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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on July 5, 2023, June 25, 2024, January 24, 2025, and December 24, 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 were received on April 11, 2023. These drawings are accepted. 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) With regard to page 6 (line 1 of paragraph [0045] ) , the term "The order to more clearly" should be changed to the term --In o rder to more clearl y -- . 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 Objections/Suggestions for Change (i) With regard to claim 2 (line 3), the term "the lower frequency among the two resonances peaks" should be changed to the term -- a lower frequency among two resonances peaks --. (i i ) With regard to claim 2 (line 5 ), the term "the higher frequency " should be changed to the term -- a high frequency --. ( i i i ) With regard to claim 2 0 (line s 2-4 ), the term " t he plurality of elastic rods may be axially symmetric distributed with respect to an axis passing through a center of the second vibration element " is considered optional as being modified by the term "may be" (as will be treated as such for examination purposes, under the broadest reasonable interpretation) . If the Applicant wishes to provide that such a recitation is a positively required limitation, the Examiner suggests amending claim 20 to read -- t he plurality of elastic rods are axially symmetric distributed with respect to an axis passing through a center of the second vibration element -- 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. Claim s 1, 2, 4-7, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Onishi et al. (US 2007/0177747 A1) . As per claim 1, Onishi et al. (US 2007/0177747 A1) discloses a n acoustic output device (e.g., see, inter alia , Figs. 4, 5, 12A, 14; paragraph [0001]) , comprising: a first vibration element (e.g., 8a in Figs. 4, 5, 12A, 14) ; a second vibration element (e.g., 8 b in Figs. 4, 5, 12A, 14) ; and a piezoelectric element (e.g., 7) , the first vibration element (8a) being physically connected to a first position (e.g., the vibration element 8a is physically connected to a first position via element 9a) of the piezoelectric element (7) , and the second vibration element (8b) being connected to a second position of the piezoelectric element (7) at least through an elastic element (e.g., second vibration element is physically connected to a second position via elastic element 9b - see, inter alia , paragraph [0017]) , wherein the piezoelectric element (7) drives the first vibration element (8a) and the second vibration element (8b) to vibrate in response to an electrical signal (e.g., see, inter alia , paragraphs [0094-0097, 0113]) , and the vibration produces two resonance peaks within an audible range of human ears. The two transmitting members (9a/9b) as well as the two vibration elements (8a/8b) are made of different elements, see paragraphs [0094-0096], in order to provide different resonant frequencies in the audible range . As per claim 2, wherein the resonance of the second vibration element (8b) and the elastic element (9b) produces a first resonance peak with the lower frequency among the two resonance peaks, and the resonance of the piezoelectric element (7) and the first vibration element (8a) produces a second resonance peak with the higher frequency among the two resonance peaks. More concretely, the resonance peaks of the first and second vibration elements is merely a matter of definition with respect to " among the two resonance peaks " of the first and second vibration elements , such that Onishi et al. (US 2007/0177747 A1) fulfils this requirement - see, inter alia , paragraph s [0095 , 0129, 0131 ]. As per claim 4, further comprising: a connection element (e.g., the element or attachment means by (9b) is affied to (7)) , the second vibration element (8b) and the elastic element (9b) are connected to the second position of the piezoelectric element (7) through the connection element e.g., the element or attachment means by (9b) is affied to (7)) . As per claim 5, wherein the piezoelectric element (7) comprises a beam-like structure (e.g., see, inter alia , paragraph [0088]) , and the first position is located at the middle of a length extension direction of the beam-like structure - see, e.g., Figs. 5, 14 . As per claim 6, wherein the second position is located at an end (e.g., a bottom most end) of the length extension direction of the beam-like structure - see, e.g., Figs. 5, 14 . . As per claim 7, the recitation of " wherein the vibration is transmitted to a user through the second vibration element in a bone conduction manner " is considered an intended-use limitation, with the acoustic output device being useable in a "bone conduction manner." More concretely, claim 7 is anticipated by Onishi et al. (US 2007/0177747 A1) since there is no positive recitation set forth in claim 7 that results in a structural difference between the claims and the acoustic output device of Onishi et al. (US 2007/0177747 A1) . As has been widely held in patent law, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey , 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto , 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). As per claim 16, wherein the piezoelectric element (7) comprises a beam-like structure (e.g. see, inter alia , paragraph [0088]) , and the first vibration element comprises two vibration sub-elements (e.g., portions of (8a) which are bisected by their connection to (9a) as depicted, e.g., in Fig. 14) , wherein, the two vibration sub-elements are respectively connected to two ends of a length extension direction of the piezoelectric element (7) (via an indirect connection, via ((5), (21)) as depicted in Fig. 14) . As per claim 17, wherein the two vibration sub-elements have the same mass (single mass, bisected symmetrically) , and the two first positions where the two vibration sub-elements are connected to the piezoelectric element (7) are symmetrical with respect to a center of the piezoelectric element (7) - see Fig. 14 . As per claim 18, w herein a length of the piezoelectric element (7) is in a range of 3mm- 30mm. See paragraph [0117] . As per claim 19, wherein the piezoelectric element (7) comprises two piezoelectric sheets and a substrate, and the two piezoelectric sheets are attached to opposite sides of the substrate respectively (e.g., see, inter alia , paragraph [0088]) , the substrate vibrates in response to an extension and contraction of the two piezoelectric sheets along the length extension direction (e.g., Figs. 1B, 1C, and, inter alia , paragraph [0022, 0023, 0087, 0088]) . As per claim 20, the elastic element includes a plurality of elastic rods (e.g., 25 - see the embodiment of Fig. 22) , the plurality of elastic rods may be axially symmetric distributed with respect to an axis passing through a center of the second vibration element. See Fig. 22 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. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onishi et al. (US 2007/0177747 A1) . See t he description of Onishi et al. (US 2007/0177747 A1) , supra . As per claim 3, Onishi et al. (US 2007/0177747 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the frequency of the first resonance peak is in a range of 50 Hz-2000 Hz, and the frequency of the second resonance peak is in a range of 1 kHz-10 kHz . Given the teachings and suggestions of Onishi et al. (US 2007/0177747 A1) for providing an acoustic output device with piezoelectric acoustic elements that are small and lightweight, power-thrifty, and excellent in acoustic characteristics (see paragraph [0014] of Onishi et al. (US 2007/0177747 A1) ), using the teachings of Onishi et al. (US 2007/0177747 A1) as a demonstrative template, it would have been within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the insta application, to routinely modify the masses, piezoelectric output , spring constants of the elastic element etc., to arrive at a frequency of the first resonance peak is in a range of 50 Hz-2000 Hz, and a frequency of the second resonance peak is in a range of 1 kHz-10 kHz , in the course of routine optimization/experimentation and thereby obtain various standard optimized relationships including those set forth in claim 3. That is, given the express conceptual teachings and implied/inferred suggestions of Onishi et al. (US 2007/0177747 A1) as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to routinely modify the f requency responses of the second vibration element/elastic element and the first vibration element , in the course of routine optimization/experimentation and thereby obtain various standard optimized relationships including those set forth in claim 3, in order to arrive at a prescribed sound output of the acoustic device , as espoused by the express and/or implied teachings of Onishi et al. (US 2007/0177747 A1) . 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. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8-15 are tentatively objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but, pending an updated search, amendments or arguments presented by the Applicant and considered by the Examiner in reply to this office communication, would be favorably considered if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. 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 acoustic output devise include vibration elements (e.g., masses) which ae resonate at certain frequencies by piezoelectric structures. 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 FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT William J Klimowicz whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7577 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Steven Lim can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (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