DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 17 and 20 are rejected
Claims 4-16 and 18-19 are objected to
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-11, filed 08/28/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 17 and 20 under 35 USC § 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deas et al (US PUB 20180035229, hereinafter Deas) in view of Nawaz et al (US PUB 20210029470, hereinafter Nawaz).
Regarding claim 1, Deas discloses a speaker (see [0001] and figure 1), comprising: a front volume (e.g. a front cavity 110); a back volume (e.g. a back cavity 109), (see figure 1A); and a corrugated microelectromechanical (MEMS) structure disposed between the front volume and the back volume (e.g. a corrugated membrane 314 having alternate ridges and grooves which project above and below a notional main plane 316), (see Deas, [0032], [0065], [0070]-[0071], and [0080]-[0081], also figures 1-5).
Deas does not explicitly disclose that the corrugated diaphragm 314 is cylindrical in shape.
However, Nawaz in the same field of endeavor teaches that it is well known in the art to apply a cylindrical corrugated microelectromechanical (MEMS) structure (e.g. a bellow diaphragm 572) in a sound device as demonstrated in [0145] and figure 29. Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person having an ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a cylindrical corrugated MEMS structure as taught by Nawaz in the teachings of Deas in order to achieve a MEMS structure having a relatively high elasticity with reduced stiffness, and thereby further improving the output sound quality of the device.
Regarding claim 2, Deas as modified by Nawaz discloses the speaker of claim 1, wherein the cylindrical corrugated MEMS structure extends in a circumferential direction around an open cylindrical core that extends along an axis and that defines at least a portion of the front volume (see Nawaz, figures 29 and 35).
Regarding claim 3, Deas as modified by Nawaz discloses the speaker of claim 2, wherein the cylindrical corrugated MEMS structure comprises a single contiguous structure that extends in the circumferential direction around the open cylindrical core and that includes a plurality of corrugations around the circumferential direction (see Nawaz, figures 29 and 35).
Regarding claim 17, Deas discloses a method of operating a speaker (see [0001] and figure 1), the method comprising: applying a voltage to a corrugated microelectromechanical (MEMS) structure that is disposed between a front volume and a back volume; and deforming, by the applied voltage, the cylindrical corrugated MEMS structure to generate sound with the speaker by moving air within the cylindrical corrugated MEMS structure (e.g. a bias voltage is applied via one or more conductive elements to a corrugated membrane 317 suspended between a front cavity 110 and a back cavity 109, and causing the membrane to deform, and thereby generating sound within the speaker), (see Deas, [0032], [0065], [0070]-[0071], and [0080]-[0081], also figures 1-5).
Deas does not explicitly disclose that the corrugated diaphragm 314 is cylindrical in shape.
However, Nawaz in the same field of endeavor teaches that it is well known in the art to apply a cylindrical corrugated microelectromechanical (MEMS) structure (e.g. a bellow diaphragm 572) in a sound device as demonstrated in [0145] and figure 29. Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person having an ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a cylindrical corrugated MEMS structure as taught by Nawaz in the teachings of Deas in order to achieve a MEMS structure having a relatively high elasticity with reduced stiffness, and thereby further improving the output sound quality of the device.
More so, the combination of Deas and Nawaz further teaches: the sound is generated by moving air within an open cylindrical core of the cylindrical corrugated MEMS structure (see Nawaz, figures 29 and 35).
Regarding claim 20, Deas discloses an electronic device comprising a speaker (see [0001] and figure 1), comprising: a front volume (e.g. a front cavity 110); a back volume (e.g. a back cavity 109), (see figure 1A); and a corrugated microelectromechanical (MEMS) structure (e.g. a plurality of corrugated membrane 317 having alternate ridges and grooves which project above and below a notional main plane 316), (see Deas, [0032], [0065], [0070]-[0071], and [0080]-[0081], also figures 1-5).
Deas does not explicitly disclose that the cylindrical corrugated structure having an open cylindrical core that defines at least a portion of the front volume.
Deas does not explicitly disclose that the corrugated diaphragm 314 is cylindrical in shape.
However, Nawaz in the same field of endeavor teaches that it is well known in the art to apply a cylindrical corrugated microelectromechanical (MEMS) structure (e.g. a bellow diaphragm 572) in a sound device as demonstrated in [0145] and figure 29. Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person having an ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a cylindrical corrugated MEMS structure as taught by Nawaz in the teachings of Deas in order to achieve a MEMS structure having a relatively high elasticity with reduced stiffness, and thereby further improving the output sound quality of the device.
More so, the combination of Deas and Nawaz further teaches: the cylindrical corrugated structure having an open cylindrical core that defines at least a portion of the front volume (see Nawaz, figures 29 and 35).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-16, 18 and 19 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record provided on PTO 892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OYESOLA C OJO whose telephone number is (571)272-0848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8:00am to 4:00pm Central Time.
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, Vivian Chin can be reached at 571-272-7840. 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.
/OYESOLA C OJO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2695.