DETAILED ACTION
Notice 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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 16 July 2025, 14 January 2025 and 31 March 2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 7 of claim 1, “the vibration of the vibration element” should be changed to “a vibration of the vibration element”.
In line 6 of claim 25, “the width of the beam structure” should be changed to “a width of the beam structure”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 30 discloses “the vibration elements” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 discloses “the two or more vibration elements” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 discloses “the two or more vibration elements” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Further explanation: Claim 1 discloses “a vibration element” in line 2. Claims 30 depends on claim 1. The singular and plurality for the same limitation is not understood.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler et al. (U. S. Patent No. 8659211).
Regarding independent claim 1, Butler et al. (e. g. see FIG. 5, Claim 13, Claim 18) discloses an acoustic output apparatus, comprising: a vibration element (FIG. 5), the vibration element (FIG. 5) including a beam structure (the cantilever bender in FIG. 5) extending in a length direction, and the beam structure (the cantilever bender in FIG. 5) including: a piezoelectric layer (13) configured to deform in response to an electrical signal (Claim 13: a voltage source for driving said plates in a planar bending mode, Claim 18: a voltage source for driving said bender member), the deformation driving the vibration element (FIG. 5) to vibrate; and a mass element (11), the mass element being connected to a first position (any point on the beam structure) of the beam structure (the cantilever bender in FIG. 5), and the vibration of the vibration element (FIG. 5) driving the mass element (11) to vibrate in a direction perpendicular to the length direction.
Butler et al. does not explicitly disclose “a ratio between a distance from the first position to one end of the beam structure and a length of the beam structure is in a range from 0.3 to 0.95 along the length direction of the beam structure.”
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time prior to the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, bounded by well-known usage of acoustic output apparatus and by ascertainable routine experimentation and optimization, to choose the location of the first position base on experiments with a ratio between a distance from the first position to one end of the beam structure and a length of the beam structure is in a range from 0.3 to 0.95 along the length direction of the beam structure for the purpose of improving bending motion to obtain greater output from a single structure, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 30, Butler et al. does not explicitly disclose “a ratio between a distance from the first position of each beam structure to the fixed end of the beam structure and the length of the beam structure being in a range from 0.7 to 0.95.”
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time prior to the effective filing date or the priority date of the application, bounded by well-known usage of acoustic output apparatus and by ascertainable routine experimentation and optimization, to modify the electro-mechanical transducer of Butler et al. to include “a ratio between a distance from the first position of each beam structure to the fixed end of the beam structure and the length of the beam structure being in a range from 0.7 to 0.95” for the purpose of improving bending motion to obtain greater output from a single structure, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Examiner’s Note:
In this Office Action, Examiner has cited particular figures, column numbers, paragraph numbers, and line numbers of the prior arts applied in the rejections. However, other figures and passages of the same prior arts may anticipate the claim limitations as well. Therefore, Applicants are respectfully requested to consider the prior arts in their entirety as potentially teaching claimed invention.
For amendment purpose, Applicants are very much appreciated for indicating the portion(s) of the specification which dictates the structure(s) relied on for proper interpretation as well as for verification and determination of the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Applicants’ indication of the specific figures and items of figures which represent features of the invention disclosed in the amended claims, is also expected.
Additionally, in the event that other prior art(s) is/are provided and made of record by the Examiner as being relevant or pertinent to applicant's disclosure but not relied upon, the examiner requests that the reference(s) be considered in any subsequent amendments, as the reference(s) is also representative of the teachings of the art and may apply to the specific limitations of any newly amended claim(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is 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 4, 6-12, 14-19, 24-25 and 28 depend directly or indirectly on the objected-to- allow claim 2, therefore these claims are objected as being dependent on an objected-to- allow base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Butler et al. (U. S. Patent No. 6950373) discloses an electro-mechanical transducer which provides a wideband response by activating successive multiple resonant frequencies in a way which provides additive output between the resonant frequencies. The electro-mechanical transduction apparatus comprises an electromechanical drive, a transmission line, a piston head mass, a tail mass and a feedback system for providing a smooth response.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY P. PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-3046. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, DEDEI HAMMOND can be reached at (571) 270-7938. 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.
25 March 2026
/EMILY P PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights