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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim. A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Claim 13 refers to “claim 122”, which does not exist in the present application. For the purposes of compact prosecution, “claim 122” will be read as “claim 12”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 6-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jiles et al. U.S. Publication No. 2014/0355787, published on December 4, 2014 (Jiles).
As to Claim 6, Jiles discloses a speaker unit [200], comprising: a housing [202, 204] defining an interior volume and an outlet [276], the outlet [276] in fluid communication with the interior volume and an outside environment (see Fig. 2a); a woofer (inside [204]) positioned in the interior volume (see Fig. 2a), the woofer configured to transmit first acoustic waves having frequencies between 20 Hz and 2 kHz [802] (see Fig. 8b) through a woofer channel [207] in fluid communication with the outlet [276] (see Fig. 2a); and a tweeter (inside [202]) positioned in the interior volume (see Fig. 2a), the tweeter configured to transmit second acoustic waves having frequencies between 200 Hz and 20 kHz [805] (see Fig. 8b) through a tweeter channel [203] in fluid communication with the outlet [276] (see Fig. 2a).
As to Claim 7, Jiles remains as applied above to Claim 6. Jiles further discloses that the woofer channel [207] comprises a tortuous path (see Fig. 2b).
As to Claim 8, Jiles remains as applied above to Claim 7. Jiles further discloses that the tortuous path [207] extends through a non-vertical interface of the woofer (inside [204]) and the tweeter (inside [202]) (see Fig. 2a).
As to Claim 9, Jiles remains as applied above to Claim 8. Jiles further discloses that the tweeter (inside [202]) at least partially overlaps the woofer (inside [204]), the overlap between the tweeter (inside [202]) and the woofer (inside [204]) defining the non-vertical interface (See Fig. 2a).
As to Claim 10, Jiles remains as applied above to Claim 8. Jiles further discloses that the woofer channel [207] defines an outlet [208] positioned at the non-vertical interface (para. 0038; see Figs. 2a and 2b).
As to Claim 11, Jiles remains as applied above to Claim 6. Jiles further discloses that the woofer [204] is configured to generate the first acoustic waves in a first direction, and the woofer channel [207] is configured to guide the first acoustic waves in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction (sound waves generated by woofer travel horizontally through the serpentine path; para. 0038; see Fig. 2a).
As to Claim 12, Jiles remains as applied above to Claim 6. Jiles further discloses a woofer mesh [240] positioned between the woofer channel and the tweeter channel (para. 0038; see Fig. 2a).
As to Claim 14, Jiles remains as applied above to Claim 6. Jiles further discloses that the woofer channel is at least partially defined by an interior surface of the housing [204] (see Fig. 2).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blanchard et al., U.S. Publication No. 2010/0310106, published on December 9, 2010 (Blanchard)
As to Claim 15, Blanchard discloses an electronic device, comprising: a housing [12] defining an opening [24]; a first speaker comprising a woofer [70] in fluid communication with a first channel [64]; and a second speaker comprising a tweeter [82] in fluid communication with a second channel [152]; wherein the first channel [64] and the second channel [152] converge into a shared channel in fluid communication with the opening [24] (para. 0045; see Fig. 10).
As to Claim 16, Blanchard remains as applied above to Claim 15. Blanchard further discloses a first mesh [258] positioned at the opening [24]; and a second mesh [258] positioned at an interface [124] between the woofer [70] and the tweeter [62] (see Fig. 10). Blanchard does not explicitly disclose the second mesh having a higher density than the first mesh. However, Blanchard does disclose that the apertures in the first mesh act as a low pass filter, and that the second mesh is used as an acoustic filter to remove undesirable signals (para. 0052), and using the density to affect acoustic filtering properties was well known. Na discloses that adjusting the mesh density of a mesh acoustic filter has the greatest influence of tuning sound characteristics of the filter (col. 12, lines 12-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to adjust the result-effective variable of mesh densities to arrive at the desired result of filtering specific frequencies in the speaker assembly of Blanchard.
Claims 15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmidt et al., U.S. Publication No. 2018/0288518, published on October 4, 2018 (Schmidt).
As to Claim 15, Schmidt discloses an electronic device [1100], comprising: a housing [1111,1113, 1115, 1117, 1119] defining an opening [1112]; a first speaker comprising a woofer [1102] (para. 0107, line 7) in fluid communication with a first channel [1106]; and a second speaker comprising a tweeter [1104] (para. 0107, line 12) in fluid communication with a second channel [1108]; wherein the first channel [1106] and the second channel [1104] converge into a shared channel [1110] in fluid communication with the opening [1112] (para. 0107, lines 16-21; see Fig. 11A).
As to Claim 18, Schmidt remains as applied above to Claim 15. Schmidt further discloses that the first speaker [1102] comprises a first diaphragm configured to oscillate along a first axis; and the second speaker [1104] comprises a second diaphragm (both speakers would necessarily comprise diaphragms on the front sides [1105] and [1109]; see Fig. 11A) configured to oscillate along a second axis parallel to the first axis (the front sides [1105] and [1109] are pointed in the same direction; see Fig. 11A).
As to Claim 19, Schmidt remains as applied above to Claim 15. Schmidt further discloses a wall (top of [1117]) (see Fig. 11A) configured to shield the second speaker [1104] from acoustic waves generated by the first speaker [1102], the wall at least partially defining the second channel [1108] (see Fig. 11A).
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harsch, U.S. Patent no. 8,792,669, patented on July 29, 2014 (Harsch).
As to Claim 15, Harsch discloses (in Fig. 4) an electronic device [10], comprising: a housing [16] defining an opening [28]; a first speaker comprising a woofer [38] ([38] is a low frequency transducer; col. 6, lines 21-22; see Fig. 5) in fluid communication with a first channel (the channel is at the outlet of [38]; see Fig. 5); and a second speaker comprising a tweeter [36] in fluid communication with a second channel [152] (the channel is at the outlet of [36]; see Fig. 5); wherein the first channel and the second channel converge into a shared channel [42] in fluid communication with the opening [28] (the shared channel [42] ports to damper [24]; col. 6, lines 23-24; the damper [24] is right before the opening [28]; see Fig. 4).
As to Claim 20, Harsch remains as applied above to Claim 15. Harsch further discloses a speaker pod [18] disposed within the housing [16] (see Fig. 4), the speaker pod [18] defining: a port (end of channel [42]) aligned with the opening [28]; the first channel (outlet of [38]; see Fig. 5); and the second channel (outlet of [36]; see Fig. 5) (the shared channel [42] ports to damper [24]; col. 6, lines 23-24; the damper [24] is right before the opening [28]; see Fig. 4).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanchard et al., U.S. Publication No. 2010/0310106, published on December 9, 2010 (Blanchard), in view of Na. et al., U.S. Patent No. 10,448,141, patented on October 15, 2019 (Na).
As to Claim 1, Blanchard discloses a speaker assembly [10], comprising: a housing [12] defining an interior volume and a port [24], the port being in fluid communication with the interior volume and an outside environment (para. 0029, lines 10-12; see Figs. 1 and 10); a woofer [70] positioned in the interior volume (para. 0036); a tweeter [82] positioned in the interior volume (para. 0037); an outlet [130] defined by the woofer [70] (see Fig. 10), the outlet [130] disposed at an interface [64] between the woofer [70] and the tweeter [82] (see Fig. 10); a first mesh [258] covering the outlet 258 [130]; and a second mesh [258] covering the port [24]. Blanchard does not explicitly disclose the first mesh being more dense than the second mesh. However, Blanchard does disclose that the apertures in the first mesh act as a low pass filter, and that the second mesh is used as an acoustic filter to remove undesirable signals (para. 0052), and using the density to affect acoustic filtering properties was well known. Na discloses that adjusting the mesh density of a mesh acoustic filter has the greatest influence of tuning sound characteristics of the filter (col. 12, lines 12-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to adjust the result-effective variable of mesh densities to arrive at the desired result of filtering specific frequencies in the speaker assembly of Blanchard.
As to Claim 2, Blanchard and Na remain as applied above to Claim 1. Blanchard further discloses that a first distance between the port [24] and the tweeter [82] is smaller than a second distance between the port [24] and the woofer [70] (see Fig. 10).
As to Claim 3, Blanchard and Na remain as applied above to Claim 1. Blanchard further discloses that the speaker assembly [10] is housed in a personal electronic device (para. 0027); and the port [24] is directed toward an ear of a user during operation (para. 0029).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blanchard et al., U.S. Publication No. 2010/0310106, published on December 9, 2010 (Blanchard), Na. et al., U.S. Patent No. 10,448,141, patented on October 15, 2019 (Na), further in view of Luan et al., U.S. Publication No. 2023/0099122, effectively filed on March 30, 2023 (Luan).
As to Claim 4, Blanchard and Na remain as applied above to Claim 1. Blanchard further discloses a deformable material [52] positioned between the tweeter [82] and the housing [12] (the tweeter is retained in housing by an elastomer boot [52]; para. 0034). Blanchard does not explicitly disclose that the deformable material is foam. However, using foam as a flexible boot for retaining a speaker element in a housing was well known. Luan discloses a deformable foam [74] positioned between the speaker element [72] and the housing [76] (para. 0073; see Fig. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to provide a deformable foam between the tweeter and housing in the speaker assembly of Blanchard and Na, as a known cushioning material for a speaker element.
As to Claim 5, Blanchard and Na remain as applied above to Claim 1. Blanchard further discloses a deformable material [50] positioned between a channel wall [64] and the housing [12] (the channel [64] is retained in housing by an elastomer boot [50]; para. 0035). Blanchard does not explicitly disclose that the deformable material is foam. However, using foam as a flexible boot for retaining a speaker element in a housing was well known. Luan discloses a deformable foam [74] positioned between an acoustic component [72] and the housing [76] (para. 0073; see Fig. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to provide a deformable foam between the tweeter and housing in the speaker assembly of Blanchard and Na, as a known cushioning material for an acoustic component.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiles et al. U.S. Publication No. 2014/0355787, published on December 4, 2014 (Jiles), in view of Na. et al., U.S. Patent No. 10,448,141, patented on October 15, 2019 (Na).
As to Claim 13, Jiles remains as applied above to Claim 12. Jiles further discloses that the woofer mesh comprises a woven fabric (para. 0031). Jiles does not explicitly disclose, in the embodiment of Figs. 2a and 2b, a tweeter mesh positioned at the outlet. However, providing an additional mesh on the outlet of similar speaker units was well known. Jiles also discloses, in another embodiment, a tweeter mesh [506] positioned at the outlet [576] (see Fig. 5). In the Fig. 5 embodiment, the additional mesh [506] is used to further control the overall system response (para. 0044). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to provide an additional mesh, for further control of the speaker unit’s response.
Jiles does not explicitly disclose that the woofer mesh has a density higher than the tweeter mesh. However, Jiles does disclose that the damping values of the meshes can be used to tune the system (para. 0052). Na discloses that adjusting the mesh density of a mesh acoustic filter has the greatest influence of tuning sound characteristics of the filter (col. 12, lines 12-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to adjust the result-effective variable of mesh densities to arrive at the desired result of filtering specific frequencies in the speaker assembly of Jiles.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al., U.S. Publication No. 2018/0288518, published on October 4, 2018 (Schmidt), in view of Yang, Chinese Publication No. CN212211348U, published on December 22, 2020 (Yang) (English machine translation provided).
As to Claim 17, Schmidt remains as applied above to Claim 15. Schmidt does not explicitly disclose a barrier that covers the opening, the barrier comprising: a woven mesh; and a metallic screen defining an exterior of the electronic device. However, providing such a mesh was well known. Yang discloses a barrier [300] that covers the opening (see Fig. 2), the barrier [300] comprising: a woven mesh [330]; and a metallic screen [310] defining an exterior of the electronic device (para. 0034; see Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to incorporate Yang’s improvement of the woven mesh and metallic screen barrier, into the electronic device of Schmidt, for the obvious benefits of cleanliness and acoustic tuning (Yang: para. 0016).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Robinson whose telephone number is (571) 270-3956. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fan Tsang, can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RYAN ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights