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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, et al. Chinese Publication No. CN 214228471 U, published on September 17, 2021 (Li) (English machine translation provided), in view of Van Doorn, U.S. Patent No. 9,143,871, patented on September 22, 2015 (Van Doorn).
As to Claim 1, Li discloses a sound producing unit [100], comprising: a housing [1]; and a magnetic circuit system [2] provided on the housing [1] (para. 0051, lines 2-3), the magnetic circuit system [2] comprising a magnetic conducting yoke [21] (para. 0089, line 2), a central magnetic part [22] (para. 0089, line 2), and an edge magnetic part [23] (para. 0089, lines 2-3), wherein the central magnetic part [22] and the edge magnetic part [23] are respectively provided on the magnetic conducting yoke [21] (see Fig. 1), and the edge magnetic part [23] is provided on an outer side of the central magnetic part [22] and connected to the housing [1] (see Fig. 1).
Li does not explicitly disclose that the housing comprises a cobalt alloy material. However, Li does disclose that the frame [1] and portion [232] of the edge magnetic part [23] can be integrally formed of a metal material (para. 0093, lines 2-5), and providing a cobalt alloy material for an integral frame and edge magnetic part was well known. Van Doorn discloses a sound producing unit (see Fig. 2) similar to Li, comprising a housing [43] which serves as an edge magnetic part (col. 7, lines 65-67), the housing [43] comprising a cobalt alloy material (the housing is made of a cobalt alloy; col. 7, lines 56-62). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to use a cobalt alloy material for the metal material in the housing of Li, which would provide a better flux return path; col. 7, lines 50-62).
As to Claim 2, Li and Van Doorn remain as applied above to Claim 1. Van Doorn further discloses that the cobalt alloy material comprises a material grade of Co50 or Co27 (the cobalt alloy is 50% cobalt and 50% iron; col. 7, lines 56-62).
As to Claim 15, Li, Van Doorn, and Xiao remain as applied above to Claim 1. Li, Van Doorn, and Xiao do not explicitly disclose that the sound producing unit is of a height no greater than 1.8mm. The Li reference, which describes the structure of the sound producing unit does not disclose a height for the overall structure. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Li suggests that the sound producing unit is made to be thinner while not affecting the acoustic performance (para. 0068). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to provide any reasonable height for the sound producing unit of Li , Van Doorn, and Xiao, including a height no greater than 1.8mm.
As to Claim 16, Li, Van Doorn, and Xiao remain as applied above to Claim 1. Li further discloses an electronic device, comprising the sound producing unit (para. 0094)
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, et al. Chinese Publication No. CN 214228471 U, published on September 17, 2021 (Li) (English machine translation provided), Van Doorn, U.S. Patent No. 9,143,871, patented on September 22, 2015 (Van Doorn), further in view of Xiao et al., U.S. Patent No. 10,659,883, patented on May 19, 2020 (Xiao).
As to Claim 7, Li and Van Doorn remain as applied above to Claim 1. The combination of Li and Van Doorn does not explicitly teach that the magnetic conducting yoke is composed of a cobalt alloy material comprising a material grade of Co50 or Co27. However, providing such a material for a yoke was well known in the design of similar sound producing units. Xiao discloses a sound producing unit [100] with a yoke [10] that comprises a material grade of Co50 or Co27 (col. 2, lines 44-48). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to provide a material such as a material grade of Co50 or Co27, to improve the magnetoconductivity of the yoke (col. 2, lines 35-43).
As to Claim 8, Li, Van Doorn, and Xiao remain as applied above to Claim 7. Xiao further teaches that a cobalt alloy material of the magnetic conducting yoke has a magnetic conductivity of no less than 5200Gs/Oe; and/or a cobalt alloy material of the magnetic conducting yoke has a saturation magnetic induction intensity B of no less than 2.25T (the material can be HiperCo 27, which has a saturation magnetic induction intensity of 2.36; See “Soft Magnetic Iron-Cobalt Alloy Hiperco 27”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 9-12, 13-14 are 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 3 recites the unique features of a central magnetic steel, and an edge magnetic steel, and the central magnetic conducting plate and/or the edge magnetic conducting plate comprised of a cobalt alloy material. Claim 9 recites the unique features of two ends of the damper assembly being respectively connected to the second end of the voice coil and to the housing, the housing, the magnetic conducting yoke being provided with a second avoidance slot opposite to the damper assembly to extend away from the damper assembly, and the depth of the second avoidance slot being between 0.05 mm and 0.15 mm. Claim 13 recites the unique features of the connecting part being formed as a plastic material piece, and the first edge part and the second edge part being formed as cobalt alloy material pieces. The closest prior art does not disclose or suggest such features.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Robinson whose telephone number is (571) 270-3956. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Carolyn Edwards, can be reached on (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 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 for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RYAN ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights