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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
FERNANDEZ, ARCANI RODRIGO ET AL., "Design and Construction of a Circular AMT Speaker of 360° Radiation," Audio Engineering Society Convention 137, Convention Paper 9163, October 9, 2014, 6 pages in view of Suzuki Electric co. ( JPS59-55699).
As to Claim 1, Fernandez teaches a magnetic structure for an air motion transformer (AMT) electroacoustic transducer (air motion transformer (AMT), abstract, page 2, section 3.1, [0001]) comprising: a diaphragm assembly (cylindrical diaphragm, Figure 3) and Regarding the following: comprising a plurality of vibratable layers, wherein the magnetic structure comprises at least one magnet positioned at least partially between two adjacent layers of the plurality of vibratable layers of the diaphragm assembly, Fernandez teaches the current pathway which is printed in this cylindrical diaphragm (Figure 3) is crossed by a radial magnetic field, generated by an arrangement of magnets over an iron cylinder. These magnets are placed inside the diaphragm and provide magnetic flux to the entire surface of the diaphragm. The iron cylinder is connected to a magnetic circuit to lead the flux towards the external side of the diaphragm so that to have a more uniform distribution of the magnetic field. See at least on Figure 3 and Figure 1. Also, page 2, section 3.1, [0003]. Fernandez on Figures 1 and and Figure 3 shows the diaphragm has a pleated structure thus teaching plurality of “ vibratable layers”. Fernandez does not explicitly teach at least one magnet positioned at least partially between two adjacent layers of the plurality of vibratable layers of the diaphragm assembly. However, Shibaura teaches on Figure 2 shows a folded diaphragm and a plurality of juxtaposed magnetic poles 6 and 6' made of a high magnetic permeability material have their ends coupled to both ends of the permanent magnet 7 via support plates 12 and 12' made of a high magnetic permeability material, respectively. The magnetic pole 6' is magnetized to the north pole, and the magnetic pole 6' is magnetized to the south pole. Although not shown, it is also possible to provide the permanent magnet 7 and the support plates 12, 12' at the other ends of the magnetic poles 6, 6'. On the other hand, the diaphragm 8 is partially held by a frame 10 via an edge 9 made of a soft material such as urethane. As shown in the figure, the cross section of the diaphragm 8 is formed in a concave and convex manner so as to weave through the magnetic poles 6 and 6', and the voice coil 11 is arranged between the adjacent magnetic poles 6 and 6' on the surface of the diaphragm 8. Placed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to position the multiple magnets in between two adjacent vibratable layer of the diaphragm to further optimize radial magnetic field.
As to Claim 2, Fernandez in view of Suzuki teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and wherein the at least one magnet is positioned at least partially within the bounds of the diaphragm assembly, preferably within the geometrical bounds of the diaphragm assembly, Fernanadez teaches the current pathway which is printed in this cylindrical diaphragm (Figure 3) is crossed by a radial magnetic field, generated by an arrangement of magnets over an iron cylinder. These magnets are placed inside the diaphragm and provide magnetic flux to the entire surface of the diaphragm. See at least on Figure 3 and Figure 1. Also, page 2, section 3.1, [0003].
As to Claim 3, Fernandez in view of Suzuki teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and wherein the at least one magnet is positioned at least partially within a footprint of the diaphragm assembly, Fernandez teaches magnets are placed inside the diaphragm and provide magnetic flux to the entire surface of the diaphragm. See at least on Figure 3 and Figure 1. Also, page 2, section 3.1, [0003].
As to Claim 5, Fernandez in view of Suzuki teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and further comprising at least one further magnet outside the diaphragm assembly, preferably wherein the at least one further magnet is provided adjacent to the assembly, preferably adjacent to at least one side of the diaphragm assembly. Fernandez on Figure 7 and page 3, section 3.3 [0002] teaches the mounting base for the diaphragm was a disc with a cylinder in the center, both made of iron (Figure 7). Over the cylinder are fixed neodymium magnets to cover the entire surface. An external arrangement of iron rods was disposed in order to redirect the magnetic field coming from the magnets back to the cylinder and the magnets.
As to Claim 6, Fernandez tin view of Suzuki teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and further comprising at least one pole piece component, preferably wherein the at least one pole piece component is provided adjacent to the diaphragm assembly, preferably adjacent to at least one side of the diaphragm assembly, Fernandez further teaches Figure 7 and page 3, section 3.3 [0002] teaches the mounting base for the diaphragm was a disc with a cylinder in the center, both made of iron (Figure 7). Over the cylinder are fixed neodymium magnets to cover the entire surface. An external arrangement of iron rods was disposed in order to redirect the magnetic field coming from the magnets back to the cylinder and the magnets.
As to Claim 7, Fernandez in view of Suzuki teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and wherein the at least one magnet is configured such that magnetic flux aligns with the plurality of vibratable layers of the diaphragm assembly, and further teaches the AMT diaphragm motion is normal to the direction or propagation. This diaphragm design require of modifications in the magnetic circuit. To obtain a magnetic field normal to the diaphragm requires of a cylindrical configuration of magnets which generates a radial field (Figure 2) and this configuration, the current pathway which is printed in this cylindrical diaphragm (Figure 3) is crossed by a radial magnetic field, generated by an arrangement of magnets over an iron cylinder. See at least page 2, section 3.1 [0002]- [0003] and the applicant’s specification [0018] teaches at least one magnet is configured such that magnetic flux aligns with vibratable layers of the diaphragm assembly. This can assist in directing the flux to the vibratable layers, and thereby enhancing the effect of the Lorentz force on the vibratable layers. The magnets are preferably configured such that the magnetic flux is perpendicular or at least substantially perpendicular to electric conductors of the vibratable layers, and Fernandez teaches magnetic field is “normal “ to diaphragm.
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 13-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by FERNANDEZ, ARCANI RODRIGO ET AL., "Design and Construction of a Circular AMT Speaker of 360° Radiation," Audio Engineering Society Convention 137, Convention Paper 9163, October 9, 2014, 6 pages.
As to Claim 13, Fernandez teaches an air motion transformer (AMT) electroacoustic transducer (air motion transformer (AMT), abstract, page 2, section 3.1, [0001]) comprising: a diaphragm assembly (cylindrical diaphragm, Figure 3) and a magnetic structure, AMT diaphragm motion is normal to the direction or propagation. This diaphragm design require of modifications in the magnetic circuit. To obtain a magnetic field normal to the diaphragm requires of a cylindrical configuration of magnets Regarding the following: the magnetic structure comprises at least one magnet positioned at least partially within the diaphragm assembly, Fernandez teaches the current pathway which is printed in this cylindrical diaphragm (Figure 3) is crossed by a radial magnetic field, generated by an arrangement of magnets over an iron cylinder. These magnets are placed inside the diaphragm and provide magnetic flux to the entire surface of the diaphragm. The iron cylinder is connected to a magnetic circuit to lead the flux towards the external side of the diaphragm so that to have a more uniform distribution of the magnetic field. See at least on Figure 3 and Figure 1. Also, page 2, section 3.1, [0003]. Fernandez on Figures 1 and Figure 3 shows the diaphragm has a pleated structure thus teaching plurality of “ vibratable layers”.
As to Claim 14, Fernandez teaches the limitation of Claim 13 and wherein the magnetic structure is the magnetic structure of claim 1, Fernandez teaches the current pathway which is printed in this cylindrical diaphragm (Figure 3) is crossed by a radial magnetic field, generated by an arrangement of magnets over an iron cylinder. These magnets are placed inside the diaphragm and provide magnetic flux to the entire surface of the diaphragm. The iron cylinder is connected to a magnetic circuit to lead the flux towards the external side of the diaphragm so that to have a more uniform distribution of the magnetic field. See at least on Figure 3 and Figure 1. Also, page 2, section 3.1, [0003]. Fernandez on Figures 1 and Figure 3 shows the diaphragm has a pleated structure thus teaching plurality of “ vibratable layers”
As to Claim 15, Fernandez teaches the limitation of Claim 13 and wherein the diaphragm assembly (cylindrical diaphragm, Figure 3 surrounds the at least one magnet (magnets placed inside the diaphragm thus surrounding them magnet, Figure 3, page 3, section 3.1, [001]0[002].
As to Claim 20, Fernandez teaches the limitation of Claim 13 and further comprising a frame configured to support the diaphragm assembly (AMT transducer having a diaphragm Figure 8 implicitly teaches a frame or housing to support the diaphragm, abstract. Also see Fernandez on Figure 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12, 16-19, 21, 22 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.
Claims 23-25 are allowed. The independent Claim 23 identifies a uniquely distinct feature of “…a removable magnet carrier for carrying at least one magnet; wherein the frame is configured to reversibly engage the magnet carrier to retain the at least one magnet at least partially within the diaphragm assembly.” The prior arts do not explicitly teach the limitations of Claim 23.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNITA JOSHI whose telephone number is (571)270-7227. The examiner can normally be reached 8-3.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at 5712727503. 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.
/SUNITA JOSHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2691
Prosecution Insights