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 .
Drawings
Figures 1-4 are objected to because shown components are not clearly identified in the figure. Elements critical to the understanding of the invention should also be identified via written legend (See 37 CFR 1.84 (o)). Such a legend may, for example, be placed alongside the figures as presented, identifying elements by name and number (e.g. 3: First Reinforcing Part).
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The term “short” in claim 1, line 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “short” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, “a short direction” is rendered indefinite.
For examination purposes, “a short direction” will be read as “a short direction which is the other axis direction.”
Claims 6, 11, and 12 also recite “short direction” and are similarly rejected and read.
Claim 1, line 11 recites the term “raised-recessed.” This term is not defined, and it is unclear if this term is the same or different from the term “raised recessed,” “raised or recessed”, or “raised and recessed” therefore rendering the claim indefinite.
For examination purposes, “raised-recessed portion” will be read as “raised portion comprising recessions.”
Claim 12 similarly recites “raised-recessed” and is similarly rejected and read.
Claims 2-11 are rejected due to dependency from claim 1.
Claims 7-9 are rejected due to dependency from claim 6.
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 1-5 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inoue, Japanese Patent Publication JP2021125869A.
Regarding claim 1, Inoue discloses a diaphragm in which one axis direction length and the other axis direction length are different (Shown in Fig. 28, an elongated diaphragm with two axis directions of different lengths) in two orthogonal axis directions (A and B) seen from a top (The view of Fig. 28 is a plan view from above (a top)) and
which has a predetermined shape that both sides in a longitudinal direction which is the one axis direction are constituted of curved lines (The sides at the top and bottom of the longitudinal direction (along axis B) are curved), the diaphragm comprising:
a first reinforcing part (First reinforcing portion (3), seen isolated in Fig. 10.....¶[0061], line 2) which extends along the longitudinal direction (Visible in Fig. 28 and 10, it extends in both directions); and
a second reinforcing part (Irregularities (22, 23), which additionally reinforce the diaphragm.....¶[0061], line 1, ¶[0071], line 3) which is provided adjacent to the first reinforcing part in a short direction (The irregularities extend wider than the first reinforcing part, and are those adjacent to it (as well as layered on top of it).....¶[0061], lines 1-3) and which is a mesh raised portion comprising recessions (Raised mesh (23) creates recessions (22)).
Regarding claim 2, Inoue discloses the diaphragm according to claim 1, wherein the second reinforcing part imitates a wing of an insect (¶[0064], lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 3, Inoue discloses the diaphragm according to claim 2, wherein the second reinforcing part is based on data of a Voronoi diagram imitating the wing vein of the insect (¶[0065], lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 4, Inoue discloses the diaphragm according to claim 1, wherein the second reinforcing part has a plurality of polygonal shape raised portions (Visible in Fig. 28, polygonal shapes are formed by protruding (raised) portion 23.....¶[0061], line 1), and a plurality of polygonal shape recessed portions (Recessed portion (22).....¶[0061], line 1) which are formed in insides of the raised portions by the raised portions (¶[0064], lines 3-4), and in the plurality of raised portions, one side of the adjacent raised portion is a part which forms both polygons (Visible in Fig. 28, each raised line of portion 23 serves as an side for two recesses).
Regarding claim 5, Inoue discloses the diaphragm according to claim 1, wherein the second reinforcing part radially spreads from a center along the longitudinal direction (Visible in Fig. 28, second reinforcing part extends from the center of line B).
Regarding claim 11, Inoue discloses the diaphragm according to claim 1, wherein an aspect ratio of a length of the longitudinal direction and a length of the short direction is not less than 2:1 (The given dimensions of Fig. 28 indicate an aspect ratio of 76.3:23.8).
Regarding claim 12, the limitations of the diaphragm are the same as claim 1, and are similarly disclosed by Inoue as in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the additional limitations, Inoue discloses a speaker unit (Fig. 33-34, (201).....¶[0069], lines 9-10) comprising: a diaphragm (21); a voice coil (102) which is connected to an opening of the diaphragm (¶[0051], line 3); a dust cap (103) which is coupled to the voice coil (¶[0051], line 4-5); an edge (104) which is coupled to an outer circumference of the diaphragm (¶[0051], lines 6-7); a frame (105) to which an outer circumference of the edge is fixed (¶[0051], lines 7-8); and a magnetic circuit (106) which has a magnetic gap in which a coil of the voice coil is disposed and is fixed to frame (¶[0051], lines 8-9)).
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.
Claim(s) 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inoue in view of Krump et al (hereinafter Krump), German Patent Publication No. DE10303247A1.
Regarding claim 6, Inoue discloses the diaphragm according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein two of the second reinforcing parts are provided across the first reinforcing part in the short direction, instead teaching one second reinforcing part that spans across a first reinforcing part.
Krump teaches a diaphragm (shown in Figs 7,8) wherein two reinforcing parts (Sectors (90), and (91), which are designed to provide reinforcing tension for damping unwanted frequency responses for the diaphragm.....¶[0041], lines 3-5, ¶[0006], lines 4-6) are provided on both sides (across, as understood in light of applicant’s drawings) a first reinforcing part (Radial ribs (92).....¶[0042], lines 1-2) in a lateral (short) direction (The supporting structures may be combined, resulting in segments (90) and (91) being bisected by rib (92)…..¶[0043], lines 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inoue by Krump to provide the benefit of reduction or elimination of unsteady frequency responses (Krump, ¶[0004], lines 1-3). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein two of the second reinforcing parts are provided across the first reinforcing part in the short direction.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Inoue and Krump teaches the diaphragm according to claim 6.
Krump additionally teaches wherein in the two second reinforcing parts, the shapes are different from each other ((91) is thicker than (90)…..¶[0041], lines 3-4)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inoue and Krump further by Krump to provide the benefit of reduction or elimination of unsteady frequency responses (Krump, ¶[0004], lines 1-3). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein in the two second reinforcing parts, the shapes of mesh are different from each other.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Inoue and Krump teaches the diaphragm according to claim 6.
Inoue additionally teaches wherein two sets of the first reinforcing part and the second reinforcing part (and therefore the two reinforcing parts, as taught via the combination of Inoue and Krump in the rejection of claim 6) are provided across a center of the longitudinal direction (Shown in Fig. 28, the diaphragm is mirrored across the center of the longitudinal direction).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Inoue and Krump teaches the diaphragm according to claim 8.
Inoue additionally teaches wherein the second reinforcing part (and therefore the two reinforcing parts, as taught via the combination of Inoue and Krump in the rejection of claim 6) across the center of the longitudinal direction is point symmetrical against the center (Shown in Fig. 28, the second reinforcing parts are depicted as symmetrical across both axes (point symmetrical against the center)).
Regarding claim 10, Inoue teaches the diaphragm according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein a width of the first reinforcing part gradually gets thinner from a center of the longitudinal direction along the longitudinal direction.
Krump teaches a diaphragm (Shown in Fig. 8) wherein a width of a radial rib (analogous to the first reinforcing part of Inoue) gradually gets thinner from a center of the diaphragm along the radial direction (analogous to the longitudinal direction of Inoue).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Inoue by Krump to provide the benefit of reduction or elimination of unsteady frequency responses (Krump, ¶[0004], lines 1-3). Such modification would make obvious the feature(s) wherein a width of the first reinforcing part gradually gets thinner from a center of the longitudinal direction along the longitudinal direction.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fujita et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2010/0296687 teaches a dome diaphragm wherein reinforcing ribs are surrounding on both sides by reinforcing geometric sections.
Subramaniam et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2008/0296086 teaches a diaphragm surround comprised of raised ribs and recessions.
Inoue et al, US-PG-PUB No. 2020/0077197 teaches a dome diaphragm designed in an insect wing pattern.
Liu, PCT Publication No. WO 2014032309 A1 teaches a speaker mesh interrupted by reinforced rib structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN M RINEHART whose telephone number is (571)272-2778. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM ET.
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, Fan Tsang can be reached on (571) 272-7547. 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.
/SEAN RINEHART/Examiner, Art Unit 2694
/FAN S TSANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights