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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-10 and 12-14, drawn to a speaker arrangement with specifics of a coil support, classified in H04R9/045.
II. Claims 15-21, drawn to a speaker including specifics of a coil, classified in H04R9/046.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as subcombinations disclosed as usable together in a single combination. The subcombinations are distinct if they do not overlap in scope and are not obvious variants, and if it is shown that at least one subcombination is separately usable. In the instant case, subcombination I has separate utility such as increasing a bonding strength between a coil support and a coil due to the coil support being used. See MPEP § 806.05(d).
The examiner has required a restriction between subcombinations usable together. Where applicants elect a subcombination and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicants are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; --the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or --the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicants traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with YU Rao on 8/31/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-10 and 12-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 15-21 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: A loudspeaker including specifics of a stepped coil support.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 3/6/25 and 9/15/25 have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings filed 1/8/25 are acceptable to the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Independent claim 1 sets forth a loudspeaker including the feature “a distance between a lower step surface of the coil support and a top portion of the coil support back away from an alignment direction is not less than 0.5 mm”. The written specification was not described in such a way by the use of these features enabling one of ordinary skill to make and or use the invention. Note in figure 2 a coil support (121) includes a stepped section including one portion below the dashed intersection between A and A and another portion above the intersection line between A and A. A normal reading would then refer to the one portion as a lower step surface as set forth. The specification doesn’t define what is considered to be “a top portion of the coil support back” or the claimed “alignment direction”. The only direction noted is those depicted in figure 2 “extension direction” and “radial adj3 direction”. The claimed distance of “not less than 0.5 mm” appears to be defined as indicated by H(subH) = H(sub2)- H(sub1) in paragraph [0047]. The indicator H(sub2) is not a lower step portion as claimed and H(sub 1) is not a top portion as claimed. See figure 2. Therefor one of ordinary skill would have to guess as to how those features being claimed are related to those features as provided in the written specification. Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-14 inherit the language of claim 1.
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 1-10 and 12-14 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.
No definite meaning can be given to the phrase “back away from an alignment direction” in claim 1 since the alignment direction has not been defined. The limitations of claims 2-10 and 12-14 inherit the indefinite language of claim 1 without clarification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 12-14 are allowed over the art of record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Wilk et al., cited by applicant is considered representative of known prior art arrangements in which a loudspeaker includes a magnetic circuit assembly (paragraph [0053] describing the use of magnets 26a, 26b); a coil assembly (paragraph[0053], figure 2, “ a voice coil immersed in a static magnetic field” along with diaphragm (22) used to produce sound; a coil support ((paragraph [0054], figure 2, pedestal (23) having a first step structure; a coil (drive element (24) having an inner coil and an outer coil (53, 56), figures 6A, 6B forming a second step structure which is fitted to the first step structure. Wilk et al. does not teach or obviously suggest a distance between a lower step surface of the coil support and a top portion of the coil support back away from an alignment direction is not less than 0.5 mm as set forth in claim 1. The limitations of claims 2-10 and 12-14 depend upon those features of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bachmann et al. teaches another speaker arrangement having a coil support with a stepped portion to receive a coil having inner and outer coils.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SNIEZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-7563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00 AM-3:30 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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 571-272-7488. 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.
/ANDREW SNIEZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/A.S./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2693 9/1/26
Prosecution Insights