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 .
Claims filed 7-10-2024
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7-10-2024 was filed on the mailing date of the application filed on 7-10-2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-12 are 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.
Claims 1-12. Remove the parenthesis and numbers and letters inside the parenthesis.
Claim 11 line 3 recited --- at least 50 dB-SPL . It is not clear how to read “SPL”
Applicant need to rewrite the claim as “sound pressure level” (SPL) because Applicant cannot use an abbreviation without clearly making known what it is. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Otto 2021/0021933 in view of Choi 2014/0241566
Regarding claim 1, Otto discloses an electrodynamic actuator (Figs 1- 4, electrodynamic actuator 21b, 21c, para [74, 97]), designed to be connected to a sound emanating structure (Figs 2-4 sound emanating surface S of the plate like structure 2, para [87]), comprising:
a coil arrangement (Fig 3, coil arrangement 3b, para [74, 86, 95]) with at least one voice coil (Fig 3, voice coils 4a, 4b, para [74]), which has an electrical conductor in the shape of loops running around a coil axis (C) in a loop section (L) (Figs 2-4 shows, para [74]);
a magnet system (Fig 4, magnet system 6c, para [75, 98]), comprising an annular peripheral magnet system part (Fig 4, top plate 7c, bottom plate 8c, center magnet 9c, para [75, 98]) and a center magnet system part (Fig 2, center magnet 9c, para [98]) with the coil arrangement (Fig 4, coil arrangement 4, para [74, 95]) in-between, wherein the magnet system (Fig 2 magnet system 6c, para [75, 98]) is designed to generate a magnetic field (B) transverse to the conductor in the loop section ([2, 74, 76], and claim 1); and
a spring arrangement (Fig 4, a spring arrangement 13a’, para [97]) coupling the peripheral magnet system part (Fig 4, spring 13a’ is mounted to the top plate 7c, para [97]) to the center magnet system part (Fig 4, center magnet 9c) and allowing a relative movement between the peripheral magnet system part (Fig 4, movable part 11c of magnet system 6c, para [98]) and said center magnet system part (Fig 4, center magnet 9c) in an excursion direction parallel to the coil axis (C), para [2, 81, 86]),
wherein the center magnet system part (Fig 4, magnet system 6c) comprises a center magnet (Fig 4 center magnet 9c, para [98]) and at least one plate (Fig 4, top plate 7c, bottom plate 8c, para [97]) adjoining said center magnet (Fig 4 center magnet 9c, para [98]) in the excursion direction.
Otto does not explicitly disclose characterized in that the at least one plate comprises a collar on its outer edge, which faces away from the center magnet (11) in the excursion direction.
Choi characterized in that the at least one plate (Fig 4, at least one plate/yoke 200, para [36]) comprises a collar (Fig 4, a collar is a pair of short sidewalls 204 and a pair of long sidewalls 206 that are bent upward from the bottom surface 202, para [36] on its outer edge), which faces away from the center magnet (Fig 4 center magnet/magnet 210, para [34, 37]) in the excursion direction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement at least one plate comprises a collar on its outer edge, which faces away from the center magnet in the excursion direction as taught by Choi in Otto’s invention to provide an improved electrodynamic actuator and an improved electrodynamic actuator with magnet system.
Regarding claim 2, Otto does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation as recited in claim 2.
Choi teaches in Fig 4 at least one plate/yoke 200, para [36]) comprises a collar (Fig 4, a collar is a pair of short sidewalls 204 and a pair of long sidewalls 206 that are bent upward from the bottom surface 202, para [36] on its outer edge).
Choi’s Fig 4 shows the yoke 200 comprises the collar is a pair of short sidewalls 204 and a pair of long sidewalls 206 includes a height and a width.
Choi teaches the claimed invention except for the specify the electrodynamic actuator as claimed in claim 1, wherein a height (hc) of the collar, which is the extension of the collar in the excursion direction, is in a range of 0.05 mm to 0.2 mm, and/or
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to have wherein a height (hc) of the collar, which is the extension of the collar in the excursion direction, is in a range of 0.05 mm to 0.2 mm is just a matter of design choice, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Choi in Otto’s invention, the motivation for this would have yielded predictable resulted.
and/or a width (Wc) of the collar (14a..141'), which is half the difference of an outer dimension of the collar (14a..141') in a direction perpendicular to an annular course (AC) of the collar (14a..141') minus the inner dimension of the collar (14a..141') in said direction,
is in a range of 0.2 mm to 0.6 mm.
Regarding claim 3, Otto does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation as recited in claim 3.
Choi teaches in Fig 4 at least one plate/yoke 200, para [36]) comprises a collar (Fig 4, a collar is a pair of short sidewalls 204 and a pair of long sidewalls 206 that are bent upward from the bottom surface 202, para [36] on its outer edge).
Choi’s Fig 4 shows the yoke 200 comprises the collar is a pair of short sidewalls 204 and a pair of long sidewalls 206 includes a height and a width.
Choi teaches the claimed invention except for the specify the electrodynamic actuator (2a..21) as claimed in claim 1, wherein a height (hc) of the collar (14a..141'), which is the extension of the collar (14a..141) in the excursion direction, is in a range of 10% to 100% of the total height (hₚ) of the at least one plate (12a..131), which is the extension of the at least one plate (12a..131) in said excursion direction, and/or
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the application to have wherein a height (hc) of the collar (14a..141'), which is the extension of the collar (14a..141) in the excursion direction, is in a range of 10% to 100% of the total height (hₚ) of the at least one plate (12a..131), which is the extension of the at least one plate (12a..131) in said excursion direction is just a matter of design choice, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Choi in Otto’s invention, the motivation for this would have yielded predictable resulted.
and/or a width (Wc) of the collar (14a..141'), which is half the difference of an outer dimension of the collar (14a..141') in a direction perpendicular to an annular course (AC) of the collar (14a..141) minus the inner dimension of the collar (14a..141) in said direction,
is in a range of 2% to 20% of the total width (Wₚ) of the at least one plate (12a..131),
which is the extension of the at least one plate (12a..131) in said direction
perpendicular to the annular course (AC), and/or
an area of the collar (14a..141') seen in a direction parallel to the coil axis (C) is in a
range of 5% to 80% of the total area of the at least one plate (12a..131) seen in said
direction.
Regarding claim 4, Otto does not explicitly disclose the claimed limitation as recited in claim 4.
Choi teaches the electrodynamic actuator as claimed in claim 1, wherein the collar (Fig 4, collar/yoke 200 is broken) or continuous.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to implement wherein the collar is broken as taught by Choi in Otto’s invention, using a plate with broken collars to reduce the maximum excessive excursion.
Regarding claim 7, Otto discloses the electrodynamic actuator (2a..21) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the coil arrangement (Figs 3-4, coil arrangement 3b, 3c, para [105]) is connected to the peripheral magnet system part (Figs 3- 4 magnet system 6b, 6c, para [105]) and an airgap is formed between the coil arrangement (Fig 3 shows airgap is formed between coil 4a and coil 4b) and the center magnet system part (center magnet 9c),
or the coil arrangement (4) is connected to the center magnet system part (9a, 91) and an airgap is formed between the coil arrangement (4) and the peripheral magnet system part (8a, 81).
Regarding claim 8, Otto discloses the electrodynamic actuator (2a..21) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plate (Fig 2 top plate 7a, bottom plate 8a, para [75]) and the peripheral magnet system part are made from soft iron (para [75] discloses top plate and bottom from soft iron).
Regarding claim 9, Otto discloses the electrodynamic actuator (2a..21) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plate (Fig 4, top plate 7c, para [98]) adjoins the center magnet (Fig 4 center magnet 9c, para [98]) above, or the plate (Fig 4 bottom plate 8c, para [98]) adjoins the center magnet (Fig 4 center magnet 9c) below,
or the plate (10a) adjoins the center magnet (11) above and wherein the center magnet system part (9a, 91) comprises another plate (10b), which adjoins said center magnet (11) below in the excursion direction and which comprises a collar (14a'..141') on its outer edge facing away from the center magnet (11).
Regarding claim 10, Otto discloses an electrodynamic transducer (Fig 2), comprising a sound emanating structure (Fig 2 sound emanating structure surface S of plate like structure 2, para [87]) and an electrodynamic actuator (2a..21) according to claim 1, which is connected to the sound emanating structure (Figs 2- 4 shows).
Regarding claim 11, Otto discloses the electrodynamic transducer as claimed in claim 10, wherein an average sound pressure level of the electrodynamic transducer measured in an orthogonal distance of 10 cm from the sound emanating surface (S) is at least 50 dB_SPL in a frequency range from 100 Hz to 15 kHz (para [50] discloses an average sound pressure level of the output device measured in an orthogonal distance of 10cm from the sound emanating surface is at least 50 dB-SPL in a frequency range from 100 Hz to 15 KHz).
Regarding claim 12, Otto discloses the electrodynamic transducer as claimed in claim 10, wherein the sound emanating structure is embodied as a membrane, as a display (para [74, 87, 93, 98] discloses sound emanating surface S of the plate like structure 2 can be a display) or as a housing part of a device, which the electrodynamic actuator (2a..21) is built into.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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.
Claim 5 objected because the prior art Otto 2021/0021933 in view of Choi 2014/0241566 fails to teach “the electrodynamic actuator (2a..21) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the collar (14a..141') is broken and wherein arms (19) of the spring arrangement (15) are arranged in gaps (G) of the broken collar (14a..141').”
Claim 6 objected because the prior art Otto 2021/0021933 in view of Choi 2014/0241566 fails to teach the electrodynamic actuator (2a..21) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the spring arrangement (15) comprises an annular outer spring area (18), which is connected to the peripheral magnet system part (8a, 81), and spring arms (19), which protrude inwards and which are connected to the center magnet system part (9a, 91), wherein the annular outer spring area (18) at least sectionally reaches over the collar (14a..141').”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE X DANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0040. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, 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.
/JULIE X DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692