DETAILED ACTION
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 § 102
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 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 1, 4, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nagaoka (US 2006/0008111 A1).
As to claim 1, Nagaoka discloses a diaphragm to be provided in an electroacoustic transducer (¶0003 and ¶0162, Fig. 12c.), the diaphragm comprising:
a first protrusion that protrudes from at least one of a front face or a back face of the diaphragm and extends in a spiral from a center of the diaphragm or a vicinity of the center toward an outer circumference of the diaphragm (¶0161 and ¶0177-0178, Figs. 8f, 8r, 8aa, 12a and 12c. “A supplemental acoustic element 54 may be drawn manually on the conventional cone-type acoustic diaphragm 55 using paint, lacquer, colors, marker pen, ink or other pigment. A lacquer, such as gold, silver, black or any color with mica, aluminum or aluminum-alloy powder, flake, carbon material such as nano-carbon or ceramic, is preferable because of its relatively higher ratio of elasticity to density. A circular sectional view at the periphery is shown in FIG. 8F.”); and
a second protrusion that protrudes from at least one of the front face or the back face of the diaphragm and extends in a spiral from the center of the diaphragm or a vicinity of the center toward an outer circumference of the diaphragm, the second protrusion extending in a direction opposite to a direction in which the first protrusion extends and intersecting with the first protrusion (¶0162 and ¶0177-0178, Figs. 8g, 8s, 8ab and 12c. “FIG. 12C shows an additional opposite-directional acoustic element 58 or 59, provided on the other side of an acoustic diaphragm of the present invention. A circular sectional view at the periphery is shown in FIG. 8G. As shown in FIG. 8G, the additional opposite-directional acoustic element 58 or 59 are interlaced with the first acoustic element 54 or 56 at the periphery.”).
As to claim 4, Nagaoka discloses wherein portions of the diaphragm that are each bordered by the first protrusion and the second protrusion have mutually different areas (Fig. 12a,c. Different areas between portions bordered by acoustic elements 54 and 58 shown.).
As to claim 9, Nagaoka discloses wherein the diaphragm is made of resin (¶0100, Table 3(f). “Existing acoustic diaphragms and materials can be used for this invention (e.g., "off-the-shelf"). Every material which stays on an acoustic diaphragm can be used as the acoustic element.” “f) resin.”).
As to claim 11, Nagaoka discloses an electroacoustic transducer (¶0029, Figs. 16 and 17.) comprising:
the diaphragm according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above and ¶0029);
a magnetic circuit (¶0029. “A field structure, in its common form, includes a magnet and a pole piece that generates an intense, symmetrical, magnetic field in a gap proximate to the voice coil.”);
a frame that holds the magnetic circuit and the diaphragm (¶0029. “A frame structure is coupled to and supports the acoustic diaphragm with a voice coil and a magnetic field structure.”); and
a voice coil that is connected to the diaphragm and disposed in a magnetic gap of the magnetic circuit (¶0029. “Such a transducer may also include a voice coil assembly. A field structure, in its common form, includes a magnet and a pole piece that generates an intense, symmetrical, magnetic field in a gap proximate to the voice coil.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaoka, as applied to claim 1 above.
As to claim 2, Nagaoka discloses a plurality of first protrusions each of which is the first protrusion (¶0161 and ¶0177-0178, Figs. 8f, 8r, 8aa, 12a and 12c. Supplemental acoustic element 54.); and
a plurality of second protrusions each of which is the second protrusion (¶0162 and ¶0177-0178, Figs. 8g, 8s, 8ab and 12c. Opposite-directional acoustic elements 58.).
Nagaoka does not expressly disclose wherein a total number of the plurality of first protrusions and a total number of the plurality of second protrusions are different.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the total number of first protrusions different from the total number of second protrusions. The motivation would have been that it was obvious to try – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Either the number of first and second protrusions is the same, of the number of first and second protrusions is different.
Claims 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaoka, as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, in view of Kahfizadeh (US 2018/0324529 A1).
As to claim 3, Nagaoka does not expressly disclose wherein the total number of the plurality of first protrusions and the total number of the plurality of second protrusions are selected from a Fibonacci sequence.
Kahfizadeh discloses wherein the total number of the plurality of first protrusions and the total number of the plurality of second protrusions are selected from a Fibonacci sequence (Kahfizadeh, ¶0029. “The Fibonacci curve can be generated geometrically from a spiral of squares with a side length according to the Fibonacci sequence Fn=Fn-1+Fn-2, with F1=F2=1 or F0=0, F1=1. The Fibonacci spiral may be an approximation of the golden spiral created by drawing circular arcs connecting the opposite corners of squares in the Fibonacci tiling. The squares may have sizes of 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, and 34.”).
Nagaoka and Kahfizadeh are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to loudspeaker membranes
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to design based on the Fibonacci sequence, as taught by Kahfizadeh. The motivation would have been to improve structural stability without undesired vibration and/or disharmonic modes (Kahfizadeh, ¶0034).
As to claim 8, Nagaoka in view of Kahfizadeh discloses wherein at least one of the first protrusion or the second protrusion extends in a golden spiral (¶0145-0148 and ¶0150, Figs. 4 and 6-7. “Such curve 50 may be chosen amongst several curve forms 53 and generated as for example a Fibonacci spiral, a golden spiral, an Archimedean spiral, a Euler spiral, a Fermat's spiral, a hyperbolic spiral, a logarithmic spiral, or combinations thereof.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a golden spiral as taught by Kahfizadeh. The motivation would have been to improve structural stability without undesired vibration and/or disharmonic modes (Kahfizadeh, ¶0034).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaoka, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kuribayashi et al. (US 2006/0062421 A1), hereinafter “Kuribayashi.”
As to claim 5, Nagaoka does not expressly disclose wherein a thickness of a first portion of the diaphragm that is bordered by the first protrusion and the second protrusion and a thickness of a second portion of the diaphragm that is different from the first portion are different.
Kuribayashi discloses wherein a thickness of a first portion of the diaphragm that is bordered by the first protrusion and the second protrusion and a thickness of a second portion of the diaphragm that is different from the first portion are different (Kuribayashi, ¶0030 and ¶0033, Fig. 1. “Main body 11a of the diaphragm has substantially equiangular seven thick parts 11c extending radially from a center part. Between thick parts 11c, semi thick part 11d which becomes thinner gradually from an outer periphery to the center part is formed, and substantially web shaped thin part 11e is formed at an inner part of the semi thick part.” “Main body 11a of the diaphragm of the present embodiment is made by resin molding in such a manner that an average thickness "t"=0.25 mm at thick part 11c and an average thickness "t"=0.15 mm at thin part 11e.”
Nagaoka and Kuribayashi are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to loudspeaker diaphragms.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have different diaphragm thicknesses, as taught by Kuribayashi. The motivation would have been to suppress divided resonance (Kuribayashi, ¶0025 and ¶0035).
As to claim 6, Nagaoka in view of Kuribayashi discloses wherein the first portion is disposed in a central portion of the diaphragm or in a vicinity of the central portion, and the second portion is disposed in a circumferential portion of the diaphragm (Kuribayashi, ¶0030 and ¶0033, Fig. 1. Thick part 11c at center portion, thin part 3e and semi thick part 11d in a circumferential portion.).
The motivation is the same as claim 5 above.
As to claim 7, Nagaoka in view of Kuribayashi discloses wherein the thickness the first portion is greater than the thickness of the second portion (Kuribayashi, ¶0030 and ¶0033, Fig. 1. “Main body 11a of the diaphragm of the present embodiment is made by resin molding in such a manner that an average thickness "t"=0.25 mm at thick part 11c and an average thickness "t"=0.15 mm at thin part 11e.”).
The motivation is the same as claim 5 above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagaoka, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Itano et al. (US 2018/0324526 A1), hereinafter “Itano.”
As to claim 10, Nagaoka does not expressly disclose wherein the diaphragm is made of resin containing hollow glass.
Itano discloses wherein the diaphragm is made of resin containing hollow glass (Itano, ¶0006. “A loudspeaker diaphragm according to the present disclosure includes resin and hollow glass member particles contained in the resin.”).
Nagaoka and Itano are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor with respect to loudspeaker diaphragms.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the diaphragm of resin containing hollow glass, as taught by Itano. The motivation would have been, “the loudspeaker diaphragm can achieves both high rigidity and reduction in weight, thus, has a high degree of freedom of adjusting acoustic characteristics and audio quality, and can ensure moisture resistance reliability and strength” (Itano, ¶0007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Fujita et al. (US 2010/0296687 A1), Pack (US 1,807,225), and Schulze et al. (US 2010/0215196 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES K MOONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-2412. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM -5:00 PM EST.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 5712727848. 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.
/JAMES K MOONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695