DETAILED ACTION
The Art Unit location of your application in the PTO has changed. To aid in correlating any papers for this application, all further correspondence regarding this application should be directed to Group Art Unit 2691.
This communication is responsive to the preliminary amended claims filed 01/16/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by He et al. (U. S. Pat. App. Pub. No. – CN202551334).
Regarding claim 1, He et al. disclose a loudspeaker (1), comprising a basket (10) and a coil (19), wherein the coil includes an annular body and a lead wire (191) connected with the annular body, the annular body is located on an inner side of the basket (Fig. 1), and the lead wire moves along with the annular body relative to the basket after an excitation signal (13/14) is input into the loudspeaker; wherein an avoidance groove (102) is disposed on the basket, and an orthographic projection of the lead wire along a vibration direction of the loudspeaker at least partially falls within the avoidance groove (Figs. 1 and 3-4) as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, He et al. disclose the loudspeaker, wherein in the vibration direction, when no excitation signal is input into the loudspeaker, a distance between the lead wire (191) and a bottom of the avoidance groove (102) is greater than a maximum amplitude of a movement of the lead wire relative to the basket (Figs. 1 and 4-5).
Regarding claim 3, He et al. disclose the loudspeaker, wherein the avoidance groove (102) is close to an end of the lead wire connected with the annular body (Figs. 1 and 3-5).
Regarding claim 10, He et al. disclose an electronic device ([0002]), comprising a loudspeaker (1), wherein the loudspeaker includes: a basket (10) and a coil (19) , wherein the coil includes an annular body and a lead wire (119) connected with the annular body, the annular body is located on an inner side of the basket (Fig. 1), and the lead wire moves along with the annular body relative to the basket after an excitation signal is input into the loudspeaker wherein an avoidance groove is disposed on the basket, and an orthographic projection of the lead wire along a vibration direction of the loudspeaker at least partially falls within the avoidance groove (Figs. 1 and 3-4) as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over He et al. (U. S. Pat. App. Pub. No. – CN202551334).
Regarding claim 19, He et al. may not specially teach that a ratio of a length of the lead wire to a maximum amplitude of a movement of the coil relative to the basket is in a range of 8-75 as claimed. Since providing suitable ratio of a length of a lead wire to a maximum amplitude of a movement of a coil relative to a basket of a loudspeaker is very well known in the art (Official Notice), it therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to provide suitable ratio of the length of the lead wire to a maximum amplitude of a movement of the coil relative to the basket, such as about 8-75, for the loudspeaker taught by He et al., in order to provide desirable loudspeaker for certain application.
Regarding claim 20, He et al. may not specially teach that a ratio of a diameter of the lead wire to the length of the lead wire is in a range of 50-1000 as claimed. Since providing suitable ratio of a diameter of a lead wire to a length of the lead wire of a loudspeaker is very well known in the art (Official Notice), it therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to provide suitable ratio of a diameter of the lead wire to the length of the lead wire, such as in a range of 50-1000, for the loudspeaker taught by He et al., in order to provide desirable loudspeaker for certain applications.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-9 and 11-18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUHAN NI whose telephone number is (571)272-7505. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 10:00 am to 6:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a PTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Duc Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-7503. 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.
/SUHAN NI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights