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).
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e), was filed in this Application on 06 July 2026 after the Final Rejection (06 April 2026). Since this Application is eligible for continued examination under 37 C.F.R. § 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08 June 2026 has been entered.
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, 3, 4, 6, 9–11, 13–16 and 18–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US Patent Application Publication 2003/0152246 (published 14 August 2003) (“Tanabe”) and US Patent Application Publication 2008/0205690 (published 28 August 2008) (“Danovi”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tanabe; Danovi and US Patent Application Publication 2019/0313193 (published 10 October 2019) (“Danovi II”).
Claims 5, 7, 8, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tanabe; Danovi and US Patent Application Publication 2015/0365769 (published 17 December 2015) (“Yoon”).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Tanabe, Danovi and US Patent Application Publication 2004/0086150 (published 06 May 2004) (“Stiles”).
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 Tanabe reference.
Claim 1
The Tanabe Reference
“1. A magnetic circuit for inclusion in a loudspeaker, the magnetic circuit comprising:
The Tanabe reference describes a loudspeaker and a magnetic circuit that corresponds to the claimed magnetic circuit. Tanabe at Abs., ¶¶ 18, 26, FIGs.1, 2. Tanabe’s magnetic circuit is formed by elements 1, 2, 31, 32, 4, 5, 6. Id.
“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 directly connected to
Tanabe’s magnetic circuit similarly includes a first plate 32 and a second plate 31. Id. at ¶¶ 20, 26, FIGs.1, 2. Tanabe describes directly connecting the plates to each other, with one of the plates being placed upside down on the other plate. Id. at ¶¶ 20, 26.
“a magnet having a distal surface and a proximal surface, the distal surface of the magnet directly connected to
The magnetic circuit also includes a magnet 4, such as an annular magnet formed around yoke central pole 2. Id. at ¶ 19, FIGs.1, 2. Magnet 4 has its distal surface connected directly to the proximal surface of second plate 31.
“a second magnet configured to increase magnetic flux within the magnetic circuit, the second magnet having a distal surface and a proximal surface, wherein the proximal surface of the second magnet is directly connected to a distal surface of the first plate; [[and]]
Tanabe does not describe a corresponding second magnet configured to increase magnetic flux within the magnetic circuit and having a proximal surface that is directly connected to a distal surface of first plate 32. See id. at FIGs.1, 2.
“a yoke directly connected to and
Tanabe’s magnetic circuit includes a yoke 1 directly connected to the proximal surface of magnet 4. Yoke 1 includes a bottom plate 6 and a central pole/core 2, which cooperates with the inner circumferential portions 31a and 32a of plates 31 and 32 to form first and second magnetic gaps.
“a top cap having a proximal surface directly connected to the distal surface of the second magnet;
Tanabe does not describe a corresponding top cap having a proximal surface directly connected to the distal surface of a second magnet. See id. at FIGs.1, 2.
“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
Plates 31 and 32 similarly include respective inner circumferential portions 31a and 32a that exhibit a deformation that creates two different radial portions, with one portion being shorter than the other to create an axial gap when the plates are stacked inversely on each other (i.e., with one plate being positioned upside-down on top of the other plate). See id. at ¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 20, FIGs.1, 2.
“wherein the first plate and the second plate are interchangeable parts.”
Tanabe describes plates 31 and 32 as being a common component, or interchangeable parts, that are made by pressing a deformation into their inner circumferential portion. Id. at ¶¶ 20, 26.
Table 1
PNG
media_image1.png
438
867
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Marked-up copy of Tanabe at FIG.2.
The table above shows the correspondence between the claimed magnetic circuit and the magnetic circuit described by the Tanabe reference. The Tanabe reference does not anticipate the claimed invention because Tanabe does not describe the claimed second magnet and top cap.
The differences between the claimed invention and the Tanabe 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 Tanabe reference describes a loudspeaker having a magnetic circuit. Tanabe at Abs., ¶¶ 18, 25, FIGs.1, 2. The magnetic circuit is formed as a dual-gap circuit through the inclusion of two stacked plates 31, 32 featuring a deformation at their inner circumferential portions 31a, 32a, which create an inner circumferential clearance between the plates. Id. at ¶¶ 20, 25, FIGs.1, 2. While Tanabe’s magnetic circuit includes a primary magnet 4, it does not further include a secondary magnet and top cap as claimed.
The Danovi reference is related to the Tanabe reference because both are drawn to the field of electromagnetic loudspeakers. Danovi teaches adding a second magnet to a magnetic circuit to increase flux in the magnetic gap. In particular, Danovi stacks a second magnet 208 directly on top of a core cap 210 that forms magnetic gap 220. Danovi further stacks a core cap 212 on second magnet 208. Second magnet 208 is oriented in a bucking mode so that its flux lines are directed towards gap 220.
Read collectively, the Tanabe and Danovi references reasonably suggest the obvious modification of Tanabe’s magnetic circuit to include a second magnet and top cap as claimed. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C) (using the known technique of adding a second “bucking” magnet and top cap to improve magnetic flux present in the magnetic gap of a loudspeaker in the same way). In particular, Tanabe provides a base electromagnetic loudspeaker having a magnetic circuit that forms a magnetic gap formed by plates 31 and 32. Tanabe at ¶¶ 20, 26, FIGs.1, 2. Danovi teaches and suggests directly coupling a second “bucking” magnet on top of plate 32 in order to produce additional magnetic flux in Tanabe’s magnetic gap. Danovi at ¶ 25, 55, 58, FIGs.2, 9. Danovi further teaches and suggests adding a top cap to the top of the second magnet. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Tanabe and the Danovi 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.”
The Danovi II reference teaches a dual-gap magnetic circuit, much like the one described by Tanabe. Danovi II further teaches several yoke configurations for an electromagnetic loudspeaker, including a T-shaped yoke like the one described by Tanabe as well as a U-shaped yoke formed by two legs projecting upwards from a base plate. Danovi II at ¶¶ 33, 40, FIGs.1, 2. These alternative configurations, read in light of Tanabe’s disclosure, would have reasonably suggested modifying Tanabe’s yoke to be a U-shaped yoke. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B) (simple substitution of Tanabe’s T-shaped yoke with Danovi II’s U-shaped yoke). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Tanabe, the Danovi and the Danovi II 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.”
Likewise, Tanabe’s two magnetic gaps are sized to receive voice coil 5. Tanabe at ¶ 22, FIGs.1, 2. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Tanabe and the Danovi 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.”
The shorter radial portions of Tanabe’s plates 31 and 32 also formed an axial gap as claimed. Tanabe at ¶ 11, FIGs.1, 2. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Tanabe and the Danovi 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, like Tanabe, describes an electromagnetic loudspeaker having a dual-gap magnetic circuit. Yoon further teaches includes a shorting ring 470 in the gap between plates 440 and 450. Yoon at ¶ 90, FIG.7. Shorting ring 470 has low magnetic permeability, which causes magnetic flux to be concentrated and provides support for the dual-gap-forming plates. Id. at ¶ 24. Read in light of Tanabe, Yoon’s teachings concerning a shorting ring would have reasonably suggested modifying Tanabe’s magnetic circuit to include a shorting ring in the axial gap between plates 31 and 32. See MPEP § 2143(I)(D) (applying the known technique of adding a shorting ring in the axial gap of a dual-gap magnetic circuit that does not already have one in order to predictably focus magnetic flux as desired and to support the magnetic plates). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Tanabe, the Danovi and the Yoon 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.”
Tanabe’s magnet 4 is also an annular, or ring, magnet. Tanabe at ¶ 18, FIGs.1, 2. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Tanabe and the Danovi 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.”
Claim 8 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the magnet comprises neodymium.”
Claims 7 and 8 are analyzed together. Tanabe describes a magnet 4, but does not characterize its magnetic flux with respect to ferrite. Tanabe at ¶ 18. The Yoon reference is related to Tanabe because both describe dual-gap electromagnetic loudspeakers having ring magnets. Yoon further teaches embodying its 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. Yoon’s teachings would have reasonably suggested modifying Tanabe’s magnetic circuit to similarly include a neodymium. See MPEP § 2143(I)(applying a known neodymium ring magnet to a magnetic circuit that is described simply as using a ring magnet without specifying the type, making the circuit ready for improvement by using a known magnet suitable for driving a loudspeaker). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Tanabe, the Danovi and the Yoon references makes obvious all limitations of the claims.
Claim 9 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the second magnet comprises a proximal surface directly connected to
The obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of directly connecting a secondary magnet to the distal surface of Tanabe’s first plate 32 to increase flux. See also Danovi at ¶ 25, 55, 58, FIGs.2, 9. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Tanabe and the Danovi 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 obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of directly connecting a secondary magnet to the distal surface of Tanabe’s first plate 32 to increase flux. See also Danovi at ¶ 25, 55, 58, FIGs.2, 9. Following the blueprint provided by Danovi, one of ordinary skill would have located the second magnet directly on top of plate 32. Because Tanabe’s plate 32 is already level with the top of Tanabe’s yoke 1, adding a second magnet to plate 32 would result in the magnet extending distally beyond the most distal portion of yoke 1. See Tanabe at FIG.1 (depicting plate 32 as being at the same height as yoke 1); Danovi at FIG.9 (depicting a second magnet 208 that extends distally beyond the most distal surface of yoke 202). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Tanabe 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 obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of directly connecting a secondary magnet to the distal surface of Tanabe’s first plate 32 to increase flux. See also Danovi at ¶ 25, 55, 58, FIGs.2, 9. In connection with that modification, the Danovi reference further teaches including a flux collector 106 to collect stray flux emanating from second magnet 208. Thus, in adding a second magnet to Tanabe, one of ordinary skill would have further added a flux collector similar to Danovi’s flux collector 106. For example, given their similarity in position and shape, one of ordinary skill would have reasonably modified Tanabe’s frame 10 to act as a flux collector as taught by Danovi. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C) (using the technique of forming a loudspeaker frame as a flux collector to improve Tanabe’s frame by allowing the frame to collect stray flux after adding a second “bucking” magnet). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Tanabe 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.”
Plates 31 and 32 similarly include respective inner circumferential portions 31a and 32a that exhibit a deformation that creates two different radial portions, with one portion being shorter than the other to create an axial gap when the plates are stacked inversely on each other (i.e., with one plate being positioned upside-down on top of the other plate). See id. at ¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 20, FIGs.1, 2. The longer radial portions are also closer to voice coil 5 in order to form two magnetic gaps G1 and G2. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Tanabe and the Danovi references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 22 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein compression between the yoke and the top cap promotes coupling between components of the magnetic circuit.”
Tanabe describes several techniques for coupling magnetic circuit elements, including pressure fitting, adhesives and screwing (i.e., compression). Tanabe at ¶¶ 23, 26. Tanabe indicates that screwing is not as efficient as pressure fitting and using adhesives, but does not indicate that it would be ineffective for coupling. See id. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Tanabe and the Danovi references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 23 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein the first plate, the second plate, the magnet, the second magnet, the yoke, and the top cap are arranged in a continuous axial stack.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of directly connecting a secondary magnet to the distal surface of Tanabe’s first plate 32 to increase flux. See also Danovi at ¶ 25, 55, 58, FIGs.2, 9. The resulting magnetic circuit will exhibit the claimed continuous axial stack. To illustrate, consider Danovi’s magnetic circuit, which includes a continuous stack between top cap 212, second magnet 208, first plate 210, magnet 206 and yoke 202. Likewise, Tanabe’s magnetic circuit includes a continuous stack with plate 32 at the top, followed by plate 31, magnet 4 and yoke 6. Tanabe’s circuit is modified as suggested by Danovi to include a second magnet and a cap directly situated on plate 32. Thus, Tanabe’s circuit will have a continuous axial stack of a cap (Danovi’s cap 212), second magnet (Danovi’s second magnet 208), first plate 32, second plate 31, magnet 4 and yoke 6. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Tanabe and the Danovi references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 24 depends on claim 23 and further requires the following:
“wherein the arrangement reduces overall axial extent relative to a standard multi-gap magnetic circuit.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of directly connecting a secondary magnet to the distal surface of Tanabe’s first plate 32 to increase flux. See also Danovi at ¶ 25, 55, 58, FIGs.2, 9. The resulting magnetic circuit will exhibit a reduced overall axial extent relative to a “standard” multi-gap magnetic circuit. Compare Tanabe at FIG.1 (using just one magnet and two plates to form a dual-gap structure) with Stiles at FIG.2A (requiring multiple plates and multiple magnets to form a dual-gap structure). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Tanabe, the Danovi and the Stiles 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 Tanabe reference.
Claim 14
The Tanabe Reference
“14. A speaker comprising:
“a magnetic circuit comprising:
The Tanabe reference describes a loudspeaker that corresponds to the claimed speaker and a magnetic circuit that corresponds to the claimed magnetic circuit. Tanabe at Abs., ¶¶ 18, 26, FIGs.1, 2. Tanabe’s magnetic circuit is formed by elements 1, 2, 31, 32, 4, 5, 6. Id.
“a top cap having a distal surface and a proximal surface;
Tanabe does not describe a corresponding top cap having a proximal surface directly connected to the distal surface of a second magnet. See id. at FIGs.1, 2.
“a first magnet having a distal surface and a proximal surface, the distal surface of the first magnet directly connected to the proximal surface of the top cap;
Tanabe does not describe a corresponding magnet having a distal surface that is directly connected to a proximal surface of first plate 32. See id. at FIGs.1, 2.
“a first plate having a distal surface and a proximal surface, the distal surface of the first plate directly connected to 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 directly connected to disposed along the proximal surface of the first plate;
Tanabe’s magnetic circuit similarly includes a first plate 32 and a second plate 31. Id. at ¶¶ 20, 26, FIGs.1, 2. Tanabe describes directly connecting the plates to each other, with one of the plates being placed upside down on the other plate. Id. at ¶¶ 20, 26.
“a second magnet having a distal surface and a proximal surface, the distal surface of the second magnet directly connected to disposed along the proximal surface of the second plate; and
The magnetic circuit also includes a magnet 4, such as an annular magnet formed around yoke central pole 2. Id. at ¶ 19, FIGs.1, 2. Magnet 4 has its distal surface connected directly to the proximal surface of second plate 31.
“a yoke directly connected to 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;
Tanabe’s magnetic circuit includes a yoke 1 directly connected to the proximal surface of magnet 4. Yoke 1 includes a bottom plate 6 and a central pole/core 2, which cooperates with the inner circumferential portions 31a and 32a of plates 31 and 32 to form first and second magnetic gaps.
“wherein the distal surface of the first magnet and the distal surface of the top cap are [[is ]]disposed distally beyond a most distal surface of the yoke; and
As noted above, Tanabe does not describe a corresponding first magnet and top cap.
“wherein the first plate and the second plate are interchangeable parts;
Tanabe describes plates 31 and 32 as being a common component, or interchangeable parts, that are made by pressing a deformation into their inner circumferential portion. Id. at ¶¶ 20, 26.
“a voice coil configured to be disposed between at least the first and second magnetic circuit gaps;
Tanabe describes a voice coil 5 disposed as claimed in gaps G1 and G2. Id. at ¶ 22, FIGs.1, 2.
“a diaphragm engaged with the voice coil; and
Tanabe describes a diaphragm 8 connected to voice coil 5 via bobbin 7. Id.
“a frame configured to support the diaphragm and to be operatively coupled to the yoke.”
Tanabe describes a frame 10 that supports diaphragm 8 via edge 11 and operatively couples to yoke 1 via plates 31, 32 and magnet 4. Id. at ¶¶ 22, 26, FIGs.1, 2.
Table 2
The table above shows the correspondence between the claimed speaker and the loudspeaker described by the Tanabe reference. The Tanabe reference does not anticipate the claimed invention because Tanabe does not describe the claimed second magnet and top cap.
The differences between the claimed invention and the Tanabe 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 Tanabe reference describes a loudspeaker having a magnetic circuit. Tanabe at Abs., ¶¶ 18, 25, FIGs.1, 2. The magnetic circuit is formed as a dual-gap circuit through the inclusion of two stacked plates 31, 32 featuring a deformation at their inner circumferential portions 31a, 32a, which create an inner circumferential clearance between the plates. Id. at ¶¶ 20, 25, FIGs.1, 2. While Tanabe’s magnetic circuit includes a primary magnet 4, it does not further include a secondary magnet and top cap as claimed.
The Danovi reference is related to the Tanabe reference because both are drawn to the field of electromagnetic loudspeakers. Danovi teaches adding a second magnet to a magnetic circuit to increase flux in the magnetic gap. In particular, Danovi stacks a second magnet 208 directly on top of a core cap 210 that forms magnetic gap 220. Danovi further stacks a core cap 212 on second magnet 208. Second magnet 208 is oriented in a bucking mode so that its flux lines are directed towards gap 220.
Read collectively, the Tanabe and Danovi references reasonably suggest the obvious modification of Tanabe’s magnetic circuit to include a second magnet and top cap as claimed. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C) (using the known technique of adding a second “bucking” magnet and top cap to improve magnetic flux present in the magnetic gap of a loudspeaker in the same way). In particular, Tanabe provides a base electromagnetic loudspeaker having a magnetic circuit that forms a magnetic gap formed by plates 31 and 32. Tanabe at ¶¶ 20, 26, FIGs.1, 2. Danovi teaches and suggests directly coupling a second “bucking” magnet on top of plate 32 in order to produce additional magnetic flux in Tanabe’s magnetic gap. Danovi at ¶ 25, 55, 58, FIGs.2, 9. Danovi further teaches and suggests adding a top cap to the top of the second magnet. Id. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Tanabe 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.”
Plates 31 and 32 similarly include respective inner circumferential portions 31a and 32a that exhibit a deformation that creates two different radial portions, with one portion being shorter than the other to create an axial gap when the plates are stacked inversely on each other (i.e., with one plate being positioned upside-down on top of the other plate). See Tanabe at ¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 20, FIGs.1, 2. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Tanabe and the Danovi 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.”
The shorter radial portions of Tanabe’s plates 31 and 32 also formed an axial gap as claimed. Tanabe at ¶ 11, FIGs.1, 2. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Tanabe and the Danovi 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, like Tanabe, describes an electromagnetic loudspeaker having a dual-gap magnetic circuit. Yoon further teaches includes a shorting ring 470 in the gap between plates 440 and 450. Yoon at ¶ 90, FIG.7. Shorting ring 470 has low magnetic permeability, which causes magnetic flux to be concentrated and provides support for the dual-gap-forming plates. Id. at ¶ 24. Read in light of Tanabe, Yoon’s teachings concerning a shorting ring would have reasonably suggested modifying Tanabe’s magnetic circuit to include a shorting ring in the axial gap between plates 31 and 32. See MPEP § 2143(I)(D) (applying the known technique of adding a shorting ring in the axial gap of a dual-gap magnetic circuit that does not already have one in order to predictably focus magnetic flux as desired and to support the magnetic plates). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Tanabe, the Danovi and the Yoon 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 obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of directly connecting a secondary magnet to the distal surface of Tanabe’s first plate 32 to increase flux. See also Danovi at ¶ 25, 55, 58, FIGs.2, 9. In connection with that modification, the Danovi reference further teaches including a flux collector 106 to collect stray flux emanating from second magnet 208. Thus, in adding a second magnet to Tanabe, one of ordinary skill would have further added a flux collector similar to Danovi’s flux collector 106. For example, given their similarity in position and shape, one of ordinary skill would have reasonably modified Tanabe’s frame 10 to act as a flux collector as taught by Danovi. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C) (using the technique of forming a loudspeaker frame as a flux collector to improve Tanabe’s frame by allowing the frame to collect stray flux after adding a second “bucking” magnet). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Tanabe 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 Tanabe reference.
Claim 19
The Tanabe Reference
“19. A speaker comprising:
“a magnetic circuit comprising:
The Tanabe reference describes a loudspeaker that corresponds to the claimed speaker and a magnetic circuit that corresponds to the claimed magnetic circuit. Tanabe at Abs., ¶¶ 18, 26, FIGs.1, 2. Tanabe’s magnetic circuit is formed by elements 1, 2, 31, 32, 4, 5, 6. Id.
“a first plate and a second plate directly connected to respectively,
Tanabe’s magnetic circuit similarly includes a first plate 32 and a second plate 31. Id. at ¶¶ 20, 26, FIGs.1, 2. Tanabe describes directly connecting the plates to each other, with one of the plates being placed upside down on the other plate. Id. at ¶¶ 20, 26.
The magnetic circuit also includes a magnet 4, such as an annular magnet formed around yoke central pole 2. Id. at ¶ 19, FIGs.1, 2. Magnet 4 has its distal surface connected directly to the proximal surface of second plate 31.
Tanabe does not describe a corresponding magnet having a distal surface that is directly connected to a proximal surface of first plate 32. See id. at FIGs.1, 2.
“where each of the first [[or ]] and second plates have a respective first radial portion with a smaller axial dimension than a respective second radial portion
Plates 31 and 32 similarly include respective inner circumferential portions 31a and 32a that exhibit a deformation that creates two different radial portions, with one portion being shorter than the other to create an axial gap when the plates are stacked inversely on each other (i.e., with one plate being positioned upside-down on top of the other plate). See id. at ¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 20, FIGs.1, 2.
“a yoke directly connected to and
Tanabe’s magnetic circuit includes a yoke 1 directly connected to the proximal surface of magnet 4. Yoke 1 includes a bottom plate 6 and a central pole/core 2, which cooperates with the inner circumferential portions 31a and 32a of plates 31 and 32 to form first and second magnetic gaps.
“a top cap directly connected to the first magnet;
Tanabe does not describe a corresponding top cap having a proximal surface directly connected to a first magnet. See id. at FIGs.1, 2.
“a voice coil configured to be disposed between at least the first and second magnetic circuit gaps;
Tanabe describes a voice coil 5 disposed as claimed in gaps G1 and G2. Id. at ¶ 22, FIGs.1, 2.
“a diaphragm engaged with the voice coil; and
Tanabe describes a diaphragm 8 connected to voice coil 5 via bobbin 7. Id.
“a frame configured to support the diaphragm,
Tanabe describes a frame 10 that supports diaphragm 8 via edge 11 and operatively couples to yoke 1 via plates 31, 32 and magnet 4. Id. at ¶¶ 22, 26, FIGs.1, 2.
“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.”
Tanabe does not describe forming frame 10 to conduct magnetic field flux from a first magnet.
Table 3
The table above shows the correspondence between the claimed speaker and the loudspeaker described by the Tanabe reference. The Tanabe reference does not anticipate the claimed invention because Tanabe does not describe the claimed second magnet and top cap. Tanabe also does not describe forming frame 10 to conduct magnetic field flux from a first magnet.
The differences between the claimed invention and the Tanabe 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 Tanabe reference describes a loudspeaker having a magnetic circuit. Tanabe at Abs., ¶¶ 18, 25, FIGs.1, 2. The magnetic circuit is formed as a dual-gap circuit through the inclusion of two stacked plates 31, 32 featuring a deformation at their inner circumferential portions 31a, 32a, which create an inner circumferential clearance between the plates. Id. at ¶¶ 20, 25, FIGs.1, 2. While Tanabe’s magnetic circuit includes a primary magnet 4, it does not further include a secondary magnet and top cap as claimed.
The Danovi reference is related to the Tanabe reference because both are drawn to the field of electromagnetic loudspeakers. Danovi teaches adding a second magnet to a magnetic circuit to increase flux in the magnetic gap. In particular, Danovi stacks a second magnet 208 directly on top of a core cap 210 that forms magnetic gap 220. Danovi further stacks a core cap 212 on second magnet 208. Second magnet 208 is oriented in a bucking mode so that its flux lines are directed towards gap 220.
Read collectively, the Tanabe and Danovi references reasonably suggest the obvious modification of Tanabe’s magnetic circuit to include a second magnet and top cap as claimed. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C) (using the known technique of adding a second “bucking” magnet and top cap to improve magnetic flux present in the magnetic gap of a loudspeaker in the same way). In particular, Tanabe provides a base electromagnetic loudspeaker having a magnetic circuit that forms a magnetic gap formed by plates 31 and 32. Tanabe at ¶¶ 20, 26, FIGs.1, 2. Danovi teaches and suggests directly coupling a second “bucking” magnet on top of plate 32 in order to produce additional magnetic flux in Tanabe’s magnetic gap. Danovi at ¶ 25, 55, 58, FIGs.2, 9. Danovi further teaches and suggests adding a top cap to the top of the second magnet. Id.
In connection with the above modifications, the Danovi reference further teaches including a flux collector 106 to collect stray flux emanating from second magnet 208. Thus, in adding a second magnet to Tanabe, one of ordinary skill would have further added a flux collector similar to Danovi’s flux collector 106. For example, given their similarity in position and shape, one of ordinary skill would have reasonably modified Tanabe’s frame 10 to act as a flux collector as taught by Danovi. See MPEP § 2143(I)(C) (using the technique of forming a loudspeaker frame as a flux collector to improve Tanabe’s frame by allowing the frame to collect stray flux after adding a second “bucking” magnet). For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Tanabe 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.”
Plates 31 and 32 similarly include respective inner circumferential portions 31a and 32a that exhibit a deformation that creates two different radial portions, with one portion being shorter than the other to create an axial gap when the plates are stacked inversely on each other (i.e., with one plate being positioned upside-down on top of the other plate). See Tanabe at ¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 20, FIGs.1, 2. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Tanabe 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.”
Tanabe describes plates 31 and 32 as being a common component, or interchangeable parts, that are made by pressing a deformation into their inner circumferential portion. Tanabe at ¶¶ 20, 26. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Tanabe and the Danovi references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Summary
Claims 1–11 and 13–24 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.
Issues Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Indefiniteness
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 24 depends on claim 23 and further requires the following:
“wherein the arrangement reduces overall axial extent relative to a standard multi-gap magnetic circuit.”
This claim makes a comparison between the claimed arrangement’s overall axial extent and a standard multi-gap magnetic circuit. The term “standard multi-gap magnetic circuit” is not defined in the claim or any of its parent claims. The term is also not defined in the Specification. The only reference to “standard multi-gap magnetic circuits” is found in the Spec. at ¶ 17, reproduced below:
“Existing magnetic circuits are sufficient for certain purposes. However, a need exists to increase the magnetic performance that previous designs, even previous dual gap designs, can allow. Design goals of a magnetic circuit may include reduced distortion and improved control of transducer motion over a wide range of voice coil position. Described herein are example designs that can allow for improved magnetic circuit performance by, for example, combining multi-gap (e.g., dual gap) technology with a multi-magnet (e.g., dual magnet) topology. Designs described herein can allow creation of an extremely strong magnetic gap compared to previous known multiple-gap designs, thus providing a high efficiency transducer design. Certain designs allow a reduced depth of motor by using a specific double gap design. For example, a standard gap design may have close to 25 mm more depth with a similar performance to meet the same linear force applied to the voice coil ("Xmax") excursion desired. Certain designs described herein can help reduce inductance of the voice coil relative to those using a standard one gap motor design. Optimized dual-gap designs, for example, can allow creation of an assembly with less tooling required, since certain components (described below) may be used multiple times (e.g., twice) within a single assembly, such as by flipping the component by 180 degrees.”
(Spec. at ¶ 17). Absent from this description of “standard multi-gap magnetic circuits” is the actual structure of those circuits and how the claimed structure reduces total axial extent. Without any basis for comparison, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably certain as to what conventional circuits are being referred to in the claim. And without that certainty, one of ordinary skill would not be able to deduce the scope of the claim. For the foregoing reasons, claim 24 is rejected for indefiniteness.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s Reply (08 June 2026) has substantively amended claims 1–11 and 13–21 and introduced new claims 22–24. 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 moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action.
Conclusion
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
8/20/2026
Prosecution Insights