnetic circuit 400 so that plate 440 and plate 450 are (1) formed from interchangeable parts that (2) include shorter and longer radial portions to define respective magnetic gaps. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Yoon, the Stiles, the Zhang and the Danovi references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Summary
Claims 1–11 and 13–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s Reply (13 February 2026) has substantively amended claims 1–13 and introduced new claim 21. This rejection has been updated accordingly.
Applicant’s Reply at 5–8 further presents comments pertaining to the rejections included in this Office action. Those comments have been considered, but are unpersuasive of any error in the rejections. Regarding claim 1, Applicant comments that the combination of references does not disclose, teach or suggest the added limitations concerning two plates that each have a respective first radial portion with a smaller axial dimension than a respective second radial portion; and forming the first and second plates as interchangeable parts. This new limitations are addressed in the rejection of claim 1, above, based on the combination of Yoon, Stiles and Zhang. Applicant does not address this combination, rendering Applicant’s comments moot.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant comments that the combined references do not describe, teach or suggest the claimed combination of magnets and plates arranged as claimed. Applicant challenges this combination, stating that the rejection is premised on combining multiple embodiments of Yoon based on the teachings of Stiles. This is not an accurate characterization of the rejection. The rejection of the claimed features in question is based on the combination of Yoon and Stiles. The rejection recognizes that Yoon describes an embodiment including multiple magnets, but notes that they do not correspond to the claimed arrangement of magnets and plates. The purpose of those observations is to establish in the mind of one of ordinary skill in the art the propriety of adding additional magnets to Yoon’s speaker. The rejection then pivots to showing Stiles may be used as a blueprint to modify Yoon to include multiple magnets and plates arranged as claimed.
Applicant further comments that the combination of references does not describe, teach or suggest the claimed routing of magnetic flux through a frame. For clarity, this feature is not directly recited in the claims, but is implied by the relative arrangement of the claimed first magnet and the claimed yoke. In any case, Applicant comments that Danovi does not describe routing magnetic flux through a frame. To support this view, Applicant notes that Danovi does not literally describe conducting magnetic flux through Danovi’s frame 102. However, the rejection maps flux collector 106 to a frame element that collects magnetic flux.
Applicant further comments that applying Danovi to Yoon would require adding new components and fundamentally reorienting the magnetic circuit. It is true that Danovi’s approach suggests an alternative type of magnetic circuit, where the gap is formed outside the magnets’ circumferences rather than inside the magnets’ circumferences. But that would be a relatively straightforward modification given the detailed teachings of the references, which indicate a high-degree of knowledge and skill in the prior art.
Regarding claim 19, Applicant repeats the same comments made above in connection with claims 1 and 14. These comments are unpersuasive for the same reasons recorded above.
For the foregoing reasons, Applicant has not persuasively established any error in the Office action. All the rejections will be maintained.
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 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 WALTER F BRINEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-4:30 pm.
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 Edwards can be reached at 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.
/Walter F Briney III/
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
4/1/2026
Prosecution Insights