DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicants arguments to claim 1, applicant states “Katsuta does not teach or suggest: metal plate member 6 (as an insulating plate) being located on an opposite side of a waterproof packing to a side where a support is arranged, wherein a portion of the metal plate 6 defines a first through hole 61 leading to a vibrating film; dust intrusion prevention mesh 7 (as a metal plate) located on an opposite side of the metal plate member 6 to the waterproof packing; and wherein the dust intrusion prevention mesh 7 defines a second through hole and the portion of the metal plate member 6 defining the first through hole 61 Is arranged in the second through hole of the dust intrusion prevention mesh 7; Therefore, Katsuta does not teach or suggest: an insulating plate located on an opposite side of the waterproof packing to a side where the support is arranged, wherein a portion of the insulating plate defines a first through hole leading to the vibrating film; and a metal plate located on an opposite side of the insulating plate to the waterproof packing, wherein: the metal plate defines a second through hole and the portion of the insulating plate defining the first through hole is arranged in the second through hole of the metal plate;”, examiner respectfully disagrees. Katsuta teaches the insulting plate 6 is located on the opposite side of the water proof packing 5 to a side where the support 44, 42 is arranged as illustrated in Fig.1 and as illustrated in the exploded view of Fig.2 and Katsuta also teaches a portion of the insulting plate 6 defines a first through hole (the holes on the left and right side of Fig.2 and the hole in the middle is being interpreted as the first and second through holes) leading to the vibrating film 41. Katsuta also teaches a plate 7 located on an opposite side of the insulating plate 6 to the waterproof packing 5, wherein: the plate 7 defines a second through hole (multiple holes of Fig.2 interpreted as the first and second through holes) and the portion of the insulating plate 6 defining the first through hole (holes as illustrated in Fig.2) is arranged in the second through hole (holes as illustrated in Fig.2) of the plate 7. Temmei is relied upon to teach the metal plate as detailed below. Thus, the claims as written is properly taught by Katsuta in view of Temmei as further detailed below.
Applicant' s arguments with respect to newly added claim 9 has been considered but is moot in view of the references cited in the most current rejection.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuta (JP 2018107503 A, all citations provided from machine translation attached) in view of Temmei (US 20160343636 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Katsuta teaches an acoustic device (“A waterproof acoustic device”) comprising: a vibrating film (41) which has waterproofness (waterproof vibration film 41). (Abstract, Page.3, lines 21-26, Fig.1)
Katsuta also teaches a support (44, 42) located alongside and supporting the vibrating film (41) in a direction. (Page.3, lines 21-30, Fig.1)
Katsuta also teaches a waterproof packing (5, 51, 52) in contact with the support (44, 42). (Page.3, lines 31-45, Fig.1)
Katsuta also teaches an insulating plate (6) located on an opposite side of the waterproof packing (5, 51, 52) to a side where the support is arranged, wherein a portion of the insulating plate (6) defines a first through hole (multiple through holes can be seen in the exploded view of Fig.2) leading to the vibrating film (41). (Page.4, lines 5-21, Figs.1-2)
Katsuta also teaches a plate (7) located on an opposite side of the insulating plate (6) to the waterproof packing (5, 51, 52), and the metal plate (7) is fixed in a state pressing the insulating plate (6) along the direction. (Figs.1-2)
Katsuta also teaches wherein: the plate (7) defines a second through hole (multiple through holes can be seen in the exploded view of Fig.2) and the portion of the insulating plate (6) defining the first through hole (Fig.2) is arranged in the second through hole (Fig.2) of the metal plate. (Figs.2, 1)
Katsuta also teaches the plate (7) selectively presses a range of the waterproof (5, 51, 52) in a plane perspective seen along the direction. (Figs.1-2)
Katsuta does not explicitly teach the metal plate.
Temmei teaches the metal plate (107, 108). (Paragraph 30-33, Fig.1-5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Katsuta to incorporate the metal plate as taught by Temmei in order to increase the strength of interfaces and improve water resistance.
Regarding claim 2, Katsuta teaches wherein the insulating plate (6) includes a protrusion through which the first through hole penetrates, and the second through hole contains the protrusion inside. (Figs.1-2)
Regarding claim 3, Katsuta teaches wherein the plate (7) includes the entire waterproof packing (5, 51, 52) in a plane perspective seen along the direction. (Figs.1-2)
Katsuta does not explicitly teach the metal plate.
Temmei teaches the metal plate (107, 108). (Paragraph 30-33, Fig.1-5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Katsuta to incorporate the metal plate as taught by Temmei in order to increase the strength of interfaces and improve water resistance.
Regarding claim 4, Katsuta teaches wherein the plate (7) is fixed by a screw (8). (Figs.1-2)
Katsuta does not explicitly teach the metal plate.
Temmei teaches the metal plate (107, 108). (Paragraph 30-33, Fig.1-5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Katsuta to incorporate the metal plate as taught by Temmei in order to increase the strength of interfaces and improve water resistance.
Regarding claim 5, Katsuta teaches wherein an adhesive or a sticky member is located between the support and the vibrating film. (Abstract, Claim 3, Figs.1-2)
Regarding claim 6, Katsuta does not explicitly teach wherein the insulating plate is formed by resin or ceramic.
Temmei teaches wherein the insulating plate (106) is formed by resin or ceramic. (Paragraphs 38-39, Fig.1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Katsuta to incorporate wherein the insulating plate is formed by resin or ceramic in order to have a high thermal conductivity and to form the electronic component module.
Regarding claim 7, Katsuta teaches an electronic device comprising: the acoustic device according to claim 1; and a housing (1) to which the plate (7) is fixed. (Abstract, Figs.1-2)
Katsuta does not explicitly teach the metal plate.
Temmei teaches the metal plate (107, 108). (Paragraph 30-33, Fig.1-5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Katsuta to incorporate the metal plate as taught by Temmei in order to increase the strength of interfaces and improve water resistance.
Regarding claim 9, Katsuta teaches the plate (7) selectively presses a range of the waterproof (5, 51, 52) in a plane perspective seen along the direction. (Figs.1-2)
Katsuta does not explicitly teach the metal plate and the insulating plate is made of a material having a lower elastic modulus than an elastic modulus of the metal plate.
Temmei teaches the metal plate (107, 108) and the insulating plate (106) is made of a material (resin, ceramic) having a lower elastic modulus than an elastic modulus of the metal plate (106). (Paragraphs 29-33, 38-39, Figs. 1-5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Katsuta to incorporate the metal plate and the insulating plate is made of a material having a lower elastic modulus than an elastic modulus of the metal plate as taught by Temmei in order to increase the strength of interfaces and improve water resistance.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsuta in view of Temmei and Park (US 20190072903 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Katsuta teaches the vibrating film and the waterproof packing (Figs.1-2) but does not explicitly teach wherein the acoustic device includes an acoustic converter which converts between a sound wave and an electrical signal, the acoustic converter is waterproofed by the vibrating film and the waterproof packing, and each of the metal plate and the acoustic converter is housing grounded.
Park teaches wherein the acoustic device (101, 200) includes an acoustic converter (170, 250) which converts between a sound wave and an electrical signal, the acoustic converter (250) is waterproofed, and each of the metal plate (1150) and the acoustic converter (170, 250) is housing (210) grounded. (Paragraphs 63, 87-88, Figs.1, 3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Katsuta to incorporate wherein the acoustic device includes an acoustic converter which converts between a sound wave and an electrical signal, the acoustic converter is waterproofed, and each of the metal plate and the acoustic converter is housing grounded in order to transmit/receive signals such as voice to/from the outside.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645