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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludlow et al. (US 2016/0627989) in view of Rollins et al. (US 6078126).
With respect to claim 1, Ludlow et al. discloses an acoustic output device (Fig 3), comprising: a vibration element (item 16) having a beam structure extending along a length direction of the vibration element (Fig 3); a piezoelectric element (items 20 and 20’) configured to deform in response to an electrical signal (Fig 9, wherein an electric signal is proved to the electrode leads of the piezoelectric actuator), the deformation of the piezoelectric element driving the vibration element to vibrate, wherein the piezoelectric element is attached to a first position of the beam structure (Fig 3), and a size of an attachment area along the length direction does not exceed 80% of a size of the beam structure along the length direction (Fig 3).
Ludlow et al. does not disclose a mass element connected to a second position of the beam structure, wherein the first position and the second position are spaced apart along the length direction, and the vibration of the vibration element drives the mass element to vibrate in a direction perpendicular to the length direction.
Rollins et al. teaches a piezoelectric acoustic output device (Figs 6-7) including a mass element (item 130) connected to a second position of the beam structure (Figs 6-7), wherein the first position (fixed end of the cantilever) and the second position (free end of the cantilever) are spaced apart along the length direction, and the vibration of the vibration element drives the mass element to vibrate in a direction perpendicular to the length direction (column 4, lines 4-37).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the mass element of Rollins et al. with the piezoelectric device of Ludlow et al. for the benefit of providing the ability to tune the resonant frequency of the vibrating element to the desired output frequency in order to maximize the output at that frequency (column 4, lines 4-37 of Rollins et al.).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Ludlow et al. and Rollins et al. discloses the acoustic output device of claim 1. Rollins et al. discloses that the vibration element resonates with the mass element to produce a first resonance peak, and a frequency of the first resonance peak is within a range of 50 Hz to 2000 Hz (column 4, lines 4-37).
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Ludlow et al. and Rollins et al. discloses the acoustic output device of claim 2. The language “wherein the vibration of the vibration element and the mass element has a second resonance peak, and a ratio of a frequency of the second resonance peak to the frequency of the first resonance peak is greater than 5” recites only functional language and does not further limit the structural features of the claimed device.
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Ludlow et al. and Rollins et al. discloses the acoustic output device of claim 3. The language “wherein between the first resonance peak and the second resonance peak, the vibration of the vibration element and the mass element produces at least one resonance valley, and an amplitude difference between the first resonance peak or the second resonance peak and the at least one resonance valley is less than 80 dB” recites only functional language and does not further limit the structural features of the claimed device.
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Ludlow et al. and Rollins et al. discloses the acoustic output device of claim 1. Ludlow et al. discloses that a deformation direction of the piezoelectric element is perpendicular to a vibration direction of the vibration element (Fig 3).
With respect to claim 17, the combination of Ludlow et al. and Rollins et al. discloses the acoustic output device of claim 1. Ludlow et al. discloses that a deformation direction of the piezoelectric element is parallel to a vibration direction of the vibration element (Fig 3).
With respect to claim 18, the combination of Ludlow et al. and Rollins et al. discloses the acoustic output device of claim 17. Ludlow et al. discloses that the piezoelectric element is fixed at one end along the vibration direction of the vibration element, and another end of the piezoelectric element is connected to the beam structure at the first position (Fig 3).
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludlow et al. in view of Rollins et al. Longoni et al. (US 2021/0265556).
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Ludlow et al. and Rollins et al. discloses the acoustic output device of claim 7.
Ludlow et al. does not disclose a second mass element, wherein the mass element and the second mass element are respectively located at both sides of the piezoelectric element in the length direction of the vibration element.
Longoni et al. teaches a piezoelectric vibrating device including a second mass element (item 164), wherein the mass element (item 162) and the second mass element are respectively located at both sides of the piezoelectric element in the length direction of the vibration element (Fig 1A).
Before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the two mass elements of Longoni et al. with the acoustic output device of Ludlow et al. for the benefit of providing improved tuning of the frequency of the vibrating element (Paragraphs 85 and 87 of Longoni et al.).
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Ludlow et al., Rollins et al., and Butler et al. discloses the acoustic output device of claim 14. With respect to the language “wherein a mass of the second mass element is greater than a mass of the mass element”, it has been held that a mere change in relative proportions or dimensions is obvious (Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 220 USPQ 777). Therefore, before the effective filing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to distribute the masses (sizes) of the two mass elements in any suitable fashion.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 11, 20-23, and 25-29 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “a second piezoelectric element attached to a third position of the beam structure, wherein the piezoelectric element and the second piezoelectric element are spaced apart in the length direction of the vibration element” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 9.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “a second vibration element, wherein the vibration element and the second vibration element are arranged symmetrically at both sides of the mass element” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 20.
The prior art does not disclose or suggest “a third vibration element connected to the mass element” in combination with the remaining elements of claim 23.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ludlow does not disclose an acoustic output device. However, the referenced language is from the preamble of the claim which does not, by itself, further limit the structure of the device. In addition, any device capable of moving fluid is an acoustic device, as moving fluid may be considered an acoustic energy, but not necessarily at an audible frequency or volume.
Applicant argues that Ludlow does not specify the dimensions of the piezoelectric element, and therefore does not disclose that the piezoelectric element is 80% or less of the length of the blade. However, from figure 3 of Ludlow, it can be seen that the length of the piezoelectric element is clearly less than 50%, and would therefore be less than 80% by a considerable margin.
Applicant also argues that it would not be obvious to combine the teachings of Ludlow and Rollins as they are from different technical fields. However, this is not the case, as both Ludlow and Rollins are directed to cantilevers driven by piezoelectric elements mounted on the cantilever. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look to the teachings of either device, and there would have been a reasonable interpretation of success in attaining the same or similar effects and benefits in the other device by combining their teachings.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
/DEREK J ROSENAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights