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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 9, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, 17-19, 22, 26, and 27 are pending.
Applicant has cancelled claims 3, 5, 7, 9, 13, 16, 20, 21, and 23-25.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 28, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has 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 at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers are arranged in a stacked manner, the polarization directions of the at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers in different layers are the same, and the at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers are connected in series” (as set forth in claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Care must be taken in illustrating what the Applicant considers to be a depiction of the quoted limitation, supra.
It is noted that claim 17, which depends ultimately from claim 1 (via claim 15), further recites “wherein the at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers are interleaved with electrodes of the piezoelectric component.” Thus in addition to showing the at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers are arranged in a stacked manner, the polarization directions of the at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers in different layers are the same, and the at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers are connected in series” (not depicted in the drawings), the Applicant must further somehow depict a series connection of “the at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers are arranged in a stacked manner, the polarization directions of the at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers in different layers are the same, and the at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers are connected in series” such that “the at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers are interleaved with electrodes of the piezoelectric component” (to arrive at at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers are connected in series). Claim 17 appears to be depicted in Fig. 6; however, Fig. 6 (as set forth in the specification), is drawn to a parallel connection of the at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers. Again, as noted above with regard to claim 1, 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.
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 § 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 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) in view of Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 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 8, wherein the resistor element includes a conductive adhesive connected with the piezoelectric component. See paragraph [0168] and 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).
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).
As per amended claim 1, 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, and a manner in which the at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers are electrically connected to each other is related to polarization directions of the at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers.
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 claim 1 is known in the art.
As just one example, Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 A1) discloses an analogous piezoelectric component, in the same field of endeavor as Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1), wherein, as per claim 1, a corresponding piezoelectric component includes at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers (e.g., piezoelectric layers (1051, 1052, 1053, 1054) made of ceramic - paragraphs [0003, 0044]), the at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers (e.g., piezoelectric layers (1051, 1052, 1053, 1054)) are arranged in a stacked manner (e.g., see Fig. 9A), the polarization directions of the at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers in different layers are the same (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0073]), and the at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers are connected in series – see, inter alia, Fig. 9A and paragraph [0073]
Insofar as claim 17 is considered to be consistent with claim 1, as per claim 17, Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 A1) further discloses wherein the at least two piezoelectric ceramic wafers (e.g., 1041, 1042) are interleaved with electrodes (e.g., 1043, 1044, 1045) of the piezoelectric component. See Fig. 6B.
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 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 1 and 17, as taught by Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 A1), to the piezoelectric component of Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1), in order to advantageously provide “the resonance of the laminated piezoelectric material 1050 [as being] amplified by twice as amount of strains.” See paragraph [0073] of Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 A1).
Moreover, regarding claim 18, although Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 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, providing such a feature to Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 A1) would obviously prevent failures due to heat generation. As such, it would be appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to utilize the structure of Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 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 Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 A1) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Qi et al. (US 2016/0329041 A1).
See the description of Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1)/ Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 A1), supra.
As per claim 22, Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1)/ Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 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)/ Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 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)/ Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 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 combination with Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 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).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) in view of Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 A1) as applied to claim 12, and further in view of Gabi et al. (US 2012/0019107 A1).
See the description of Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1)/ Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 A1), supra.
As per claim 26, Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1)/ Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 A1) does not expressly wherein a cross section of at least part of the electrode of the piezoelectric component is a mesh structure or an S-shaped structure, the effective cross-sectional area is a cross-sectional area actually used during operation of the electrode, and the contour cross-sectional area is a cross-sectional area formed by lines at an outermost edge of the electrode.
Such piezoelectric devices having such electrode structure, as per claim 26, are well-established in the prior art.
As just one example, Gabi et al. (US 2012/0019107 A1) disclose an analogous piezoelectric device, in the same field of endeavor as Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1)/ Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 A1), wherein a cross section of at least part of the electrode of the piezoelectric component is a mesh structure (e.g., see paragraph [0006] - Fig. 1) or an S-shaped structure, the effective cross-sectional area is a cross-sectional area actually used during operation of the electrode, and the contour cross-sectional area is a cross-sectional area formed by lines at an outermost edge of the electrode (40) - that is, the outer contour of the electrode (40) is the outer, rectangular perimeter as seen, e.g., in Fig. 1. But, because the mesh of material (actual area of wire making up the mesh (40)) is less than the area encompassed by the outer, perimeter rectangle area of (40), 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, and the effective cross-sectional area is a cross-sectional area actually used during operation of the electrode, and the contour cross-sectional area is a cross-sectional area formed by lines at an outermost edge of the electrode (40).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Gabi et al. (US 2012/0019107 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 claim 26, to the piezoelectric component of Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) (in combination with Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 A1)), as taught by Gabi et al. (US 2012/0019107 A1), in order to advantageously ensure "the external electrodes are firmly connected to the piezo actuator, and a reliable contact is made." See paragraph [0009] of Gabi et al. (US 2012/0019107 A1).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) in view of Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 A1) as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Wajima (US 6,232,699 B1).
See the description of Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1)/ Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 A1), supra.
As per claim 27, Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1)/ Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 A1) does not expressly disclose wherein a cross-sectional area of a lead- out section of the electrode is reduced from a rectangular shape to a circular shape.
Such piezoelectric device electrode structure is well-established in the prior art.
As just one example, Wajima (US 6,232,699 B1) discloses an analogous piezoelectric device, in the same field of endeavor as Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1)/ Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 A1), wherein a cross-sectional area of a lead- out section of a corresponding electrode is reduced from a rectangular shape (e.g., 5b) (Fig. 1A) to a circular shape (e.g., 3) (Fig. 1A).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Wajima (US 6,232,699 B1), 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 claim 27 to the electrode(s) of Fujise et al. (US 2010/0061573 A1) (in combination with Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 A1)) as taught by Wajima (US 6,232,699 B1), in order to advantageously provide electrodes which are easily formed and controlled in a desired manner when applied to a piezoelectric device surface. See col. 3, ll. 55-59 of Wajima (US 6,232,699 B1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejected claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection includes the application of a new reference (i.e., Nishikubo (US 2012/0256521 A1)), which has been applied in the rejection, as articulated in detail, supra, meeting the newly added claim limitations with a supporting rationale, which has been combined with the previously applied art of record.
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
Prosecution Insights