The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
In claim 6, lines 24-25; “and convex surrounding part” should be “and the convex surrounding part” in order to better clarify the claim language.
In claim 11, lines 23-24; “and convex surrounding part” should be “and the convex surrounding part” in order to better clarify the claim language.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 is indefinite because it is not understood how the cavity “comprises a pair of openings” (independent claim 11) and also “comprises a single opening” (dependent claim 12). This is contradictory, because the cavity can not be both a pair of openings and a single opening - it is one or the other.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5-7, 10-12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chick et al. (US 2006/0291684).
Regarding the claims, Chick discloses the invention substantially as claimed in reference to figures 2A and 2B, but fails to specifically teach structural details pertaining to the passive radiator module (located between baffle structures 44 in fig. 2B). However, Chick discloses in a separate embodiment of the invention in reference to figure 8D, a passive radiator module of similar structural design as the passive radiator module of figures 2A and 2B (note also that structural elements in each of the embodiments have the same corresponding number labels). It would have been obvious to incorporate the structural design of the passive radiator module of figure 8D into the audio device of figures 2A and 2B. Specifically, the passive radiator module located between the baffle structures 44 in fig. 2B is modified to have the basic structural design of the passive radiator module of fig. 8D. A practitioner in the art would have been motivated to do this for the purpose of manufacturing the audio device of figures 2A and 2B, in view of the passive radiator of figure 8D, thereby incorporating all the structural details of the passive radiator module of figs. 8D into the audio device of figs. 2A and 2B.
Further regarding claims 1, 6, and 11, Chick discloses a passive radiator module (located between baffle structures 44 in fig. 2B) and a loudspeaker system comprising the passive radiator module, the passive radiator module comprising: a cavity 32 comprising an upper surface 28A, a lower surface 28B and at least one opening 34, and the at least one opening 34 is positioned between the upper surface 28A and the lower surface 28B (see fig. 8D, for example); and two passive radiators 38A and 38B disposed on the upper surface 28A and the lower surface 28B respectively, each of the two passive radiators 38A and 38B comprising a hang edge, a surrounding part and a diaphragm (see figure below),
PNG
media_image1.png
297
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the surrounding part surrounding the diaphragm, and the surrounding part positioned between the hang edge and the diaphragm, wherein each of the upper surface 28A and the lower surface 28B comprises a hollow part (circular openings in fig. 8D), the hang edge of any one of the two passive radiators 38A and 38B is connected to a corresponding one of the upper surface 28A and the lower surface 28B, and the diaphragm of the any one of the two passive radiators 38A and 38B is positioned in the hollow part of the corresponding one of the upper surface 28A and the lower surface 28B (see fig. 8D, for example), wherein the surrounding part is a convex surrounding part, and the convex surrounding part is protruded away from the cavity 32 and towards a corresponding one of two speaker drivers 36A and 36B (see fig. 2B, for example), wherein the at least one opening 34 is a pair of openings 34 (see para. 0029, regarding “cavity 32 may be … configured so that there are two or more openings from the external environment to the cavity”; see figs. 2A and 2B, which disclose a pair of openings 34), and the pair of openings 34 of the cavity 32 is symmetrically positioned on first opposite sides 22 of a loudspeaker cabinet 26, the two speaker drivers 36A and 36B symmetrically positioned on second opposite sides 24A and 24B of the loudspeaker cabinet 26, and the first opposite sides and the second opposite sides are different from each other.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, the at least one opening 34 is a pair of openings 34, and the pair of openings is symmetrically positioned on opposite sides of the cavity 32. See fig. 2A, for example.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, the passive radiator module is disposed across an intermediate region of the loudspeaker cabinet 26. The pair of openings 34 is symmetrically positioned on opposite sides of the cavity 32. The two speaker drivers 36A and 36B are respectively disposed on opposite sides 24A and 24B of the passive radiator module. See figs. 2A and 2B, for example.
Regarding claim 10, an aspect ratio of the surrounding part is 1:1. See fig. 8D, for example.
Regarding claim 12, as clear and understood, the cavity 32 comprises a single opening 34, and the single opening 34 is positioned on one side 22 of the cavity 32. See fig. 2A, and para. 0029, regarding “cavity 32 may be configured so that there is one opening 34 from the external environment to the cavity”.
Claims 2, 3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chick et al. (US 2006/0291684), as applied to claim 1 and claim 6 above, in further view of Ohura (US 2016/0316298).
Chick discloses the invention as claimed, including that each of the two passive radiators 38A and 38B include a hang edge (see figure above), but fails to specifically teach that a surface of the hang edge has at least one reinforcement rib. Ohura discloses a passive radiator (see figs. 14 and 15, for example) including a hang edge 204, a surrounding part 203 and a diaphragm 202, wherein a surface of the hang edge 204 has at least one reinforcement rib 301, 304, in the same field of endeavor, for the purpose of “prevent[ing], for example, deformation or vibration in an oblique direction of the passive radiator caused by unnecessary minute vibration, and can prevent or reduce distortion in low-frequency response” (see para. 0077-0080).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Chick, in view of Ohura, such that a surface of the hang edge has at least one reinforcement rib. A practitioner in the art would have been motivated to do this for the purpose of preventing deformation or vibration of the passive radiator caused by unnecessary minute vibration, and can prevent or reduce distortion in low-frequency response.
Regarding claim 3, an aspect ratio of the surrounding part is 1:1. See Chick, fig. 8D, for example.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims 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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL W HUBER whose telephone number is (571)272-7588.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen, can be reached at telephone number 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 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 to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/PAUL W HUBER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
pwh
May 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights