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
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.
1.Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki (US2007131478) in view of AAPA (applicant admitted prior art).
With respect to claim 1 Okazaki discloses a cellulose composite pellet (pelletixed nature see para 121) comprising a cellulose material (para 118), a resin material (para 118) and an additive (see pigment as described in para 98), wherein the cellulose material os 30 to 70% by weight (para 97, 5% to 70% is disclosed).
Okazaki does not expressly disclose a transparent cellulose material, but such a material is disclose by applicant (paragraph 109 of instant application) to be manufactured by Eastman Kodak.
It would have been an obvious smatter to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the existing transparent cellulose material available from Eastman Kodak to form the cellulose pellet, the transparent nature of which would allow light o pass or allow for the dying of the pellet with any desired color.
With respect to claim 2 Okazaki as modified further discloses wherein the additive comprises at least one of a light diffuser, a dispersant or a pigment (pigment discloses in para 98 Okazaki).
With respect to claim 3 Okazaki as modified further discloses wherein the transparent material is obtained form an opaque cellulose powder (see again instant specification para 109).
With respect to claim 4 Okazaki as modified further discloses a diaphragm (figure 8) injection molded (figure 11) by using a cellulose composite pellet, wherein the cellulose composite pellet comprises at least one of a transparent cellulose material, a resin material, a light diffuser, a dispersant or a pigment, and wherein the transparent cellulose material is 30% to 70% by weight (see above rejection of claim 1).
With respect to claim 5 Okazaki as modified further discloses a first region having a first diameter, and a second region having a second region positioned on the first region and having a second diameter smaller than the first diameter, wherein a height of the diaphragm is greater than the second diameter (see figures 2,3 and 8 such a conical shape is shown).
With respect to claim 6 as it regards the specific ratio of the height to the second diameter, this would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art as am atter of tuning the structure, such conical shapes are known, tuning the specific ratio would have been an obvious matter. Further it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 7 as it regards the inclusion of both a conical and a cylindrical portion such is shown in figure 8.
With respect to claim 8 as it regards the diameter decreasing in an upper direction this would be a mere reversal of the parts of the device taught by figure 8 of Okazaki. It has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
With respect to claim 9 as it regards the thickness of the materials Okazaki (figure 3) discloses a cone area which is thicker than the cylindrical area of the speaker diaphragm, the use of different thicknesses are known and as such applicable in any arrangement as would be understood by one of skill in the art.
With respect to claim 10 as it regards the specifically claimed thicknesses of 0.4mm or less, the selection of such a range would have been an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill so as to optimize the structural characteristics and thus the sound output characteristics of the device. Further it has been held that that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 11 as it regards the surface roughness as claimed, it would have been an obvious s matter to provides rougher surfaces where adhered joints are present as is the case in the connection of the cone and cylinder and the cone and the edge of Okazaki.
With respect to claim 12 regarding the claimed ranges of roughness, it would have been obvious to select based upon the desired properties, further it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 13 Okazaki as modified further discloses wherein a partial region of the inner circumferential surface corresponds to a predetermined height from a lowest dies of the first region has a third roughness greater than the first roughness. Again at any connection location increased roughness would have been obvious so as to enhance the adherence.
With respect to claim 14 Okazaki further discloses (figure 3) wherein the supper surface of the second region comprises a plurality of recesses disposed along a circumference thereon (so as to receive the wire sandwiched between the respective surfaces).
With respect to claim 15 Okazaki as modified discloses the invention as claimed except expressly the claimed range. The selection of such a range would have been obvious as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 16 as it regards the transmittance it would have been an obvious smatter to select such a range it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 17 Okazaki further discloses wherein the diaphragm radiates omnidirectional sound (refer to dome portion ).
With respect to claim 18 Okazaki further discloses an acoustic system comprising the diaphragm of claim 4, a voice coil (28) part coupled to a second region of the diaphragm and a magnetic filed generating part (24) on the voice coil (see figure 3).
2 Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okazaki (US2007131478) in view of AAPA (applicant admitted prior art) as applied to claim 18 above and in further view of Jepsen (US12259122).
With respect to claim 19 Okazaki discloses the invention as claimed except for a light source and a guide part disposed on the light source and passing through the diaphragm.
Jepsen discloses a light source (122) and guide (116) disposed on the light source and passing through the diaphragm (meaning the light passes through the diaphragm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing to combine the teachings of Jepsen to provide illumination to the diaphragm of a speaker with the transparent speaker of Okazaki so as to provide an entertainment in the form of a light display to the audio speakers.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. O’Brien (US10547949) discloses a transparent speaker diaphragm; Choi (US10142738) discloses a display which forms sounds; Yim (US9765959) discloses a speaker including illumination means; Mango (US20090074228) discloses a loudspeaker cone; Mizone (US7123738) discloses a loudspeaker with illuminating means; Kim (US6563929) discloses a woofer having ornament lights; and Hirosawa (US5521886) discloses a diaphragm for speaker.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FORREST M PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)272-9020. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9:00-5:00.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571) 272-3985. 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.
/FORREST M PHILLIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights