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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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.
Claim 1 of 18/684,087
A loudspeaker comprising: (a) a sealed enclosure; (b) a sound panel mechanically connected to the sealed enclosure; (c) a moveable armature mechanically connected to the sound panel comprising an actuator operable to convert electrical energy into mechanical energy; (d) a plurality of ferromagnetic elements mechanically connected to the moveable armature; and (e) a variable volume device placed within the sealed enclosure that is operable to change resonant frequency of the speaker.
Claim 1 of 12256207
A loudspeaker comprising: (a) a sealed enclosure; (b) a sound panel mechanically connected to the sealed enclosure; (c) an actuator operable to convert electrical energy into mechanical energy; and (d) a magnetic negative spring (MNS), wherein (i) the MNS comprises a stationary magnet and a movable armature, (ii) the movable armature comprises a ferromagnetic element, (iii) the movable armature is mechanically connected to the sound panel and to the actuator, and (iv) the MNS is operable to create a magnetic force that at least partially cancels a mechanical force on the sound panel due to a pressure change within the sealed enclosure.
Claim 57 of 18/684,087
A loudspeaker comprising: (a) a sealed enclosure; (b) a sound panel mechanically connected to the sealed enclosure; (c) a moveable armature mechanically connected to the sound panel comprising an actuator operable to convert electrical energy into mechanical energy; and (d) a magnetic negative spring (MNS) comprising (A) a plurality of ferromagnetic elements mechanically connected to the moveable armature, and (B) a stationary core assembly comprising a plurality of stationary ferromagnetic elements; wherein (i) the sealed enclosure comprises a sealed enclosure boundary on a side opposite the sound panel; and (ii) the sealed enclosure boundary is anchored to the stationary core assembly; and (e) a variable volume device placed within the sealed enclosure that is operable to change resonant frequency of the loudspeaker.
Claim 16 of 12256207
An electroacoustic transducer comprising: (a) a sound panel connected to a sealed enclosure; (b) an actuator operable to convert electrical energy into mechanical energy; and (c) a magnetic negative spring (MNS), wherein (i) the MNS comprises a stationary magnet and a movable armature, (ii) the movable armature comprises a ferromagnetic element, (iii) the movable armature is mechanically connected to the sound panel and to the actuator, and (iv) the MNS is operable to create a magnetic force that at least partially cancels a mechanical force on the sound panel due to a pressure change within the sealed enclosure.
Claim 29 of 12256207
A method of making an electroacoustic transducer, wherein the method comprises the steps of: (a) mounting a sound panel to a sealed enclosure; (b) mounting a magnetic negative spring (MNS), wherein (i) the MNS having a stationary magnet and a movable an armature, (ii) the movable armature comprises a ferromagnetic element, (iii) the movable armature is mechanically connected to the sound panel; and (c) mounting an actuator operable to convert electrical energy into mechanical energy to the sound panel such that mechanical force on the sound panel due to a change in pressure within the sealed enclosure is at least partially canceled by the magnetic force from the MNS.
Claims 1 & 57 of application number 18/684,087 (hereinafter referred to as ‘087) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 16 & 29 of U.S. Patent No. 12256207 (hereinafter referred to as ‘207) in view of Citizen, GB 2025093 A.
‘207 claims 1, 16 & 29 anticipates ‘087 claims 1 & 57, but fails to disclose a variable volume device placed within the sealed enclosure that is operable to change resonant frequency of the speaker (Citizen, fig. 33A; pg. 26, lines 56-65: weight 746 is able to adjust the resonant frequency of the loudspeaker by enabling the inner portion of the diaphragm 744 to move freely). However, Citizen does. It would have been obvious to modify ‘207 claims 1, 16 & 29 such that a weight is included to adjust resonant frequency of the loudspeaker as taught in Citizen for the purpose of creating a loudspeaker with variable resonant frequencies.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 13, 15, 18-20, 28-29, 40-41 & 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citizen, GB 2025093 A.
Re Claim 1, Citizen discloses a loudspeaker (fig. 33A; pg. 26, lines 56-65: miniature loudspeaker); comprising: (a) a sealed enclosure (fig. 33A; pg. 26, lines 56-65: miniature loudspeaker is within a sealed enclosure); (c) a moveable armature mechanically connected to the sound panel comprising an actuator operable to convert electrical energy into mechanical energy (fig. 33A; pg. 26, lines 56-65: diaphragm 744 which can vibrate to produce mechanical sound waves from electrical signals is read as the moveable armature, where the diaphragm consists of ferromagnetic material); (d) a plurality of ferromagnetic elements mechanically connected to the moveable armature (fig. 33A; pg. 26, lines 56-65: diaphragm 744 which can vibrate to produce mechanical sound waves from electrical signals is read as the moveable armature, where the diaphragm consists of ferromagnetic material); and (e) a variable volume device placed within the sealed enclosure that is operable to change resonant frequency of the speaker (fig. 33A; pg. 26, lines 56-65: weight 746 is able to adjust the resonant frequency of the loudspeaker by enabling the inner portion of the diaphragm 744 to move freely); but fails to explicitly disclose (b) a sound panel mechanically connected to the sealed enclosure. However, Official Notice is taken that both the concepts and advantages of including a panel within a sealed loudspeaker are well known. It would have been obvious to modify the loudspeaker enclosure of Citizen to include a sound panel for the purpose of minimizing loudspeaker enclosure sound reflections.
Re Claim 2, Citizen discloses the loudspeaker of claim 1, wherein the variable volume device is a variable air volume device that is operable to increase or decrease air spring stiffness of the sealed enclosure (fig. 33A; pg. 26, lines 56-65: weight 746 is able to adjust the resonant frequency of the loudspeaker by enabling the inner portion of the diaphragm 744 to move freely).
Re Claim 4, Citizen discloses the loudspeaker of claim 1, wherein the variable volume device is an electrically operated variable volume device (claim 69: electrical contact members imply electrical signals along with electronic components are involved in the operation of the device which includes the components of the loudspeaker including the weight 746 (pg. 26, lines 56-65)).
Re Claim 5, Citizen discloses the loudspeaker of claim 1, wherein the variable volume device is operable to create a temporary positive pressure within the sealed enclosure (fig. 33A; pg. 26, lines 56-65: weight 746 is able to adjust the resonant frequency of the loudspeaker by enabling the inner portion of the diaphragm 744 to move freely by naturally increasing/decreasing the pressure to expand and/or reduce the resonant frequency).
Re Claim 6, Citizen discloses the loudspeaker of claim 1, wherein the variable volume device is operable to create a temporary negative pressure within the sealed enclosure (fig. 33A; pg. 26, lines 56-65: weight 746 is able to adjust the resonant frequency of the loudspeaker by enabling the inner portion of the diaphragm 744 to move freely by naturally increasing/decreasing the pressure to expand and/or reduce the resonant frequency).
Re Claim 13, Citizen discloses the loudspeaker of claim 1 further comprising an electronic controller (claim 69: electrical contact members imply electrical signals along with electronic components are involved in the operation of the device which includes the components of the loudspeaker including the weight 746 (pg. 26, lines 56-65)).
Re Claim 15, Citizen discloses the loudspeaker of claim 1, wherein the variable volume device comprises an electric motor that is operable to change the volume of the variable volume device (fig. 33A; pg. 26, lines 56-65: voice coil creates vibrations that change the volume, where the voice coils are interpreted as the electric motor).
Re Claim 18, Citizen discloses the loudspeaker of claim 1, wherein actuator is a voice coil (fig. 33A; pg. 26, lines 56-65: drive coil 750).
Re Claim 19, Citizen discloses the loudspeaker of claim 1, wherein the plurality of ferromagnetic elements are operable for creating a first magnetic force when the sound panel moves away from the sealed enclosure and a second magnetic force with the sound panel moves toward the sealed enclosure (fig. 36; pg. 27, lines 36-41: multiple magnetic devices attract and repel the enclosure to adjust the spaces and generate sounds/vibration).
Re Claim 20, Citizen discloses the loudspeaker of claim 19, wherein the first magnetic force and second magnetic force are oppositely directed (fig. 36; pg. 27, lines 36-41: multiple magnetic devices, where magnets repel each other and will naturally be spaced in opposite directions).
Re Claim 28, Citizen discloses the loudspeaker of claim 1, wherein the variable volume device comprises a linear actuator (fig. 33A; pg. 26, lines 56-65: drive coil 750 is interpreted as a linear actuator).
Re Claim 29, Citizen discloses the loudspeaker of claim 28, but fails to disclose wherein the variable volume device comprises a lead screw. Official Notice is taken that both the concepts and advantages of a lead screw within a loudspeaker are well known. It would have been obvious to incorporate a lead screw within the loudspeaker of Citizen for the purpose of precisely positioning drivers for alignment.
Re Claim 40, Citizen discloses the loudspeaker of claim 1, wherein the loudspeaker further comprises a magnetic negative spring (MNS), wherein the MNS comprises: (a) the plurality of ferromagnetic elements mechanically connected to the moveable armature (fig. 36; pg. 27, lines 36-41: multiple ferrmagnetic components along with a stationary core/permanent magnet); and (b) a stationary core assembly comprising a plurality of stationary ferromagnetic elements (fig. 36; pg. 27, lines 36-41: multiple ferrmagnetic components along with a stationary core/permanent magnet).
Re Claim 41, Citizen discloses the loudspeaker of claim 40, wherein the MNS is a reluctance assistance driver (RAD) (fig. 33A; pg. 26, lines 56-65: drive coil 750 wherein the force generated by variations in the voice coil inductance as it moves within the magnetic air gap generates a reluctance force/reluctance assistance driving force).
Claim 57 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 1, 19-20 & 40.
Claims 3, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citizen, GB 2025093 A as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yang et al, US Patent Pub. 20070064970 A1.
Re Claim 3, Citizen discloses the loudspeaker of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the variable volume device comprises a bellow. However, Yang et al teaches the concept of using a bellow to adjust the volume of a loudspeaker box thus adjusting the resonant frequency (Yang et al, para 0045). It would have been obvious to modify the Citizen loudspeaker housing such that it utilizes a bellow to adjust its enclosure to control the resonant frequency for the purpose of enhancing bass and managing excursions.
Claim 30 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 3 & 28.
Claims 9, 14, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citizen, GB 2025093 A as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kim, DE 102020211386 A1.
Re Claim 9, Citizen discloses the loudspeaker of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a position sensor operable for sensing the position of the sound panel. However, Kim teaches the concept of a position sensor within a loudspeaker where the position sensor is controlled by a controller based on determined distances by said controller which implies the controller includes processor electronics (Kim, DETAILED DESCRIPTION section: paragraphs 0023-0024 of the detailed description section: position sensor and controller, where the controller adjusts the voice coil based on distance displacement, where the voice coil is interpreted as electric motor). It would have been obvious to modify the Citizen device such that it includes a position sensor with accompanying controller as taught in Kim for the purpose of being able to determine distance displacement caused by vibration of the loudspeaker.
Claim 14 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 9.
Claim 16 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 9 & 15.
Claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 9 & 15.
Claims 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citizen, GB 2025093 A as applied to claim 13 above, in view of Kashar, US Patent Pub. 20190012885 A1.
Re Claim 33, Citizen discloses the loudspeaker of claim 13, but fails to disclose wherein the electronic controller is operable for analyzing a song file to determine the amplitude, frequency, and prevalence of the musical notes within the song file. However, Kashar discloses a system that includes a puck where music from an audio device matches the vibration of the puck wherein the system will need to analyze the music by analyzing its frequency, amplitude/volume and musical notes (Kashar, para 0049), wherein the system also aims to minimize power consumption of the puck by rearranging the internal elements of the puck which is invariably impacted by the vibration of the puck and thus the matching songs that aim to match the vibration of said puck (Kashar, para 0037). Based on the logic of the Kashar reference, when the power consumption of the puck is low, the song file will be analyzed and adjusted accordingly to the low amplitude vibrations, thus, it would have been obvious to modify the Citizen device such that components such as frequency, amplitude, musical tones of song being played by its speaker can be adjusted in correlation to minimized power of the speaker as taught in Kashar for the purpose of adjusting the output to the available power of the loudspeaker.
Claims 34-35 have been analyzed and rejected according to claim 33.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citizen, GB 2025093 A as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Wang et al, CN 109780299 B.
Re Claim 37, Citizen discloses the loudspeaker of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a pneumatic valve that pneumatically connects the air within the sealed enclosure with the air outside of the sealed enclosure. However, Wang et al teaches the concept of a pneumatic loudspeaker with a valve (Wang et al, claim 1). It would have been obvious to modify the Citizen device such that it’s loudspeaker includes a pneumatic valve as taught in Wang et al for the purpose of generating high intensity sound through air modulation to aid in cooling, or managing pressure.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Citizen, GB 2025093 A, in view of Kim, DE 102020211386 A1, and further in view of Babb, US Patent 6111969.
Claim 55 has been analyzed and rejected according to claims 1 & 9; but fails to disclose a pump-valve operable to change the air pressure within the sealed enclosure to change resonant frequency of the loudspeaker. However, Babb teaches the concept of a loudspeaker that includes a flapper valve in a pump (Babb, col. 4, line 58 through col. 5, line 14). It would have been obvious to modify loudspeaker of Citizen and Kim such that it includes a pump valve as taught in Babb so that the electronic controller of Citizen and Kim can jointly control the pump valve of Babb for the purpose of inducing one-way flow of air to reduce thermal stress on the coil.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-8 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claims 7-8: The prior art does not teach or moderately suggest the following limitations:
Wherein the variable volume device comprises: (a) a first valve having an inlet, (b) a second valve having an outlet, (c) a pump flowably connected to the first valve and the second valve, (d) a conduit to outside the sealed enclosure, wherein the conduit is flowably connected to the first and second valve, and (e) an electronic switch operable to operate the pump, the first valve, and the second valve, wherein (i) the operation of the pump permits the flow of air through the variable volume device such that (A) the air flows from the first valve to the pump, and (B) the air flows from the pump to the second valve, (ii) the operation of the electronic switch provides for the first valve and the second value to be set in a positive pressure setting in which air pressure is increased in the sealed enclosure, wherein, when the pump is flowing the air, (A) when the first valve is in the positive pressure setting, the first valve (I) does not permit the flow of air through the inlet, and (II) does permit the flow of air from outside the sealed enclosure, through the conduit, and to the first valve, and (B) when the second valve is in the positive pressure setting, the first valve (I) does not permit the flow of air between the outside of the sealed enclosure and the second valve through the conduit, and (II) does permit the flow of air from the second valve, through the outlet, and to the sealed enclosure, and (iii) the operation of the electronic switch provides for the first valve and the second value to be set in a negative pressure setting in which air pressure is decreased in the sealed enclosure, wherein, when the pump is flowing the air, (A) when the first valve is in the negative pressure setting, the first valve (I) does permit the flow of air from the sealed enclosure, through the inlet, and to the first valve, and (II) does not permit the flow of air between the outside the sealed enclosure and the first valve through the conduit, and (B) when the second valve is in the negative pressure setting, the first valve (I) does permit the flow of air from the second valve, through the conduit, to the outside of the sealed enclosure, and (II) does not permit the flow of air through the outlet.
Limitations such as these may be useful in combination with other limitations of claim 1.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE C MONIKANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1190. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 9AM-5PM, ALT. Fridays off.
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 R 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.
/GEORGE C MONIKANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692
02/10/2026