DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 9, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-11 and 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub No 2011/0075880 A1 to Kamimura et al. (“Kamimura”) in view of US Patent Pub No 2003/0044040 A1 to Lee et al. (“Lee”).
As to claim 1, Kamimura discloses a speaker for a mobile device (see pg. 1, ¶ 0001), the speaker comprising: a bottom cover formed of a first metallic material (60, see figure 3; pg. 2, ¶ 0027), wherein the bottom cover conducts a magnetic field in the speaker when a voice coil of the speaker is energized (magnetic circuit yoke made of magnetic metal material, see pg. 2, ¶ 0027; pg. 3, ¶ 0035 - ¶ 0036); a sound-producing diaphragm (22, see figure 3; pg. 2, ¶ 0020; pg. 3, ¶ 0036); and a top cover formed of a second metallic material to which the diaphragm is affixed, wherein the top cover is sealed to the bottom cover (40, see figure 3; pg. 3, ¶ 0032, ¶ 0034).
Kamimura does not expressly disclose the top cover including a diaphragm mounting rim. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Lee, which discloses a similar speaker, and further discloses the top cover or protector 2/10 having a rim 2b/12 to which the diaphragm is affixed and coupled to the bottom frame 1/20 (see figures 1-4; pg. 1, ¶ 0013 - ¶ 0014; pg. 3, ¶ 0038 - ¶ 0039). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being to provide a secure support for the diaphragm without application of adhesives or slippage therebetween (Lee pg. 3, ¶ 0038 - ¶ 0039).
As to claim 2, Kamimura in view of Lee further discloses further comprising a permanent magnet affixed to a top surface of the bottom cover (Kamimura 12, see figure 3; pg. 2, ¶ 0028).
As to claim 5, Kamimura in view of Lee further discloses further comprising a washer affixed atop the magnet (Kamimura 13, see figure 3; pg. 2, ¶ 0028).
As to claim 6, Kamimura in view of Lee further discloses wherein the voice coil is affixed to the diaphragm (Kamimura 21, see figure 3; pgs. 2-3, ¶ 0029 - ¶ 0031).
As to claim 7, Kamimura in view of Lee further discloses wherein the voice coil surrounds the magnet (Kamimura figures 3 and 8).
As to claim 8, Kamimura in view of Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the speaker has a depth of less than 3.3 millimeters. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Kamimura in view of Lee regarding a small and thin dynamic speaker (Kamimura pg. 1, ¶ 0001; Lee pg. 1, ¶ 0008 - ¶ 0009), and further as it has been held that changes in size and/or relative dimensions are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, the specific depth of the thin speaker as taught by Kamimura in view of Lee can depend on various factors such as the size and shape of the speaker components and their arrangement, as well as the type of portable device the speaker is incorporated in, provided that the speaker is small and thin enough to be mounted in such portable devices, as already taught by Kamimura in view of Lee.
As to claim 9, Kamimura in view of Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the speaker has a dimensional volume of less than 0.77 cubic millimeters. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Kamimura in view of Lee regarding a small and thin dynamic speaker (Kamimura pg. 1, ¶ 0001; Lee pg. 1, ¶ 0008 - ¶ 0009), and further as it has been held that changes in size and/or relative dimensions are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, the specific dimensional volume of the thin speaker as taught by Kamimura in view of Lee can depend on various factors such as the size and shape of the speaker components and their arrangement, as well as the type of portable device the speaker is incorporated in, provided that the speaker is small and thin enough to be mounted in such portable devices, as already taught by Kamimura in view of Lee.
As to claim 10, Kamimura discloses a method for providing a speaker in a mobile device (see pg. 1, ¶ 0001), the method comprising: providing the speaker with a bottom cover formed of a first metallic material (60, see figure 3; pg. 2, ¶ 0027), wherein the bottom cover conducts a magnetic field in the speaker when a voice coil of the speaker is energized (magnetic circuit yoke made of magnetic metal material, see pg. 2, ¶ 0027; pg. 3, ¶ 0035 - ¶ 0036); providing the speaker with a sound-producing diaphragm (22, see figure 3; pg. 2, ¶ 0020; pg. 3, ¶ 0036); providing the speaker with a top cover formed of a second metallic material; affixing the diaphragm to the top cover; and sealing the top cover to the bottom cover (40, see figure 3; pg. 3, ¶ 0032, ¶ 0034).
Kamimura does not expressly disclose affixing the diaphragm to the top cover via a diaphragm mounting rim of the top cover. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Lee, which discloses a similar speaker, and further discloses the top cover or protector 2/10 having a rim 2b/12 to which the diaphragm is affixed and coupled to the bottom frame 1/20 (see figures 1-4; pg. 1, ¶ 0013 - ¶ 0014; pg. 3, ¶ 0038 - ¶ 0039). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being to provide a secure support for the diaphragm without application of adhesives or slippage therebetween (Lee pg. 3, ¶ 0038 - ¶ 0039).
As to claim 11, Kamimura in view of Lee further discloses further comprising affixing a permanent magnet to a top surface of the bottom cover (Kamimura 12, see figure 3; pg. 2, ¶ 0028).
As to claim 14, Kamimura in view of Lee further discloses further comprising affixing a washer atop the magnet (Kamimura 13, see figure 3; pg. 2, ¶ 0028).
As to claim 15, Kamimura in view of Lee further discloses further comprising affixing the voice coil to the diaphragm (Kamimura 21, see figure 3; pgs. 2-3, ¶ 0029 - ¶ 0031).
As to claim 16, Kamimura in view of Lee further discloses wherein the voice coil surrounds the magnet (Kamimura figures 3 and 8).
As to claim 17, Kamimura in view of Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the speaker has a depth of less than 3.3 millimeters. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Kamimura in view of Lee regarding a small and thin dynamic speaker (Kamimura pg. 1, ¶ 0001; Lee pg. 1, ¶ 0008 - ¶ 0009), and further as it has been held that changes in size and/or relative dimensions are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, the specific depth of the thin speaker as taught by Kamimura in view of Lee can depend on various factors such as the size and shape of the speaker components and their arrangement, as well as the type of portable device the speaker is incorporated in, provided that the speaker is small and thin enough to be mounted in such portable devices, as already taught by Kamimura in view of Lee.
As to claim 18, Kamimura in view of Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the speaker has a dimensional volume of less than 0.77 cubic millimeters. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Kamimura in view of Lee regarding a small and thin dynamic speaker (Kamimura pg. 1, ¶ 0001; Lee pg. 1, ¶ 0008 - ¶ 0009), and further as it has been held that changes in size and/or relative dimensions are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, the specific dimensional volume of the thin speaker as taught by Kamimura in view of Lee can depend on various factors such as the size and shape of the speaker components and their arrangement, as well as the type of portable device the speaker is incorporated in, provided that the speaker is small and thin enough to be mounted in such portable devices, as already taught by Kamimura in view of Lee.
As to claim 19, Kamimura discloses an information handling system, comprising: a case (portable telephone, see pg. 1, ¶ 0001); and a speaker affixed within the case, wherein the speaker includes a bottom cover formed of a first metallic material (60, see figure 3; pg. 2, ¶ 0027; pg. 3, ¶ 0033), a sound-producing diaphragm (22, see figure 3; pg. 2, ¶ 0020; pg. 3, ¶ 0036), and a top cover formed of a second metallic material and to which the diaphragm is affixed, wherein the top cover is sealed to the bottom cover (40, see figure 3; pg. 3, ¶ 0032, ¶ 0034), wherein the bottom cover conducts a magnetic field in the speaker when a voice coil of the speaker is energized (magnetic circuit yoke made of magnetic metal material, see pg. 2, ¶ 0027; pg. 3, ¶ 0035 - ¶ 0036).
Kamimura does not expressly disclose the top cover including a diaphragm mounting rim. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Lee, which discloses a similar speaker, and further discloses the top cover or protector 2/10 having a rim 2b/12 to which the diaphragm is affixed and coupled to the bottom frame 1/20 (see figures 1-4; pg. 1, ¶ 0013 - ¶ 0014; pg. 3, ¶ 0038 - ¶ 0039). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being to provide a secure support for the diaphragm without application of adhesives or slippage therebetween (Lee pg. 3, ¶ 0038 - ¶ 0039).
As to claim 20, Kamimura in view of Lee does not expressly disclose wherein the speaker has a depth of less than 3.3 millimeters. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Kamimura in view of Lee regarding a small and thin dynamic speaker (Kamimura pg. 1, ¶ 0001; Lee pg. 1, ¶ 0008 - ¶ 0009), and further as it has been held that changes in size and/or relative dimensions are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art. See In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) and Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In this case, the specific depth of the thin speaker as taught by Kamimura in view of Lee can depend on various factors such as the size and shape of the speaker components and their arrangement, as well as the type of portable device the speaker is incorporated in, provided that the speaker is small and thin enough to be mounted in such portable devices, as already taught by Kamimura in view of Lee.
4. Claim(s) 3-4 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura in view of Lee, and further in view of US Patent Pub No 2018/0035188 A1 to Lim et al. (“Lim”).
As to claims 3 and 12, Kamimura in view of Lee discloses the speaker and method of respective claims 2 and 11.
Kamimura in view of Lee further discloses wherein the first metallic material is a first magnetically conductive material (Kamimura pg. 2, ¶ 0027), but does not expressly disclose the second metallic material is a second magnetically conductive material. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Lim, which discloses a similar speaker for a mobile device, and further discloses the speaker having upper and lower enclosure structures made with metallic magnetic materials (see Abstract; pg. 9, ¶ 0126; pg. 10, ¶ 0130 - ¶ 0131). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the motivation being as such a configuration can provide a magnetic flux shielding effect, which can increase an intensity of the magnetic flux density and therefore increase sound pressure generated by the speaker (Lim pg. 12, ¶ 0167, ¶ 0172 - ¶ 0173).
As to claims 4 and 13, Kamimura in view of Lee and Lim further discloses wherein a magnetic field produced by the magnet is substantially contained within the bottom cover and the top cover (Lim Abstract; pg. 9, ¶ 0111; pg. 12, ¶ 0172 - ¶ 0173).
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 10 and 19 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
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABRINA DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 5712727488. 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.
/SABRINA DIAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/ANTIM G SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights