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.
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 16, 18, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perovic (US 2010/0329497) considered with Wang (CN-209659590U, in view of the English Language Translation).
Perovic discloses a speaker assembly, comprising: a basket 30 including an opening having a rim, the rim including a plurality of posts 31 extending downwardly therefrom and spaced around the rim; and a magnet 20 including a plurality of channels (e.g., openings) extending therethrough between a top surface and a bottom surface of the magnet 20. The magnet 20 is attached with the basket 30 below the rim such that the plurality of posts 31 extend through the plurality of channels to mechanically couple the magnet 20 to the basket 30 (see fig. 1, which illustrates that posts 31 extend through the magnet 20 and are attached to the magnet 20 with screws). Perovic discloses the invention as claimed, but fails to specifically teach that the magnet 20 is insert molded with the basket 30.
Wang discloses a speaker assembly (see figs. 1, 4, and 5, for example), comprising a frame 1 including a post 10, and a magnet 7 including a channel extending therethrough between a top surface and a bottom surface of the magnet 7, wherein the magnet 7 is insert molded with the frame 1 such that the post 10 extends through the channel to mechanically couple the magnet 7 to the frame 1. See Wang, ELT, page 2, “a limiting post 10 integrally injection-molded with the basin frame 1 is provided, and a limiting block 11 having a diameter larger than the limiting post 10 is integrally injection-molded on the upper end of the limiting post 10, and the magnet cup 6 is provided in the position groove 9 so that the magnetic steel 7 is placed in the cavity of the magnetic cup 6, the plywood 8 is covered above the magnetic steel 7, and the limiting post 10 passes through the magnetic cup 6, the magnetic steel 7 and the plywood 8 in order from bottom to top”. Wang discloses such a speaker assembly with the magnet 7 insert molded with the frame 1, in the same field of endeavor, for the purpose of improving the structural integrity of the speaker assembly. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Perovic, in view of Wang, such that the magnet 20 is insert molded with the basket 30. A practitioner in the art would have been motivated to do this for the purpose of improving the structural integrity of the speaker assembly.
Regarding claim 18, a front plate is disposed within the basket 30 adjacent to the rim. See fig. 1, which teaches a front plate element attached to the upper surface of the magnet 20.
Regarding claim 22, each of the plurality of channels terminates at a recess formed in the bottom surface of the magnet. See fig. 1, wherein the channels terminate at a recess formed in the bottom surface of the magnet 20, wherein the screw heads (or limiting blocks 11 as modified above) are located in the recess.
Regarding claim 23, each of the plurality of posts 31 have a distal end (e.g., limiting block 11 as modified above) formed as a T-shape in the recess.
Regarding claim 24, the plurality of channels are disposed adjacent to an outer surface of the magnet 20.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perovic (US 2010/0329497) considered with Wang (CN-209659590U, in view of the English Language Translation), as applied to claim 16 above, in further view of Itano et al. (US 2014/0294228).
Perovic, as modified and applied to claim 16 above, discloses the invention as claimed, but fails to specifically teach that the magnet 20 comprises ferrite and is injection molded to form the plurality of channels. Itano discloses a speaker including a magnet 11, wherein the magnet 11 comprises ferrite and is injection molded to form the shape of the magnet 11, in the same field of endeavor, for the purpose of, “from the viewpoint of productivity, ease of installation of magnetically orientating equipment” (see para. 0066).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Perovic, in view of Itano, such that the magnet 20 comprises ferrite and is injection molded to form the plurality of channels. A practitioner in the art would have been motivated to do this for the purpose of, from the viewpoint of productivity, ease of installation of magnetically orienting equipment.
Claims 19 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perovic (US 2010/0329497) considered with Wang (CN-209659590U, in view of the English Language Translation), as applied to claims 16 and 18 above, in further view of Kato et al. (US 4,591,672).
Perovic, as modified and applied to claims 16 and 18 above, discloses the invention as claimed, including that the top surface of the magnet 20 is attached to the bottom surface of the front plate and that the bottom surface of the magnet 20 is attached to a pole piece, wherein the pole piece extends through the magnet 20, but fails to specifically teach that the top surface of the magnet 20 is adhesively secured to the bottom surface of the front plate or that the pole piece is adhesively secured to the bottom surface of the magnet 20. Kato discloses a speaker (fig. 1) including a front plate 28, a magnet 26, and a pole piece 20 extending through the magnet 26, wherein the top surface of the magnet 26 is adhesively secured to the bottom surface of the front plate 28 (at surface B) and the pole piece 20 is adhesively secured to the bottom surface of the magnet 20 (at surface A), in the same field of endeavor, for the purpose of securely attaching the front plate 28, the magnet 26, and the pole piece 20 together (see col. 11, line 63, through col. 12, line 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Perovic, in view of Kato, such that the top surface of the magnet 20 is adhesively secured to the bottom surface of the front plate and the pole piece is adhesively secured to the bottom surface of the magnet 20. A practitioner in the art would have been motivated to do this for the purpose of securely attaching the front plate, the magnet 20, and the pole piece together.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perovic (US 2010/0329497) considered with Wang (CN-209659590U, in view of the English Language Translation), as applied to claim 16 above, in further view Keezer (US 4,158,756).
Perovic, as modified and applied to claim 16 above, discloses the invention as claimed, but fails to specifically teach that the basket 30 is constructed from a plastic material. Keezer discloses a speaker including a basket 11 (see figs. 1-2, for example), wherein the basket 11 is constructed from a plastic material, in the same field of endeavor, for the purpose of forming the basket out of a material which can be easily molded and is low cost to manufacturer.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Perovic, in view of Keezer, such that the basket 30 is constructed from a plastic material. A practitioner in the art would have been motivated to do this for the purpose forming the basket out of a material which can be easily molded and is low cost to manufacturer.
Applicant's arguments filed March 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that “the Examiner has mischaracterized Perovic … [because] Perovic expressly requires ‘posts physically separating and defining a space between the basket and the magnetic assembly,’ where that space defines an airflow path forming part of a bass-reflex system…” The examiner respectfully disagrees, because even though the posts 31 serve to physically separate the basket 30 from the magnetic assembly 20 and create a space 41 therebetween, the “posts extend through the plurality of channels to mechanically couple the magnet to the basket” as claimed. The claims do not require that there is no physical space between the basket 30 and the magnet 20, only that the basket 30 is mechanically coupled to the magnet 20 by the posts 31 which is taught by Perovic in figure 1.
The applicant further argues that “the posts in Perovic do not penetrate or mechanically interlock with the magnet”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Perovic teaches in the figures that the posts 31 penetrate the magnet 20 and are secured to the magnet 20 with screws at the bottom part of the posts 31. Such a configuration results in the basket 30 being mechanically coupled to the magnet 20 as claimed, albeit with a space 41 formed therebetween.
The rejections are deemed correct and are maintained. Perhaps the applicant would consider amending claim 16 to include at the end of the claim: “wherein the magnet is in direct contact with the rim of the basket”. Such an amendment, or similar claim language, would overcome the rejections above.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights