3333DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Embodiment 2, Figures 8-11, Claims 17-20 in the reply filed on 07/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/14/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the quality of figures 8-11 make it difficult, and in some cases impossible, to identify the referenced elements. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “an opening an upper surface of the plate member” (Claim 17) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the location of the opening is unclear. The claim recites “contain an opening within an upper surface of the plate member”. Is the opening a separate opening within the upper surface of the plate member than the cylindrical bores or the top portion of the bore which intersects the upper surface of the plate member? For Examination purposes, this will be inter4preted as “contain an opening wherein the bore meets intersects an upper surface of the plate member”.
Claims 18-20 inherit the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, deficiency from parent claim 17.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
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 CFR 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.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stiles et al. [US 2005/0041831] in view of Gong et al. [US 2017/0279321].
Claim 17, as best understood, Stiles et al. discloses a magnet assembly for a speaker device [100; figures 10-12], comprising: a plate member [108] with a plurality of bores [created by webs 114; figure 12] disposed within the plate member and contain an opening wherein the bore meets intersects an upper surface of the plate member [figure 12]; a plurality of stands [104] positioned within each bore and extending to a length within the bore [figure 11], leaving a void defined by the distance between an opening of the bore to the stand; and a plurality of magnets [106] positioned within each bore of the plate member [108] and adjacent the stand [104] within each bore, wherein the magnets substantially occupy the void [figure 11].
Stiles et al. fails to teach that the bores are cylindrical bores, that the magnets are cylindrical magnets and that the stands are cylindrical stands.
Gong et al. teaches a magnet assembly [figure 1] comprising a plate member [4] with a plurality of cylindrical bores [41] and a plurality of cylindrical magnets [3] located within the cylindrical bores [41].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the shape of the bore, magnets and stands to be cylindrical as taught by Gong et al., since it has been held that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.__, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)
Claim 18, as best understood, Stiles et al. as modified discloses the magnet assembly for a speaker device according to claim 17, with the exception of the cylindrical magnets are a neo-magnet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the material of the magnet in order to obtain a desired magnetic field strength since the selection of one particular material or another are obvious variants to those skilled in the art so long as the substitution of materials is not beyond the abilities of the person skilled in the art. See Ritchie v. Vast Resources, 563 F3d 1334, 90 USPQ2d 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim 19, as best understood, Stiles et al. as modified discloses the magnet assembly for a speaker device according to claim 17, with the exception of the plate member is composed of steel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the material of the plate member in order to change the magnetic field flux path since the selection of one particular material or another are obvious variants to those skilled in the art so long as the substitution of materials is not beyond the abilities of the person skilled in the art. See Ritchie v. Vast Resources, 563 F3d 1334, 90 USPQ2d 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim 20, as best understood, Stiles et al. as modified discloses the magnet assembly for a speaker device according to claim 17, wherein Stiles et al. further discloses comprising a shorting ring [102] disposed adjacent an internal side portion of the plate member [108; figure 11].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bernard Rojas whose telephone number is (571)272-1998. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. thru Fri. 7:00 am - 4:00 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, Shawki S Ismail can be reached at (571) 272-3985. 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.
/BERNARD ROJAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837