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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
2. Claim(s) 1, 7, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0296494 A1, hereinafter "Suzuki") in view of Yaegashi (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0148129 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Suzuki teaches a speaker isolator (speaker isolator 10, Figs. 1A-6, Para. [0035]) configured to receive a speaker (speaker M, Figs. 1A-6, Paras. [0035] and [0040]) having a plurality of speaker projections (speaker projections 233, Fig. 2A, Para. [0060]), wherein each of the plurality of speaker projections radially projects from a speaker main body of the speaker and has a through-hole configured to receive a screw through the through-hole (speaker projections 233 radially project from speaker main body 200 and have through-holes for screws, Figs. 1A-6), the speaker isolator comprising:
a receiver ring that is configured to surround an outer peripheral surface of the speaker (speaker isolator 10 has a receiver ring projecting upwards from edge 12a and configured to surround outer peripheral surface of speaker M, Figs. 1A-2A); and
a plurality of retainers that correspond to the plurality of speaker projections, respectively, wherein each of the plurality of retainers is configured to contact a front surface of a corresponding one of the plurality of speaker projections and urge the corresponding one of the plurality of speaker projections toward the receiver ring.
Suzuki fails to explicitly teach a speaker vibration isolator, the speaker vibration isolator being made of an elastic material and comprising:
a plurality of retainers that correspond to the plurality of speaker projections, respectively, wherein each of the plurality of retainers is configured to contact a front surface of a corresponding one of the plurality of speaker projections and urge the corresponding one of the plurality of speaker projections toward the receiver ring.
However, Yaegashi teaches a speaker vibration isolator (speaker vibration isolator consisting of an outer casing 7 with recess 40 for speaker 8 for preventing vibration of the speaker, Figs. 5, 6A, and 6B, Paras. [0036]-[0040]), the speaker vibration isolator being made of an elastic material (speaker vibration isolator is made of an elastic material, Claim 4) and comprising:
a plurality of retainers that correspond to the plurality of speaker projections (retainers 43 corresponding to speaker projections 34, Figs. 6A, and 6B, Paras. [0038]-[0040]), respectively, wherein each of the plurality of retainers is configured to contact a front surface of a corresponding one of the plurality of speaker projections and urge the corresponding one of the plurality of speaker projections toward the receiver ring (retainers 43 is configured to contact speaker projections 34 in which the speaker projections 34 overlap with the retainers 43, urging the speaker projections towards receiver ring side wall 41, Figs. 6A and 6B, Paras. [0039] and [0040]; see also Claim 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the speaker isolator (as taught by Suzuki) to include the elastic speaker vibration isolator with the plurality of retainers (as taught by Yaegashi). Doing so the speaker does not rattle and reliability in fixation of the speaker is improved (Yaegashi Para. [0043]).
Regarding Claim 7, Suzuki in view of Yaegashi teach comprising a receiver bottom that is configured to be opposed to a back surface of the speaker and cooperates with the receiver ring to form a closed space relative to the back surface of the speaker (Suzuki, receiver bottom 12a configured to be opposed to back surface of speaker M, Fig. 2A, Para. [0061]).
Regarding Claim 10, Suzuki in view of Yaegashi teach comprising:
a communicating portion that communicates between a back surface of the speaker and a space placed on a side of the receiver ring that is farther from the speaker than the receiver ring (Suzuki, communicating portion 11, Fig. 2A, Paras. [0036] and [0037]); and
a ring-shaped flange that is shaped in a ring form and radially projects from the receiver ring and is configured to contact a surface of a mounting member to which the speaker vibration isolator is mounted (Suzuki, casing 10 has a ring-shaped flange which radially projects from the receiver ring, Fig. 2A).
3. Claim(s) 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0296494 A1, hereinafter "Suzuki") in view of Yaegashi (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0148129 A1) in view of Tomita (U.S. Pat. No. 4,550,796 A), and further in view of Allmendinger et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0016091 A1, hereinafter "Allmendinger").
Regarding Claim 2, Suzuki in view of Yaegashi fail to explicitly teach comprising:
at least one connector that is configured to be coupled with a mounting member to which the speaker vibration isolator is mounted; and
at least one link that couples between the receiver ring and the at least one connector, wherein:
at least a part of the at least one link is shaped in a plate form and forms a gap relative to an adjacent member of the speaker vibration isolator which is adjacent to the part of the at least one link in a thickness direction of the part of the at least one link.
However, Tomita teaches comprising:
at least one connector that is configured to be coupled with a mounting member to which the speaker vibration isolator is mounted (connector 1c, Fig. 2, Col. 1, Ln. 50 thru Col. 2, Ln. 2); and
at least one link that couples between the receiver ring and the at least one connector (link 1d couples between receiver ring 1 and connector 1c, Fig. 2, Col. 1, Ln. 50 thru Col. 2, Ln. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the speaker isolator (as taught by Suzuki in view of Yaegashi) to include the connector and link (as taught by Tomita). Doing so firmly secures the speaker to the panel (Tomita Col. 1, Lns. 50-61).
However, Allmendinger teaches at least a part of the at least one link is shaped in a plate form and forms a gap relative to an adjacent member of the speaker vibration isolator which is adjacent to the part of the at least one link in a thickness direction of the part of the at least one link (connector 208 link 212 is a curved wall with a connector boss 214 formed on an exterior surface of the curved wall, Figs. 2 and 3, Para. [0076]; the extension of link 212 forms a gap relative to adjacent wall 202 of isolator 200 in a thickness direction of part of the link 212, Figs. 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the speaker isolator (as taught by Suzuki in view of Yaegashi, and further in view of Tomita) to include the plate form link (as taught by Allmendinger). Doing so mounting means effectively limits vibrations induced by speaker (Allmendinger, Para. 0079).
Regarding Claim 3, Suzuki in view of Yaegashi in view of Tomita, and further in view of Allmendinger teach wherein the at least one link extends in a circumferential direction of the receiver ring (Allmendinger, link 212 extends in a circumferential direction of receiver ring 202, Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Suzuki in view of Yaegashi in view of Tomita, and further in view of Allmendinger teach wherein the at least one link extends in an axial direction of the speaker vibration isolator (Tomita, link 1d extends in an axial direction, Fig. 2).
4. Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0296494 A1, hereinafter "Suzuki") in view of Yaegashi (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0148129 A1) in view of Tomita (U.S. Pat. No. 4,550,796 A) in view of Allmendinger et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0016091 A1, hereinafter "Allmendinger"), and further in view of Novitschitsch (U.S. Pat. No. 6,457,547 B2).
Regarding Claim 5, fail to explicitly teach wherein a circumferential position of the at least one link is different from a circumferential position of each of the plurality of retainers.
However, Novitschitsch teaches wherein a circumferential position of the at least one link is different from a circumferential position of each of the plurality of retainers (circumferential position of link 24, 25 is different from circumferential position of retainers 40, Figs. 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the speaker isolator (as taught by Suzuki in view of Yaegashi in view of Tomita, and further in view of Allmendinger) to include the plate form link (as taught by Allmendinger). Doing so firmly secures the speaker.
Regarding Claim 6, Suzuki in view of Yaegashi in view of Tomita in view of Allmendinger, and further in view of Novitschitsch teach wherein:
the at least one connector is a plurality of connectors (Tomita, connectors 1c, Fig. 1A, Col. 1, Ln. 50 thru Col. 2, Ln. 2);
the at least one link is a plurality of links which correspond to the plurality of connectors (Tomita, links 1d couples between receiver ring 1 and connectors 1c, Figs. 1A and 2, Col. 1, Ln. 50 thru Col. 2, Ln. 2), respectively;
at least one of the plurality of links extends in a circumferential direction of the receiver ring (Allmendinger, link 212 extends in a circumferential direction of receiver ring 202, Fig. 2);
at least another one of the plurality of links extends in an axial direction of the speaker vibration isolator (Tomita, link 1d extends in an axial direction, Fig. 2); and
the circumferential position of each of the plurality of links is different from the circumferential position of each of the plurality of retainers (Allmendinger, circumferential position of link 24, 25 is different from circumferential position of retainers 40, Figs. 1 and 3).
5. Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0296494 A1, hereinafter "Suzuki") in view of Yaegashi (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0148129 A1), and further in view of Kempkey et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0284974 A1, hereinafter "Kempkey").
Regarding Claim 11, Suzuki in view of Yaegashi fail to explicitly teach wherein a thickness of the ring-shaped flange is progressively decreased toward a radially outer side.
However, Kempkey teaches wherein a thickness of the ring-shaped flange is progressively decreased toward a radially outer side (thickness of flange 13 progressively decreases towards a radially outer side, Figs. 4 and 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the speaker isolator (as taught by Suzuki in view of Yaegashi) to include the flange with decreased thickness toward a radially outer side (as taught by Kempkey). Doing so reduces the amount of material used and thereby reducing the overall weight.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 8, 9, and 12-14 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.
Conclusion
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIMEZIE E BEKEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0202. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7.30-5.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7503. 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.
/CHIMEZIE EZERIWE BEKEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2691
/DUC NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2691