DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
In response to the non-final office action dated 03/06/2026, applicant has amended claims 1-4, claims 5-22 have been cancelled. New claims 23-40 have been added. Claims 1-4 and 23-40 are currently pending in the application.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 and 23-40 provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/539,188 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the below table. Claims 1 and 32 of the application correspond to claim 1 of the co-pending application.
1.An electrodynamic actuator (la..le), which in particular is designed to be connected to a plate like structure (17) or membrane (20) and which comprises: a first iron body (2); at least one voice coil (3a, 3b, 4a..4c, 14a, 14b) having an electrical conductor in the shape of loops running around a coil axis (C, C1..C3) in a loop section, and; a plurality of permanent magnets (5a..5c, 6a..6c), each being designed to generate a magnetic field transverse to the electrical conductor in the loop section, wherein an arrangement (8) is formed by the first iron body (2) and the at least one voice coil (3a, 3b, 4a..4c, 14a, 14b), wherein the at least one voice coil (3a, 3b, 4a..4c, 14a, 14b) is fixed to or embedded in the first iron body (2); the electrodynamic actuator (la..le) comprises a plurality of arms (7a..7f) connecting the arrangement (8) to the permanent magnets (5a..5c, 6a..6c); the arms (7a..7f) allow a relative movement between said arrangement (8) and the permanent magnets (5a..5c, 6a..6c) in an excursion direction (D) parallel to the coil axis (C, C1..C3); and the permanent magnets (5a..5c, 6a..6c) are each magnetized in a magnetizing direction (M1, M2) transverse to the coil axis (C, C1..C3).
32. The electrodynamic actuator (la..le) as claimed in claim 5, wherein a first permanent magnet (5a..5c) of the permanent magnets (5a..5c, 6a..6c) and a first part of the arms (12a), which connect the arrangement (8) formed by the first iron body (2) and the at least one voice coil (3a, 3b, 4a..4c, 14a, 14b) to said first permanent magnet (5a..5c), form a first oscillating system (13a) with a first resonance frequency fres1, and a second permanent magnet (6a..6c) of the permanent magnets (5a..5c, 6a..6c) and a second part of the arms (12b), which connect the arrangement (8) formed by the first iron body (2) and the at least one voice coil (3a, 3b, 4a..4c, 14a, 14b) to said second permanent magnet (6a..6c),form a second oscillating system (13b) with a second resonance frequency fres2 which is different from the first resonance frequency fres1.
1. An electrodynamic actuator (1a . . . 1f), which in particular is designed to be connected to a plate like structure (17) or membrane (20) and which comprises: at least one voice coil (3a, 3b, 4a . . . 4c, 14a, 14b) having an electrical conductor in the shape of loops running around a coil axis (C, C1 . . . C3) in a loop section; a magnet system (9a, 9b) being designed to generate a magnetic field transverse to the electrical conductor in the loop section; and a plurality of arms (7a . . . 7h) mechanically coupling the at least one voice coil (3a, 3b, 4a . . . 4c, 14a, 14b), and wherein either a) the magnet system (9a, 9b) and allowing a relative movement between the at least one voice coil (3a, 3b, 4a . . . 4c, 14a, 14b) and said magnet system (9a, 9b) in an excursion direction (D) parallel to the coil axis (C, C1 . . . C3), or b) a movable part (10) of the magnet system (9a, 9b) and allowing a relative movement between the at least one voice coil (3a, 3b, 4a . . . 4c, 14a, 14b) and said movable part (10) of the magnet system (9a, 9b) in an excursion direction (D) parallel to the coil axis (C, C1 . . . C3), and wherein in case a) the magnet system (9a, 9b) and in case b) the movable part (10) of the magnet system (9a, 9b) comprises a plurality of magnet subsystems (11a, 11b), which are movable to each other in the excursion direction (D), and wherein a first magnet subsystem (11a) of the magnet subsystems (11a, 11b) and a first part (12a) of the arms (7a . . . 7h), which mechanically couple the at least one voice coil (3a, 3b, 4a . . . 4c, 14a, 14b) and the first magnet subsystem (11a), form a first oscillating system (13a) with a first resonance frequency fres.sub.1, and a second magnet subsystem (11b) of the magnet subsystems (11a, 11b) and a second part (12b) of the arms (7a . . . 7h), which mechanically couple the at least one voice coil (3a, 3b, 4a . . . 4c, 14a, 14b) and the second magnet subsystem (11b), form a second oscillating system (13b) with a second resonance frequency fres.sub.2, which is different from the first resonance frequency fres.sub.1.
Claim 2 of the application corresponds to claim 3 of the co-pending application, claim 3 of the application corresponds to claim 5 of the co-pending application, claim 4 of the application corresponds to claim 4 of the co-pending application, claim 23 of the application corresponds to claim 8 of the co-pending application, claim 24 of the application corresponds to claim 11 of the co-pending application, claim 25 of the application corresponds to claim 10 of the co-pending application, claim 26 of the application corresponds to claim 12 of the co-pending application, claim 27 of the application corresponds to claim 14 of the co-pending application, claim 28 of the application corresponds to claim 13 of the co-pending application, claim 29 of the application corresponds to claim 15 of the co-pending application, claim 30 of the application corresponds to claim 16 of the co-pending application, claim 33 of the application corresponds to claim 2 of the co-pending application, claim 34 of the application corresponds to claim 9 of the co-pending application, claim 35 of the application corresponds to claim 17 of the co-pending application, claim 36 of the application corresponds to claim 18 of the co-pending application, claim 37 of the application corresponds to claim 19 of the co-pending application, claim 38 of the application corresponds to claim 20 of the co-pending application, claim 39 of the application corresponds to claim 21 of the co-pending application, and claim 40 of the application corresponds to claim 22 of the co-pending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 31-37, 39, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US Pub No. 2024/0323613, hereinafter Liu) in view of Zhu et al (US Pub No. 2023/0007401, hereinafter Zhu).
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches an electrodynamic actuator (Fig 16, core 603), which in particular is designed to be connected to a membrane (Fig 16, vibrating system 2) and which comprises: a first iron body (Fig 17, basket 1); at least one voice coil having an electrical conductor in the shape of loops running around a coil axis in a loop section (Fig 16 & ¶ [0174], first voice coil 22 designed in a loop shape arranged in an x-axis direction), and; a plurality of permanent magnets (Fig 16 & ¶ [0226], magnetic circuit system 3), wherein an arrangement is formed by the first iron body and the at least one voice coil, wherein the at least one voice coil is fixed to or embedded in the first iron body (Fig 28, first voice coil 22 embedded in basket 1); the electrodynamic actuator comprises a plurality of arms connecting the arrangement to the permanent magnets (Fig 16 & 41, second electrical connection structure 24 connected to side magnet 31 and four auxiliary diaphragms 25 (arms). Four auxiliary diaphragms 25 (arms) connecting to first voice coil 22); the arms allow a relative movement between said arrangement and the permanent magnets in an excursion direction parallel to the coil axis (¶ [0217], four auxiliary diaphragms 25 (arms) connecting to first voice coil 22 allowing movement while suppressing swinging).
Liu does not explicitly teach permanent magnets each magnetized in a magnetizing direction transverse to the coil axis.
Zhu teaches permanent magnets each magnetized in a magnetizing direction transverse to the coil axis (See Zhu figures 4 & 5, magnets 21-24 having magnetizing direction transverse to coil assembly 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the magnet and coil assembly as taught by Zhu with the actuator taught by Liu. Doing so allows for greater consistency of the actuator resonant frequency and resonant frequency of the electronic device which provides higher sensitivity and a better listening experience as stated by Zhu (¶ [0003 & 0035]).
Regarding claim 2, Liu in view of Zhu teaches the electrodynamic actuator as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a plurality of voice coils (See Liu Fig 16, first voice coil 22 and second voice coil 23), each having an electrical conductor in the shape of loops (See Liu Fig 16 & ¶ [0174], first voice coil 22 and second voice coil 23 designed in a loop shape arranged in an x-axis direction) running around separate coil axes being oriented parallel to each other (See Liu Fig 16, first voice coil 22 and second voice coil 23 oriented parallel to each other), wherein the permanent magnets are each designed to generate a magnetic field transverse to the electrical conductors in the loop sections (See Zhu See Zhu figures 4 & 5, magnets 21-24 having magnetizing direction transverse to coil assembly 3), and wherein an arrangement is formed by the first iron body and the voice coils, which is embedded in the first iron body (See Liu Fig 28, first voice coil 22 and second voice coil 23 embedded in basket 1), and wherein the arms allow a relative movement between said arrangement and the permanent magnets in an excursion direction parallel to the parallel to the separate coil axes (See Liu ¶ [0217], four auxiliary diaphragms 25 (arms) connecting to first voice coil 22 allowing movement while suppressing swinging), and wherein the permanent magnets are each magnetized in a magnetizing direction transverse to the common coil axis or to the separate coil axes (See Zhu See Zhu figures 4 & 5, magnets 21-24 having magnetizing direction transverse to coil assembly 3).
Regarding claim 31, Liu in view of Zhu teaches the electrodynamic actuator as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least two of the permanent magnets are embodied as separate parts (See Liu Fig 45 & ¶ [0226], magnet assembly 31 includes a first and second central magnet 311 & 312).
Regarding claim 32, Liu in view of Zhu teaches the electrodynamic actuator as claimed in claim 31, wherein a first permanent magnet of the permanent magnets and a first part of the arms, which connect the arrangement formed by the first iron body and the at least one voice coil to said first permanent magnet, form a first oscillating system with a first resonance frequency (See Liu ¶ [0271], two voice coils allowing for low and high frequency requirements. First low frequency), and a second permanent magnet of the permanent magnets and a second part of the arms, which connect the arrangement formed by the first iron body and the at least one voice coil to said second permanent magnet, form a second oscillating system with a second resonance frequency which is different from the first resonance frequency (See Liu ¶ [0271], two voice coils allowing for low and high frequency requirements. Second high frequency).
Regarding claim 33, Liu in view of Zhu teaches the electrodynamic actuator as claimed in claim 32.
Liu in view of Zhu does not explicitly teach wherein a ratio between the second resonance frequency and the first resonance frequency is in a range of 0.5 fres2/fres1< 1.0 or 1.0 < fres2/fres1 2.0.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a resonant frequency range as claimed above with the electrodynamic actuator taught by Liu in view of Zhu. The resonant frequency of a device depends purely on design choice and intended use. As stated by Liu ¶ [0126], the speaker module 60 is capable of low, intermediate, and high frequency sound simultaneously so in order to increase efficiency each voice coil would need a different resonant frequency.
Regarding claim 34, Liu in view of Zhu teaches the electrodynamic actuator as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: a second iron body, which connects at least two of the permanent magnets (See Liu Fig 45, magnetically conductive yoke 324).
Regarding claim 35, Liu in view of Zhu teaches the electrodynamic actuator as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first iron body is made from soft iron (See Liu ¶ [0157], basket 1 made of metal).
Regarding claim 36, Liu in view of Zhu teaches the electrodynamic actuator as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one voice coil, the first iron body or the permanent magnets comprise(s) a flat mounting surface, which is intended to be connected to the plate like structure (See Liu Fig 16, voice coil 22 and magnetic circuit system 3 embedded within basket 1 allowing for a flat mounting surface for diaphragm assembly 21).
Regarding claim 37, Liu in view of Zhu teaches an electrodynamic transducer (See Liu Fig 1, speaker module 60), comprising a plate like structure (See Liu Fig 1, screen 10) and an electrodynamic actuator connected to the plate like structure (See Liu Fig 2, core 603), wherein the electrodynamic actuator is designed according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 39, Liu in view of Zhu teaches an output device comprising an electrodynamic transducer as claimed in claim 37, wherein the plate like structure is embodied as a display and wherein the electrodynamic actuator is connected to the backside of the display (See Liu Fig 1 & ¶ [0115], screen 10 is a display and core 603 within speaker module 60 connected to backside of screen 10).
Regarding claim 40, Liu in view of Zhu teaches a speaker, comprising an electrodynamic actuator as claimed in claim 1 and a membrane, which is fixed thereto (See Liu Fig 16, diaphragm 21 attached to basket 1 of core 603).
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 25-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US Pub No. 2024/0323613, hereinafter Liu) in view of Zhu et al (US Pub No. 2023/0007401, hereinafter Zhu) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Yan et al (US Pub No. 2022/0174414, hereinafter Yan).
Regarding claim 3, Liu Zhu teaches the electrodynamic actuator as claimed in claim 1.
Liu in view of Zhu does not explicitly teach a plurality of voice coils that are nested when viewed in a direction parallel to the excursion direction.
Yan teaches a plurality of voice coils that are nested when viewed in a direction parallel to the excursion direction (See Yan Fig 3, first voice coil 23 and second voice coil 24 nested parallel to movement direction (excursion)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the nested voice coils taught by Yan with the electrodynamic actuator taught by Liu in view of Zhu. There are several benefits to incorporating nested voice coils including a more compact device size, improved sound quality due to driver integration, and enhanced performance in terms of bass response from opposing drivers. These key benefits allow for a smaller overall profile and a greater sound experience for the user.
Regarding claim 4, Liu in view of Zhu and Yan teaches the electrodynamic actuator as claimed in claim 3, wherein the voice coils are nested when viewed in a direction parallel to the excursion direction and at least overlap when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the excursion direction (See Yan Fig 3, first voice coil 23 and second voice coil 24 nested parallel to movement direction and overlapping perpendicular to movement direction (excursion)).
Regarding claim 25, Liu in view of Zhu and Yan teaches the electrodynamic actuator as claimed in claim 3, wherein the voice coils have a rectangular contour when viewed in a direction perpendicular to the excursion direction (See Liu Fig 38, voice coils 22 and 23 having rectangular contour).
Regarding claim 26, Liu in view of Zhu and Yan teaches the electrodynamic actuator as claimed in claim 25, wherein the voice coils are fully enclosed by the first iron body at the shorter sides of their rectangular or oval contour and run side by side to the first iron body at the longer sides of their rectangular or oval contour (See Liu Fig 38, voice coils 22 and 23 fully embedded in basket 1 and voice coil sides run parallel to basket sides).
Regarding claim 27, Liu in view of Zhu and Yan teaches the electrodynamic actuator as claimed in claim 25, wherein the voice coils are enclosed by the first iron body on two, three or four sides of their rectangular cross sections at the shorter sides of their rectangular or oval contour and run side by side to and spaced from the first iron body or contact the first iron body on only one side of their rectangular cross sections at the longer sides of their rectangular or oval contour (See Liu Fig 38, voice coils 22 and 23 fully embedded in basket 1 and voice coil sides run parallel to basket sides).
Regarding claim 28, Liu in view of Zhu and Yan teaches the electrodynamic actuator as claimed in claim 3, wherein the voice coils each have a rectangular cross section (See Liu Fig 38, voice coils 22 and 23 having rectangular cross sections).
Regarding claim 29, Liu in view of Zhu and Yan teaches the electrodynamic actuator as claimed in claim 3.
Liu in view of Zhu does not explicitly teach wherein the cross section of the voice coils is different.
Yan teaches wherein the cross section of the voice coils is different (See Yan Fig 2, first voice coil 23 and second voice coil 24 are nested having different diameters therefore having different cross sections).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the nested voice coils taught by Yan with the electrodynamic actuator taught by Liu in view of Zhu. There are several benefits to incorporating nested voice coils including a more compact device size, improved sound quality due to driver integration, and enhanced performance in terms of bass response from opposing drivers. These key benefits allow for a smaller overall profile and a greater sound experience for the user.
Regarding claim 30, Liu in view of Zhu and Yan teaches the electrodynamic actuator as claimed in claim 3, wherein the extension of the first iron body in a direction parallel to the excursion direction is larger than the extension of the voice coils and the permanent magnets in said direction parallel to the excursion direction (See Liu Fig 51, voice coils and magnets fully embedded within basket 1).
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US Pub No. 2024/0323613, hereinafter Liu) in view of Zhu et al (US Pub No. 2023/0007401, hereinafter Zhu) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Kim et al (US Pub No. 2021/0029431, hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 38, Liu in view of Zhu teaches the electrodynamic transducer as claimed in claim 37.
Liu in view of Zhu does not explicitly teach wherein an average sound pressure level of the electrodynamic transducer measured in an orthogonal distance of 10 cm from the sound emanating surface is at least 50 dB_SPL in a frequency range from 100 Hz to 15 kHz.
Kim teaches an average sound pressure level of the electrodynamic transducer measured in an orthogonal distance of 10 cm from the sound emanating surface is at least 50 dB_SPL in a frequency range from 100 Hz to 15 kHz (See Kim ¶ [0295], output sound between 100 Hz to 20 kHz having a sound pressure level of 50 dB).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sound pressure and frequency range of Kim with the electrodynamic transducer of Liu in view of Zhu. The provided sound pressure level and frequency range fall within the safe human hearing range allowing both comfort and sound clarity for the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 and 24 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 1-2 (Detailed Response to the Objections), filed 05/22/2026, with respect to specification and claim objections has been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of 03/06/2026 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 2 (Rejection of Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112), filed 05/22/2026, with respect to claim 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 03/06/2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER LIEBGOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1818. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fan Tsang can be reached at (571)272-7547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.M.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2694
/FAN S TSANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights