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 Status
Claims 1-12, 14-19, and 22-23 are pending.
Applicant filed a preliminary amendment on February 10, 2023 cancelling claims 13, 20, and 21.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on April 4, 2023, February 27, 2024, March 27, 2024, August 5, 2024, and February 28, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "boost electrical system" as set forth in claim 23 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) 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.
(ii) The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not “within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.” See MPEP § 608.01(b). The current abstract has 196 words.
(iii) With regard to page 1 (line 4 of paragraph [0004]), the term "BY" should be changed to the term --by--.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy 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 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.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
The following phrase(s) lack clear antecedent basis within the claim(s), i.e., either the particularly recited passage fails to be properly introduced prior to its appearance at that point in the claim or the structure recited in the passage is not an inherent part of or component of the previously recited structure:
(i) Claim 6 (line 2), "the positive electrode".
Examiner Comments
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 10-12, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1).
As per claim 1, Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) discloses an acoustic device (e.g., 100 - loudspeaker; paragraph [0089]), comprising: a piezoelectric component (e.g., see first sentence of paragraph [0089], including components (102 and 103)) configured to produce a vibration under an action of a driving voltage; a vibration component (e.g., 106 - see second sentence of paragraph [0086]) mechanically connected to the piezoelectric component (including components (102 and 103)) to receive the vibration and produce sound (e.g. being a loudspeaker); and a resistor element (e.g., see paragraph [0094], sentence 3, including components (107, 108) and corresponding resistor elements in other analogous embodiments, that includes resistor element three-digit designations ending in 07 and 08, respectively, such as (407), (408) in Fig. 11) connected in series with the piezoelectric component (including components (102 and 103)) to change a frequency response of the vibration component (e.g., 106 - see second sentence of paragraph [0086]), wherein the resistor element (e.g., see paragraph [0094], sentence 3, including components (107, 108)) is configured that a difference between a vibration amplitude of the vibration component at 10 kHz and a vibration amplitude of the vibration component at 1 kHz is less than or equal to 20 dB. See Figs. 1-3 and 25, wherein resistors 107 and 108 are connected to the piezoelectric elements (102) and (103), respectively. As such, when the frequency response of the piezoelectric elements (102) and (103) changes, the frequency response of the vibration plate (101) bonded to the piezoelectric elements (102) and (103) changes in a similar manner.
As per claim 2, wherein the resistor element (e.g. 407 and/or 408) is connected in series with a positive electrode of the piezoelectric component. Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) describes an example in which resistors (e.g. 407, 408) are connected to both electrodes of a piezoelectric element in series (paragraphs [0089-0090], Fig. 11, which necessitates that at least one resistor is connected to the positive electrode, and another to the negative electrode).
As per claim 4, wherein the resistor element (e.g. 407 and/or 408 is connected in series with a negative electrode of the piezoelectric component. Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) describes an example in which resistors (e.g. 407, 408) are connected to both electrodes of a piezoelectric element in series (paragraphs [0089-0090], Fig. 11, which necessitates that at least one resistor is connected to the positive electrode, and another to the negative electrode).
As per claim 6, wherein the positive electrode and the negative electrode of the piezoelectric component are led out from a same side of the piezoelectric component. That is, Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) describes an example in which points P1, P2 of the piezoelectric speaker 100 are connected to the AC power supply (110) are formed on the same side (paragraphs [0043-0052], Figs. 1-3).
As per claim 7, wherein the resistor element includes a lead connected with the piezoelectric component. See Figs. 1-3, wherein there are electrical connections (leads) from the power source (110) to the corresponding piezoelectric component.
As per claim 8, wherein the resistor element includes a conductive adhesive connected with the piezoelectric component. See paragraph [0177].
As per claim 10, wherein the resistor element includes an electrode of the piezoelectric component. See Figs. 1-3, wherein there are electrical connections (leads) from the power source (110) to the corresponding piezoelectric component.
As per claim 11, wherein at least part of the electrode of the piezoelectric component is made of one of: copper, gold, aluminum, tungsten, iron, or platinum. See paragraph [0082].
As per claim 12, wherein an effective cross-sectional area of at least part of the electrode of the piezoelectric component is less than a contour cross-sectional area of the electrode. See, e.g. Fig. 5, wherein the totally cross-section area (footprint) of the electrodes are greater than the actual material of the electrodes on the respective (planar) surface, due to gaps in the material. That interface the other (positive/negative) electrode disposed within the same plane). See also Fig. 16
As per claim 15, wherein the piezoelectric component is a beam structure - e.g., the loudspeaker diaphragm is supported in a manner, such that it is allowed to vibrate, while being supported at ends of the electrodes(via beam-like structure).
As per claim 19, wherein the vibration component includes: an elastic element (e.g., the structure that supports the movable diaphragm (101); and a mass element (e.g. the mass of the diaphragm itself), wherein one end of the elastic element is connected with the piezoelectric component (102, 103 - see, e.g. Figs. 1-3), and the other end of the elastic element is connected with the mass element (e.g., the side facing and supporting the mass of the diaphragm).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 5, 9, 14, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1).
See the description of Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1), supra.
As per claim 3, Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the resistor element is welded on the positive electrode of the piezoelectric component, wherein as per claim 5, the resistor element is welded on the negative electrode of the piezoelectric component. As per claim 9, Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the resistor element is arranged on a flexible circuit board.
Additionally, as per claim 14, Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein a resistance value of the resistor element is within a range of 1Ω - 1kΩ.
As per claim 23, Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) remains silent with regard to further comprising a boost electrical system configured to increase a voltage output from a power supply.
As per claims 3, 5, 9 and 23, Official notice is taken that electrical connections in which leads are welded to electrodes to provide solid electrical connections (as per claims 3 and 5), providing electrical components (e.g., resistors) on a flexible printed circuit board, as per claim 9, and providing a boost electrical system configured to increase a voltage output from a power supply (as per claim 23), are notoriously old and well-known and ubiquitous in the art; such Officially noticed fact being capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to made to provide the resistor element of Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) as being welded on the positive/negative electrode of the piezoelectric component (as per claims 3 and 5), and provide the resistor element as being arranged on a flexible circuit board (per claim 9), and adding a boost electrical system configured to increase a voltage output from the power supply (110) of Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) (as per claim 23), in order to simply provide an electrical connection (via welding) which provide a secure and inexpensive electrical attachment (per claims 3 and 5), and to provide a resistive electrical component on an FPC which results in miniaturization and high component density, simplified design and reduced costs (as per claim 9), and to simply add a boost electrical system (e.g., a battery) configured to increase a voltage output from a power supply (110) of Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1), in order to significantly increase the sound pressure level for louder output and allow wider voltage ranges, such features of claims 3, 5, 9, and 23 being well-known, established and appreciated in the art.
Additionally, as per claim 14, although Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein a resistance value of the resistor element is within a range of 1Ω - 1kΩ, the Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant invention was filed to satisfy the claimed range(s) and/or dimension(s) regarding the resistance values of the resistor element, particularly in light of the teachings of Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) as a whole, through routine optimization/experimentation.
MPEP 2144.05(II) recognizes that such a rejection may indeed be made when appropriate. “[W]here 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.” In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the instant application, Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) readily recognizes that the sound pressure suppressing effect at the high frequency range when the electrical resistance is connected to the piezoelectric element in series with a bimorph type piezoelectric loudspeaker, is altered (e.g., see paragraph [0011]).
As such, given the teachings of Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time the instant invention was filed to achieve the performance parameters as set forth in claim 14 via a resistance value of the resistor element as being in a range of 1Ω - 1kΩ, through routine optimization and experimentation, since such performance test parameters have been recognized and appreciated by Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1), as a variable is used to achieve a desired result, i.e., "result-effective variables". Such optimization is seen to be well within the level of ordinary skill, based upon the teachings and express suggestion of Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1), as a whole.
Additionally, the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found.
It furthermore has been held in such a situation, the Applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
The Examiner finds this situation analogous to the optimization of a range or other variable within the claims that flows from the "normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious). In In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955), it was held that the discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is usually obvious. See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (C.C.P.A. 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."(quoting Aller, 220 F.2d at 456)); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (finding no clear error in Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ conclusion that the amount of eluent to be used in a washing sequence was a matter of routine optimization known in the pertinent prior art and therefore obvious).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) in view of Sashida et al. (US 2014/0319968 A1).
See the description of Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1), supra.
As per claim 16, Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the piezoelectric component includes at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers, and the at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers are electrically connected with each other.
As per claim 17, Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers are interleaved with electrodes of the piezoelectric component.
As per claim 18, Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein a surface temperature of the piezoelectric component is lower than a Curie temperature of the piezoelectric component in an operation state.
Such piezoelectric component structure as set forth in claims 16-17 are known in the art.
As just one example, Sashida et al. (US 2014/0319968 A1) discloses an analogous piezoelectric component, in the same field of endeavor as Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1), wherein, as per claim 16, a corresponding piezoelectric component includes at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers (piezoelectric layers (20, 22, 24, 30, 32, 34) made of ceramic - paragraphs [0018, 0028]), and the at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers (20, 22, 24, 30, 32, 34) are electrically connected with each other. See Fig. 1, wherein the layers (20, 22, 24, 30, 32, 34) make contact with their respective adjacent layers at distal ends where the interleaving electrodes (40, 42, 44, 52, 54) terminate.
As per claim 17, Sashida et al. (US 2014/0319968 A1) further discloses wherein the at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers (20, 22, 24, 30, 32, 34) are interleaved with electrodes (40, 42, 44, 52, 54) of the piezoelectric component. See Fig. 1.
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Sashida et al. (US 2014/0319968 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the features of the piezoelectric component as set forth in claims 16 and 17, as taught by Sashida et al. (US 2014/0319968 A1), to the piezoelectric component of Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1), in order to advantageously "provide a piezoelectric sound-generating body whose current is kept low without affecting the amount of displacement of the element, thus preventing deterioration characteristics and allowing for size reduction." See paragraph [0006] of Sashida et al. (US 2014/0319968 A1).
Moreover, regarding claim 18, although Sashida et al. (US 2014/0319968 A1) as applied to Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein a surface temperature of the piezoelectric component is lower than a Curie temperature of the piezoelectric component in an operation state, Sashida et al. (US 2014/0319968 A1) does strongly suggest such a feature as provided for in claim 18, since Sashida et al. (US 2014/0319968 A1) expressly provides the aforementioned piezoelectric structures such that "failures due to heat generation can be prevented, while size reduction also becomes possible because there is no longer a need to use thick conductive wires for the driving circuit." See paragraph [0011] of Sashida et al. (US 2014/0319968 A1). As such, it would be appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of ten invention, to utilize the structure of Sashida et al. (US 2014/0319968 A1) (as applied to Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) ) to provide that a surface temperature of the piezoelectric component is lower than a Curie temperature of the piezoelectric component in an operation (as per claim 18).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) in view of Qi et al. (US 2016/0329041 A1).
See the description of Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1), supra.
As per claim 22, Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) does not expressly state that the disclosed acoustic device is used as a bone conduction acoustic device.
Such piezoelectric acoustic devices of the type disclosed by Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) being used in bone conduction acoustic devices, is well-established in the prior art.
As just one example, Qi et al. (US 2016/0329041 A1) disclose an analogous piezoelectric acoustic transducer, in the same field of endeavor as Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1), wherein a bone conduction acoustic device (bone conduction loudspeaker) is provided that suppresses sound leakage (see abstract of Qi et al. (US 2016/0329041 A1)).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Qi et al. (US 2016/0329041 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the features of the piezoelectric component of Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) in the bone conduction acoustic device (bone conduction loudspeaker) as taught by Qi et al. (US 2016/0329041 A1), in order to advantageously provide the benefits of the piezoelectric acoustic loudspeaker transducer of Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1), with the added benefits of a bone conduction acoustic device (bone conduction loudspeaker) that suppresses sound leakage (see abstract of Qi et al. (US 2016/0329041 A1).
Citation of Prior or Relevant Art on enclosed PTO-892
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited art made of record (see the enclosed PTO-892), not applied to the rejection of the claims, supra, each disclose aspects of the claimed invention, including wherein piezoelectric devices are provided with series resistors to control the amount of voltage across the piezoelectric devices. See PTO -892.
The best prior art has been applied to the claimed invention (see the rejection of the claims on the applied prior art, supra). However, if Applicant chooses to amend the claims in a manner to obviate the applied prior art, as noted in the rejection, supra, the Applicant is advised to not only carefully review the applied prior art for all it teaches and/or suggests, but also the cited prior art of record in order to obviate any potential rejections based on potential amendment(s); by doing so, compact prosecution on the merits can be enhanced.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William J Klimowicz whose telephone number is (571)272-7577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00AM-6PM, ET.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/WILLIAM J KLIMOWICZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688