DETAILED ACTION
1. Applicant's amendments and remarks submitted on March 20, 2025 have been entered. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 1-10 are still pending on this application, with claims 1-3 being rejected and claims 4-10 being withdrawn. All new grounds of rejection were necessitated by the amendments to claim 1. Accordingly, this action is made final.
2. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Specification
3. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-3 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.
6. Claim 1 now recites “an orthographic projection of the sounding assembly is all located in the through hole to provide a vibration space for the sounding assembly” in lines 10-11 of the claim. It is not clear how the orthographic projection of the sounding assembly is “all located in the through hole” as now claimed. The specification recites the same language as the claim, but does not appear to further describe how the projection is located “in the through hole.” For the purposes of examination, the claim has been interpreted as the embodiment presented in figure 1 of the specification, where the width of the through hole matches the width of the sounding assembly, such that an orthographic projection of the sounding assembly when viewed from above or below can be seen as “all located in the through hole.” Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
7. Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for the same reason as parent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub No 2021/0092500 A1 to Lo et al. (“Lo”) in view of US Patent Pub No 2018/0041828 A1 to Sibbald et al. (“Sibbald”).
As to claim 1, Lo discloses a MEMS speaker, comprising: a MEMS speaker chip (see pg. 2, ¶ 0039; pg. 3, ¶ 0045), comprising a substrate with a cavity and a sounding assembly connected with the substrate, the substrate comprising an outer surface away from the cavity and connected with the sounding assembly (chip 120 with structure 122, see figures 1 and 6-7; pg. 3, ¶ 0040), a top surface opposite to the outer surface and a side surface respectively connected with the outer surface and the top surface (see figures 1 and 10-12); a printed circuit board with a through hole and connected with the outer surface of the substrate (flip chip configuration with chip connected to base 110, see figures 10-12; pg. 2, ¶ 0039; pg. 6, ¶ 0067); and a mesh covering the through hole and connected with the printed circuit board (mesh 140, see figures 1 and 9; pg. 4, ¶ 0051; pg. 6, ¶ 0066, ¶ 0069); wherein sounds emitted by the sounding assembly transmit outward through the through hole and the mesh (see figures 10-12; pg. 4, ¶ 0050 - ¶ 0051; pg. 6, ¶ 0066, ¶ 0069).
Lo further discloses the speaker further comprising a first shell in the form of cap 130 (see figures 1 and 8-11), and wherein the cap can be connected to the chip (see figures 16-18; pg. 7, ¶ 0072), but does not expressly disclose wherein the first shell is connected with the top surface of the substrate. Lo further does it expressly disclose an orthographic projection of the sounding assembly is all located in the through hole to provide a vibration space for the sounding assembly. However such modifications are considered obvious given the teachings of Lo, including the positioning of the cap on the chip (see figures 16-18 and 28; pg. 7, ¶ 0072), as well as the flip chip configuration where the outer surface of the chip is connected to the circuit board (see figures 10-12; pg. 2, ¶ 0039; pg. 6, ¶ 0067), and further regarding the various base opening size variations disclosed by Lo, including an embodiment where the opening width coincides with the width of the sounding assembly (see figure 9).
The proposed modifications are therefore considered merely a straightforward possibility from which a skilled person would select given the teachings of Lo, the motivation being to provide a MEMS package with a flip chip configuration where the cap is positioned on the chip, thereby reducing the size of the package (see pg. 7, ¶ 0072 - ¶ 0073), and further as a matter of design, as the base opening is not limited in size, and may further be configured to correspond to the sounding assembly structure 122, allowing a larger chamber to be formed (see figure 9; pg. 4, ¶ 0052; pg. 6, ¶ 0069).
Lo further discloses the mesh as providing acoustic resistance (see pg. 4, ¶ 0051), but does not expressly disclose the mesh as being a damping mesh. However such a configuration is known in the art, as taught by Sibbald, which discloses a similar MEMS device, and further discloses similar mesh layers with acoustic impedance properties primarily characteristic of an acoustic impedance, which can provide damping (see pg. 2, ¶ 0036 - ¶ 0037; pg. 8, ¶ 0127). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation being as a matter of design, depending on the amount of damping needed by the application and/or desired when constructing the device, and further as some degree of acoustic resistance can be useful to reduce resonance effects (Sibbald pg. 4, ¶ 0074; pg. 8, ¶ 0125, ¶ 0127).
As to claim 2, Lo in view of Sibbald does not expressly disclose wherein an acoustic impedance value of the damping mesh is in a range of 1 Mrayl - 500 Mrayl. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Lo in view of Sibbald, depending on various factors such as the material used, the closeness of the woven mesh or perforations, and the desired acoustic resistance of the mesh (Sibbald pg. 4, ¶ 0074; pg. 8, ¶ 0127), and further as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In this case, Lo in view of Sibbald disclose that a wide range of acoustic resistance values can be engineered with accuracy with suitable impedance properties depending on the preferred design of the manufacturer, the desired amount of damping, etc. (Sibbald pg. 4, ¶ 0074; pg. 8, ¶ 0127).
As to claim 3, Lo in view of Sibbald further discloses wherein the first shell includes a communication hole communicating with the cavity (Lo back opening on cap, see figures 9-11; pg. 4, ¶ 0052; pg. 6, ¶ 0066), the MEMS speaker further includes a dust mesh covering the communication hole (Lo pg. 5, ¶ 0053).
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed March 20, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that in the present application, “the through hole provided on the printed circuit board could provide a vibration space for the sounding assembly which makes it possible to fully utilize the internal space of the product,” and “Lo and Sibbald fail to disclose these features.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lo discloses various embodiments for the through hole on the circuit board or base 110, including an embodiment where the opening width coincides with the width of the sounding assembly, allowing a larger chamber to be formed (see figure 9). Lo further discloses that in general the size of the opening on the base is not limited, and may further be configured to correspond to the sounding assembly structure 122, including for the flip chip configuration that forms the basis of the rejection (see pg. 4, ¶ 0052; pg. 6, ¶ 0069). Lo is therefore considered to teach a structure resulting in an orthographic projection of the sounding assembly as being all located in the through hole. As such, the claimed MEMS speaker is considered obvious given the combined teachings of Lo and Sibbald.
Conclusion
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABRINA DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 5712727488. 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.
/SABRINA DIAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/AHMAD F. MATAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2693