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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims filed 12/01/2025 have been considered and entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1
in the reply filed on 12/01/2025 is acknowledged.
PNG
media_image1.png
629
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 19 is/are withdrawn
from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. The Examiner emphasizing that claim 19 pertains to a vibration component that includes one or more sets of elastic elements and mass elements which properly belongs to a different Species (e.g., see fig. 26 of Species 9 & fig. 28 of Species 10; see also extensive & detailed restriction put forth on 10/22/2025). The Examiner does not at this time acquiesce to a shift in Species nor inclusion of additional Species, see MPEP § 819.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made that this application is a 35 USC 111(a) application claiming under § 365(c) the benefit of PCT/CN2021/129153 filed 11/05/2021 that did not enter the national stage under § 371 (“bypass” application).
Receipt is further acknowledged of certified copies of papers (x6) required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 09/18/2023 (x2), 01/17/2024, 05/27/2025, 11/11/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Drawings
The drawing(s) is/are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) for not showing claimed features. The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “second hole part is in a closed state” (at least claim 5), “second housing” (at least claim 25), and “vibration unit” (at least claim 17; not to be confused with distinct element vibration component, see however 112b/2nd indefinite rejection) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Drawing fig. 2 is/are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “wherein the elastic element is a multi-layer composite film structure“ (claim 24),
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because of the inclusion of the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“321” (fig. 3; appears to be a sound pickup hole);
“860” (fig. 8; appears to be pointing at a cavity);
“1470” (fig. 12; appears to be pointing at the second sealing unit);
“24220” (fig. 19);
“2711-1”, “2711-2”, & “2711-3 (figs. 22a-c); and
“2810”, “2820”, “28111” (fig. 23).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because the following reference character(s) mentioned in the description is/are not included in the drawings: “1470-2” ([0108]; see note above pertaining to 1470).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference character “631” has been used to designate both “mass element” ([0070]) and elastic element shown in fig. 6 (arrow appears to be pointed at wrong element therein); and
reference character “63211” has been used to designate both “first sub-elastic element” ([0071]) and fixing piece shown in fig. 6 (arrow appears to be pointed at wrong element therein).
The drawings (figs. 2, 11, 18, 30, 31) are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(l) for being unsatisfactorily reproducible. All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.
The drawings (fig. 31 for font size; fig. 32 line crosses number 3711) are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3). Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least 1/8 inch (0.32 cm) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct.
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.
The drawings have 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 drawings.
Specification
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. This may result in slightly longer titles, but the loss in brevity of title will be more than offset by the gain in its informative value in indexing, classifying, searching, etc. The Examiner notes that vibration sensors are commonly known objects in the art and therefore the title provides insufficient informative value. The Examiner generally suggests that the title further include information pertaining to adjusting air pressure for a vibration sensor. If a satisfactory title is not supplied by the applicant, the Examiner may, at the time of allowance, change the title by an Examiner’s amendment. See MPEP § 1302.04(a).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content, language, and/or format for an abstract of the disclosure:
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
use of phrases which can be implied (“
extensive mechanical and design details without sufficient assistance to the reader in deciding whether there is need for consulting the full patent text for details (e.g., technical problem solved and relation to the mechanical structure).
Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The disclosure is objected to
because of the following informalities:
[0044] “vibraiton" comprises a spelling typo.
The improper use of the term(s) “Google Glass, Oculus Rift, Hololens, GearVR” (at least [0046]) which includes trade name(s)/mark(s) used in commerce, has/have been noted in this application. Trade names/marks should be capitalized and include “®” wherever they appear, and said trade names/marks should further be accompanied by the generic terminology for at least the first instance of each. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
[0050] “etc” lacks a period, and “componnet” comprises a spelling typo.
[0155] “Pdms” should be completely capitalized.
[0157] “pART” should be all lowercase.
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
Claim(s) 25-27 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claims 25-27,
the limitations lack a conjunction, the Examiner suggesting “wherein” preceding the limitations.
Dependent claim(s) of objected to claim(s) is/are likewise objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 7 be found allowable, claim 22 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 17 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
MPEP § 2173.02(I) states in part: “if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate”.
Regarding claim 17,
Applicant introduced in independent claim 1 “a vibration component”, whereas Applicant now introduced “a vibration unit”. The Examiner has looked to the elected and disclosed invention shown in fig. 2 and notes that there is only a single vibration component; the Examiner also looked to the accompanying written disclosure pertaining to the elected embodiment of fig. 2, however there appears to still only be a single vibration component associated with the elected embodiment of fig. 2. The claimed subject matter as written therefore appears to not be shown in the elected embodiment, nor is it clear from the claim language the association between the vibration component and the vibration unit (does one comprise the other, or are they independent elements, or are they merely different nomenclature for the same element?). To the best understanding of the Examiner and for the purpose of examination, the Examiner interprets the vibration unit as comprising the vibration component.
Regarding claim 25,
Applicant introduced in independent claim 1 “a housing” as a separate component from the acoustic transducer and the vibration components, whereas Applicant now introduces that “the acoustic transducer has a first housing” and “a second housing is connected to the first housing to form a space for accommodating the vibration component. The Examiner has looked to the elected and disclosed invention shown in fig. 2, and notes that there is only a single housing, whereas in [0047] there appears to be reference to the aforementioned subject matter; however, the claimed subject matter is not shown in the elected embodiment, nor is it clear from the claim language the association between the housing, the first housing, and the second housing (e.g., are each of said housings distinct elements, or do the first and second housing form the housing, or does the housing comprise at least the first and second housing?). To the best understanding of the Examiner and for the purposes of examination, the Examiner interprets the housing as comprising the first housing and the second housing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8, 21, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applicant cited Fang* et al (CN 211930871 U; hereafter “Fang”).
*machine translation provided by Examiner with foreign document and utilized for English citations
PNG
media_image2.png
323
480
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1,
Fang discloses a vibration sensor (fig. 1, bone voiceprint sensor) (Title “Bone Vocal Print Sensor And Electronic Device”; Abstract), comprising:
an acoustic transducer (fig. 1, sensor chip 22) and
a vibration component (fig. 1, vibration adjusting piece 13); and
a housing (fig. 1, shell 11 with housing 21) configured to
accommodate the acoustic transducer (fig. 1, sensor chip 22) and the vibration component (fig. 1, vibration adjusting piece 13), and
generate vibrations based on an external vibration signal (Abstract “picking up the external bone vibration signal”),
wherein
the vibration component (fig. 1, vibration adjusting piece 13) and the acoustic transducer (fig. 1, sensor chip 22) form a plurality of acoustic cavities (cavities within shell 1 and housing 21) including a first acoustic cavity (cavity between sensor chip 22 and vibration adjusting piece 13),
the first acoustic cavity (cavity between sensor chip 22 and vibration adjusting piece 13) being spatially connected to the acoustic transducer (fig. 1, sensor chip 22),
the vibration component (fig. 1, vibration adjusting piece 13) causing a sound pressure change of the first acoustic cavity (cavity between sensor chip 22 and vibration adjusting piece 13) in response to the vibrations of the housing (fig. 1, shell 11 with housing 21),
the acoustic transducer (fig. 1, sensor chip 22) generating an electrical signal based on the sound pressure change of the first acoustic cavity (cavity between sensor chip 22 and vibration adjusting piece 13) (about middle of page 8 “ASIC chip 70 is electrically connected with the sensor chip 22 to process the electric signal generated by the sensor chip 22”), and
the vibration component (fig. 1, vibration adjusting piece 13) includes a first hole part (fig. 1, first vent hole 121),
the first acoustic cavity (cavity between sensor chip 22 and vibration adjusting piece 13) being spatially connected to the other acoustic cavities (cavities within shell 1 and housing 21) of the plurality of acoustic cavities (cavities within shell 1 and housing 21) through the first hole part (fig. 1, first vent hole 121).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1,
Fang discloses wherein
the vibration component (fig. 1, vibration adjusting piece 13) includes an elastic element (fig. 1, elastic film 12) and a mass element (fig. 1, body 133) (towards top of page 3 “the side convex part, the first adjusting part and the second adjusting part are integrally arranged; Alternatively, the lateral convex part and the second adjusting part are integrally set, and matched and connected with the first adjusting part”; bottom of page 5 through top of page 6 “can make the lateral convex part 134, the first adjusting part 1331 and the second adjusting part 1332 are integrally set to avoid assembling. it also can make the side convex part 134 and the second adjusting part 1332 are integrally set, and the first adjusting part 1331 are separately matched and connected, so as to respectively produce and reduce the production difficulty”),
the mass element (fig. 1, body 133) being connected to the elastic element (fig. 1, elastic film 12),
the elastic element (fig. 1, elastic film 12) being connected to the housing (fig. 1, shell 11 with housing 21) or the acoustic transducer (fig. 1, sensor chip 22),
the first hole part (fig. 1, first vent hole 121) being located at the elastic element (fig. 1, elastic film 12) or the mass element (fig. 1, body 133), and
the first hole part (fig. 1, first vent hole 121) includes a first sub-hole part (portion of first vent hole 121 on elastic film 12),
the first sub-hole part (portion of first vent hole 121 on elastic film 12) is located on the elastic element (fig. 1, elastic film 12) (third paragraph of page 9 “the elastic film 12 and the vibration adjusting piece 13 is provided with a first vent hole 121”), and
the first sub-hole part (portion of first vent hole 121 on elastic film 12) is spatially connected to the first acoustic cavity (cavity between sensor chip 22 and vibration adjusting piece 13) and the other acoustic cavities (cavities within shell 1 and housing 21).
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1,
Fang discloses wherein
the housing (fig. 1, shell 11 with housing 21) includes a second hole part (fig. 1, vent hole 212), and
the first acoustic cavity (cavity between sensor chip 22 and vibration adjusting piece 13), the other acoustic cavities (cavities within shell 1 and housing 21), and the acoustic transducer (fig. 1, sensor chip 22) are spatially connected to outside through the second hole part (fig. 1, vent hole 212).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 4,
Fang discloses wherein when the vibration sensor (fig. 1, bone voiceprint sensor) is in an operating state, the second hole part (fig. 1, vent hole 212) is in a closed state (top of page 8 “However, when the bone voiceprint sensor 100 is applied, that is, it is applied to the electronic device, the air leakage hole 212 needs to be blocked, so as to avoid affecting the performance of the bone vocal print sensor 100. Alternatively, the bleed holes 212 may be blocked by sealing glue, or by adhering a sealing tape, or by adding a sealing plug or the like”).
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 1,
Fang discloses wherein the housing (fig. 1, shell 11 with housing 21) includes a third hole part (the other hole 212; Examiner notes 212 comprises two shown holes, one of which can be denoted second and the other denoted third) located at a portion of the housing (fig. 1, shell 11 with housing 21) corresponding to an acoustic cavity formed by the vibration component (fig. 1, vibration adjusting piece 13) and the housing (fig. 1, shell 11 with housing 21).
Regarding claim 21, which depends on claim 6,
Fang discloses wherein the third hole part (the other hole 212; Examiner notes 212 comprises two shown holes, one of which can be denoted second and the other denoted third) and the first hole part (fig. 1, first vent hole 121) are distributed along a direction perpendicular to a vibration direction of the vibration component (fig. 1, vibration adjusting piece 13) in a staggered manner.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 1,
Fang discloses wherein
the acoustic transducer (fig. 1, sensor chip 22) includes a diaphragm (fig. 1, sensing film 222) that vibrates in response to the sound pressure change of the first acoustic cavity (cavity between sensor chip 22 and vibration adjusting piece 13), and
the diaphragm (fig. 1, sensing film 222) includes a fourth hole part (fig. 1, second vent hole 223).
Regarding claim 25, which depends on claim 1, as best understood,
Fang discloses wherein the housing (fig. 1, shell 11 with housing 21) comprises a first housing (fig. 1, housing 21) and a second housing (fig. 1, shell 11), wherein the acoustic transducer (fig. 1, sensor chip 22) has the first housing (fig. 1, housing 21),
the vibration component (fig. 1, vibration adjusting piece 13) is connected (indirectly and/or communicatively) to the acoustic transducer (fig. 1, sensor chip 22), and
the second housing (fig. 1, shell 11) is connected to the first housing (fig. 1, housing 21) to form a space for accommodating the vibration component (fig. 1, vibration adjusting piece 13).
Claim(s) 1 and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applicant cited Applicant cited Duanmu* et al (CN 210513400 U; hereafter “Duanmu400”).
*machine translation provided by Examiner with foreign document and utilized for English citations
PNG
media_image3.png
378
477
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1,
Duanmu400 discloses a vibration sensor (fig. 1) (Title “A Vibration Sensing Device”; Abstract; bottom of page 5 “when in use, the vibration sensing device is mounted on the object to be detected, such as human, joint, joint of robot position. vibration of object to be detected will drive the shell 6 produces vibration, the combined action of the elastic restoring force because of the mass inertia and the elastic elements 8, 7, so that the mass element 8 relative to the housing 6 to vibrate. vibration of mass element 8 and the elastic element 7 so that the volume of the first chamber 601 and the second chamber 602 changes, since the two chambers are sealed chamber, so that the first chamber 601 and the second chamber will change in the pressure of the gas 602. In this example, the vibration sensor senses the pressure difference between the first chamber 601 and the second chamber 602, and the pressure difference is converted into an electrical signal, such as voltage signal, current signal or capacitance signal. electric signal so as to obtain the vibration state of the object to be tested by calculating. For example, the amplitude, vibration frequency, and so on”), comprising:
an acoustic transducer (fig. 1, MEMS chip 3) and
a vibration component (fig. 1, elastic element 7 with mass element 8); and
a housing (fig. 1, package layer 10 with plate 201) (about middle of page 6 “integral plastic package, a plastic package layer is formed 10 covers the outside of the shell 6 and the vibration sensor, a plastic package layer 10 can be the whole vibration sensing device for protection of dustproof, waterproof and oil stain”) configured to
accommodate the acoustic transducer (fig. 1, MEMS chip 3) and the vibration component (fig. 1, elastic element 7 with mass element 8), and
generate vibrations based on an external vibration signal,
wherein
the vibration component (fig. 1, elastic element 7 with mass element 8) and the acoustic transducer (fig. 1, MEMS chip 3) form a plurality of acoustic cavities including a first acoustic cavity (fig. 1, chamber 602),
the first acoustic cavity (fig. 1, chamber 602) being spatially connected to the acoustic transducer (fig. 1, MEMS chip 3),
the vibration component (fig. 1, elastic element 7 with mass element 8) causing a sound pressure change of the first acoustic cavity (fig. 1, chamber 602) in response to the vibrations of the housing (fig. 1, package layer 10 with plate 201),
the acoustic transducer (fig. 1, MEMS chip 3) generating an electrical signal based on the sound pressure change of the first acoustic cavity (fig. 1, chamber 602), and
the vibration component (fig. 1, elastic element 7 with mass element 8) includes a first hole part (fig. 1, second ventilate micro-pore 9),
the first acoustic cavity (fig. 1, chamber 602) being spatially connected to the other acoustic cavities of the plurality of acoustic cavities through the first hole part (fig. 1, second ventilate micro-pore 9).
Regarding claim 26, which depends on claim 1,
Duanmu400 discloses wherein the acoustic transducer (fig. 1, MEMS chip 3) includes a sound pickup device (sound pickup portion of MEMS chip 3) and a substrate (fig. 1, substrate 1),
the substrate (fig. 1, substrate 1) is connected to the housing (fig. 1, package layer 10 with plate 201) through a peripheral side of the substrate (fig. 1, substrate 1), and
the sound pickup device (sound pickup portion of MEMS chip 3) is located on a side of the substrate (fig. 1, substrate 1) away from the vibration component (fig. 1, elastic element 7 with mass element 8).
Regarding claim 27, which depends on claim 26,
Duanmu400 discloses wherein the substrate (fig. 1, substrate 1) includes a sound pickup hole (fig. 1, through hole 101),
the first acoustic cavity (fig. 1, chamber 602) is spatially connected to the acoustic transducer (fig. 1, MEMS chip 3) through the sound pickup hole (fig. 1, through hole 101),
the acoustic transducer (fig. 1, MEMS chip 3) obtains a sound pressure change of the first acoustic cavity (fig. 1, chamber 602), and
converts the sound pressure change of the first acoustic cavity (fig. 1, chamber 602) into an electrical signal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Applicant cited Fang.
Regarding claim 20, which depends on claim 1,
Fang reasonably teaches wherein
the vibration component (fig. 1, vibration adjusting piece 13) includes one or more elastic elements (fig. 1, elastic film 12) and one or more mass elements (fig. 1, body 133) connected to each elastic element (fig. 1, elastic film 12) of the one or more elastic elements (fig. 1, elastic film 12); and
the vibration component (fig. 1, vibration adjusting piece 13) is configured to make (at once so envisaged; additional obviousness analysis provided) a sensitivity of the vibration sensor (fig. 1, bone voiceprint sensor) greater than a sensitivity of the acoustic transducer (fig. 1, sensor chip 22) in one or more target frequency ranges (about middle of page 3 “using the space in the vibration pickup shell, so as to increase the quality of the vibration adjusting piece, so as to improve the sensitivity of the bone vocal print sensor, so as to improve the performance of the bone vocal print sensor; and it is good for realizing the miniaturization design of the bone vocal print sensor. That is to say, the utility model bone voiceprint sensor, improves the space utilization rate, is good for reducing the product size and improves the product performance”; towards top of page 5 “Therefore, the vibration adjusting piece 13 for adjusting the vibration of the elastic film 12, the elastic film 12 of the vibration and the bone vibration signal of the wearer better matching, so as to improve the sensitivity of the bone vocal print sensor 100. Furthermore, the vibration adjusting piece 13 along with the elastic film 12 to vibrate together, can increase the elastic film 12 vibration quality, so as to effectively avoid the interference of external factors (such as sound wave)”; about middle of page 5 “improve the sensitivity of the bone vocal print sensor 100, so as to improve the performance of the bone vocal print sensor 100; and it is good for realizing the miniaturization design of the bone vocal print sensor 100”). The Examiner emphasizes that an ordinary artisan would at once envisaged that the vibration sensor has a greater sensitivity in a target frequency range than the acoustic transducer.
Fang does not explicitly state that the sensitivity of the vibration sensor is greater than a sensitivity of the acoustic transducer in one or more target frequency ranges.
However:
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, the Examiner notes that Fang teaches all of the structure and general conditions of the claim, and the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to adjust the sensitivity of the vibration sensor in a target frequency range.
Furthermore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious to try, see MPEP § 2143(I)(E). The Examiner also notes that MPEP § 2145(III)(X)(B) states “An “obvious to try” rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. “[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).” It is the Examiner’s position that only common sense is required to try increasing the sensitivity of the vibration sensor in a target frequency range (e.g., vibrations from mechanical motion as exemplary used in bone conduction microphones are typically of different frequency than the vibrations from air pressure).
Therefore, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Fang reasonably teaches that the sensitivity of the vibration sensor is greater than the sensitivity of the acoustic transducer in a target frequency range, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned conventional knowledge to adjust sensitivity with Fang’s vibration sensor for the expected purpose of improving the sensitivity and product performance and/or avoiding interference.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Fang in view of newly cited Hong et al (US 20220349745 A1; hereafter “Hong745”).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 2,
Fang reasonably broadly teaches wherein the first sub-hole part (portion of first vent hole 121 on elastic film 12) is located in a region on the elastic element (fig. 1, elastic film 12) not covered by the mass element (fig. 1, body 133) (Examiner emphasizes that the mass also has a corresponding hole portion and therefore the mass does not cover the first sub-hole part on elastic film 12).
The Examiner notes for compact prosecution and narrower interpretation:
Fang does not teach wherein the first sub-hole part is in located a region on the elastic element not covered by the mass element and wherein the first sub-hole part is not adjacent to the mass element (e.g., does not teach Applicant’s unclaimed disclosure of distant location of 2331 from mass 232 in instant and elected embodiment shown in fig. 2).
However:
It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C), In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to re/arrange a vent hole to a different portion of an elastic element according to design choices.
It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B), St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (7th Cir. 1977), and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to provide duplicate vent holes on an elastic element according to design choices.
PNG
media_image4.png
307
439
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, and as supporting factual evidence of the aforementioned assertions, Hong745 teaches a vibration sensor (Title “Vibration Sensor”; Abstract) wherein a first sub-hole part (fig. 1, vent hole 34) is in located a region on an elastic element (fig. 1, first diaphragm 32) not covered by a mass element (fig. 1, weight 33) and wherein the first sub-hole part (fig. 1, vent hole 34) is not adjacent to the mass element (fig. 1 weight 33) ([0021] “the specific number and specific positions of the second vent hole 34 are not limited to those shown in FIG. 1. The actual implementation can be adjusted according to needs”).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange Fang’s elastic element vent hole to a portion of Fang’s elastic element that is not adjacent to Fang’s mass element—as supported by Hong’s teaching of the same—for the expected purpose of simplifying construction including avoidance of effort to likewise form a hole in the mass element, additionally/alternatively It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an additional vent hole to Fang’s elastic that is not adjacent to Fang’s mass element—as likewise supported by Hong745’s teachings including [0021]—for the expected purpose of adjusting actual implementation to the design choice that is desired for a particular application need (e.g., tuning frequency response, reducing damping, and/or reducing possibility of damage from more aggressive vibrations).
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claim 3, as best understood,
Fang reasonably suggests to an ordinary artisan wherein
the acoustic transducer (fig. 1, sensor chip 22) has a first resonant frequency (implicit, inherent, or at least at once envisaged; Examiner emphasizes that the acoustic transducer comprising a diaphragm is definitionally/operably expected to have a resonant frequency),
a vibration unit (unit comprising vibration adjusting piece 13) has a second resonant frequency (implicit, inherent, or at least at once envisaged; Examiner likewise emphasizes that the vibration unit comprising a diaphragm is definitionally/operably expected to have a resonant frequency) , and
the second resonant frequency is lower than the first resonant frequency (at once so envisaged that a bone voiceprint sensor is designed to mechanically resonate the vibration unit with lower frequencies whereas the air pressure resonated acoustic transducer is at once envisaged to be pneumatically resonated with a comparatively higher frequency range) (towards middle of page 2 “size of the vibration adjusting piece (namely mass block) will greatly influence the performance of the bone sound-print sensor”; towards middle of page 3 “using the space in the vibration pickup shell, so as to increase the quality of the vibration adjusting piece, so as to improve the sensitivity of the bone vocal print sensor, so as to improve the performance of the bone vocal print sensor; and it is good for realizing the miniaturization design of the bone vocal print sensor. That is to say, the utility model bone voiceprint sensor, improves the space utilization rate, is good for reducing the product size and improves the product performance”; towards top of page 5 “Therefore, the vibration adjusting piece 13 for adjusting the vibration of the elastic film 12, the elastic film 12 of the vibration and the bone vibration signal of the wearer better matching, so as to improve the sensitivity of the bone vocal print sensor 100. Furthermore, the vibration adjusting piece 13 along with the elastic film 12 to vibrate together, can increase the elastic film 12 vibration quality, so as to effectively avoid the interference of external factors (such as sound wave)”; about middle of page 5 “improve the sensitivity of the bone vocal print sensor 100, so as to improve the performance of the bone vocal print sensor 100; and it is good for realizing the miniaturization design of the bone vocal print sensor 100”; the Examiner exemplary emphasizes that Fang teaches that the size of the mass block of the vibration unit affects the performance/sensitivity).
The Examiner acknowledges that Fang does not explicitly state the resonant frequency of the vibration unit is lower than the resonant frequency of the acoustic transducer.
However:
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case, the Examiner notes that Fang teaches all of the structure and general conditions of the claim, and the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art to adjust the sensitivity of an acoustic unit or a vibration unit in a respective target frequency range.
Furthermore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious to try, see MPEP § 2143(I)(E). The Examiner also notes that MPEP § 2145(III)(X)(B) states “An “obvious to try” rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. “[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).” It is the Examiner’s position that only common sense is required to try increasing the sensitivity of the vibration unit in a target frequency range and/or to try increasing the sensitivity of the acoustic unit in a (respective) target frequency range (e.g., vibrations from mechanical motion as exemplary used in bone conduction microphones are typically of different frequency than the vibrations through air pressure).
Therefore, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that Fang reasonably teaches that the resonant frequency of the vibration unit is lower than the resonant frequency of the acoustic transducer, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned conventional knowledge to adjust the respective frequencies of Fang’s vibration unit and acoustic transducer for the expected purpose of improving the sensitivity and product performance and/or avoiding interference.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Fang in view of newly cited Hong and in further view of Applicant cited Zeng* et al (CN 212572961 U; hereafter “Zeng”).
*machine translation provided by Examiner with foreign document and utilized for English citations
Regarding claim 18, which depends on claim 3,
Fang broadly and reasonably teaches wherein the mass element (fig. 6, body 133) includes a plurality of sub-mass elements (distributed at intervals portions of body 133) separated from each other, and the plurality of sub-mass elements are distributed in different regions of the elastic element (fig. 6, elastic film 12) (between top and middle of page 3 “Alternatively, the lateral convex part is provided with a plurality of the plurality of the lateral convex part are distributed at intervals in the circumferential direction of the adjusting main body”; Examiner notes that distribution of plurality of some parts in the circumferential direction appears to meet the broadest reasonable interpretation).
For purposes of compact prosecution and narrower interpretation:
Fang does not teach: wherein the mass element includes a plurality of sub-mass elements separated from each other, and the plurality of sub-mass elements are evenly distributed in different regions of the elastic element.
However:
It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144(V)(C), Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179 (BPAI. 1969), and In reDulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to split a mass into multiple masses.
It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B), St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (7th Cir. 1977), and In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In the present case, it is the Examiner's position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to provide a plurality of masses instead of a single mass.
PNG
media_image5.png
337
445
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, and as supporting factual evidence of the aforementioned assertions, Zeng teaches a vibration sensor (Title “Vibration Sensor And Audio Device Having The Same”; Abstract “a vibration sensor and an audio device” and “a shell, covered on the side wall and surrounded into a containing cavity together with the circuit board assembly; MEMS microphone, which is set on the bottom wall of the circuit board assembly and located in the containing cavity; the MEMS microphone is electrically connected with the circuit board assembly; a diaphragm assembly, which is fixed between the shell and the side wall and separates the containing cavity into a first cavity and a second cavity; the diaphragm assembly is provided with at least one first vent hole; the first cavity is connected with the second cavity through the first vent hole; the shell is provided with at least one second air escape hole passing through it; when the vibration sensor inputs vibration signal or pressure signal, the vibration film assembly vibrates, and the air pressure in the containing cavity is changed”) wherein a mass element (fig. 6, mass block 43) includes a plurality of sub-mass elements (fig. 6, plurality of mass units of mass block 43) separated from each other, and the plurality of sub-mass elements are distributed in different regions of the elastic element (fig. 6, diaphragm main body 41) (page 7 Embodiment IV “the mass block 43 is composed of a plurality of mass units arranged at intervals, the embodiment can increase the inertia of the diaphragm main body 41; further improving the sensitivity of the vibration sensor, further increasing the smoothness of the diaphragm, making it more easy to vibrate. In addition, it is substantially the same as the embodiment shown in FIG. 4, which will not be repeated here”).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to either provide a plurality of masses and/or to split Fang’s mass into a plurality of distributed masses—as supported explicitly by Zeng’s distributed plurality of masses being a known alternative for a single mass on a diaphragm—for the expected purpose of adjusting the performance characteristics (e.g., sensitivity and peak frequency), reducing noise, and/or increasing the smoothness of the diaphragm.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Fang in view of newly cited Hong and in further view of Applicant cited Yu* et al (CN 212086490 U; hereafter “Yu”) with newly cited Post et al (US 20190335271 A1; hereafter “Post”).
*machine translation provided by Examiner with foreign document and utilized for English citations
Regarding claim 23, which depends on claim 3,
Fang is silent to wherein the elastic element and the mass element are made of a same material.
However:
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, see MPEP § 2144.07 and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In the present case Fang teaches wherein the elastic element may be plastic, paper, metal, etc. (bottom of page 4 “can adopt the film with elastic deformation ability, including but not limited to plastic film, paper film, metal film, biological film and so on“), meanwhile Fang is silent to the type of material utilized for the mass element, whereas it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to choose a matching material (e.g., the aforementioned plastic, paper, or metal) for the mass element, said materials all being common materials for a mass as is known in the art.
PNG
media_image6.png
300
472
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, and as supporting factual evidence of the aforementioned assertion, Yu teaches a vibration sensor (fig. 1) (Title “Vibration Sensor And Electronic Device”; Abstract), comprising: an acoustic transducer (fig. 1, microphone chip 13) and a vibration component (fig. 1, vibration unit 33); and a housing (fig. 1, shell 31 with housing portion of assembly 11) configured to accommodate the acoustic transducer (fig. 1, microphone chip 13) and the vibration component (fig. 1, vibration unit 33), and generate vibrations based on an external vibration signal, wherein the vibration component (fig. 1, vibration unit 33) and the acoustic transducer (fig. 1, microphone chip 13) form a plurality of acoustic cavities including a first acoustic cavity (cavity between diaphragm 332 and diaphragm 1312), the first acoustic cavity (cavity between diaphragm 332 and diaphragm 1312) being spatially connected to the acoustic transducer (fig. 1, microphone chip 13), the vibration component (fig. 1, vibration unit 33) causing a sound pressure change of the first acoustic cavity (cavity between diaphragm 332 and diaphragm 1312) in response to the vibrations of the housing (fig. 1, shell 31 with housing portion of assembly 11), the acoustic transducer (fig. 1, microphone chip 13) generating an electrical signal based on the sound pressure change of the first acoustic cavity (cavity between diaphragm 332 and diaphragm 1312), and the vibration component (fig. 1, vibration unit 33) includes a first hole part (fig. 1, hole 331), the first acoustic cavity (cavity between diaphragm 332 and diaphragm 1312) being spatially connected to the other acoustic cavities of the plurality of acoustic cavities through the first hole part (fig. 1, hole 331), wherein the vibration component (fig. 1, vibration unit 33) includes an elastic element (fig. 1, diaphragm 332) and a mass element (fig. 1, mass block 334), the mass element (fig. 1, mass block 334) being connected to the elastic element (fig. 1, diaphragm 332), the elastic element (fig. 1, diaphragm 332) being connected to the housing (fig. 1, shell 31 with housing portion of assembly 11) or the acoustic transducer (fig. 1, microphone chip 13), the first hole part (fig. 1, hole 331) being located at the elastic element (fig. 1, diaphragm 332) or the mass element (fig. 1, mass block 334), and the first hole part (fig. 1, hole 331) includes a first sub-hole part (portion of hole 331 on diaphragm 332), the first sub-hole part (portion of hole 331 on diaphragm 332) is located on the elastic element (fig. 1, diaphragm 332), and the first sub-hole part (portion of hole 331 on diaphragm 332) is spatially connected to the first acoustic cavity (cavity between diaphragm 332 and diaphragm 1312) and the other acoustic cavities, wherein the first sub-hole part (portion of hole 331 on diaphragm 332) is located in a region on the elastic element (fig. 1, diaphragm 332) not covered by the mass element (fig. 1, mass block 334) (broad reasonable interpretation as hole goes through both mass and diaphragm), and wherein the mass element can be metal, plastic, or wood (page 7 third paragraph from bottom “mass block 334 may be made of non-ferromagnetic material, the non-ferromagnetic material comprises a non-ferrous metal, rubber, glass, plastic, ceramic and wood material is at least one”). Examiner emphasizes that Yu teaches a similar device to Fang where Yu’s mass can be similar materials as the materials for Fang’s diaphragm.
Additionally, with further regards to utilizing a same material for different elements, Post teaches a vibration sensor (Title “VIBRATION SENSOR”; Abstract “a vibration sensor comprising a pressure generating element for generating pressure differences between a first and a second volume in response to vibrations of the vibration sensor) wherein the elements are made of a same material ([0012] “The static and moveable elements, and the one or more resilient interconnections may form, in combination, a one piece component, i.e. a component being made of the same material”).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a material for Fang’s mass that was similar to Fang’s diaphragm—as indirectly supported by Yu’s mass materials being similarly of metal, plastic, or wood materials (which compliments Fang’s diaphragm material choices of the same)—for the expected design purpose that each material provides, and it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the selection of these materials for different components to be of the same material—as factually supported by Post’s teaching of using the same material—for the expected purpose of reducing the materials that need to be sourced and simplifying obtainment thereof, simplifying construction/assembly, and/or reducing disparities between the components (e.g., differences in thermal expansion). Furthermore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious to try, see MPEP § 2143(I)(E). The Examiner also notes that MPEP § 2145(III)(X)(B) states “An “obvious to try” rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. “[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).” It is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to choose a preferred material to be the same for multiple components, especially when it is known in the art that the material choices to select from overlap.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Fang in view of newly cited Hong, Applicant cited Yu with newly cited Post, and in further view of Applicant cited Duanmu* et al (CN 209526834 U; hereafter “Duanmu834”) with newly cited Zechner et al (US 20190098423 A1; hereafter “Zechner”).
Regarding claim 24, which depends on claim 23,
Fang teaches the elastic element (fig. 1, elastic film 12).
Fang is silent to items: 1) wherein the elastic element is a multi-layer composite film structure; and 2) the stiffnesses of two layer films in the multi-layer composite film structure are different.
PNG
media_image7.png
421
462
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding item 1) and pertinent to item 2), Duanmu834 teaches a vibration sensor (Title; Abstract) comprising
a vibration component (fig. 1, elastic film 9 with mass block 10) which includes an elastic element (fig. 1, elastic film 9) and a mass element (fig. 1, mass block 10), the mass element (fig. 1, mass block 10) being connected to the elastic element (fig. 1 elastic film 9) (towards bottom of page 4 “provided on the elastic film 9 of the mass block 10. the elastic film 9 can be adopted with elastic deformation ability of the membrane known to those skilled in the art, including, but not limited to, plastic film, paper film, metal film, biological film and so on. the elastic film 9 can be a single-layer structure, also can adopt multi-layer composite membrane. the elastic membrane is made from a single material or may be made of different materials”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Duanmu834’s multi-layer composite film structured elastic element design with Fang’s elastic element for the expected purpose of providing an elastic element whose properties can be more tailored to the desired elastic deformation for a particular application, and therefore increasing the versatility and/or marketability of the vibration sensor.
The Examiner emphasizes that adopting the particular elastic deformation ability for a multi-layer composite film elastic structure is known to an ordinary artisan (see above citation from Duanmu834; Examiner further notes that plastic/paper/metal materials are associated with different stiffness properties), and that an ordinary artisan would at once envisage from use of different film layers in the composite materials that the stiffness of those different layers would logically follow as different (i.e., the combination reasonably suggests the claimed limitation).
Nevertheless, the Examiner acknowledges that the combination still does not explicitly state item 2) wherein the stiffnesses of two layer films in the multi-layer composite film structure are different
However:
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, see MPEP § 2144.07 and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In the present case, Duanmu834 teaches wherein the elastic element may be plastic, paper, metal, etc., and an ordinary artisan is knowledgeable about elastic deformation (i.e., the stiffness) associated with these materials, and it is the Examiner's position that only ordinary skill in the art would be required to choose the different materials for the desired properties of the elastic element including the elastic deformation response as well as other properties such as durability, weight, size, etc.
It had been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.05(II)(B) and In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In the present case the Examiner again emphasizes that known to an ordinary artisan is the associated elastic deformation ability of the particular material(s), and it is the Examiner's position that optimizing the desired elastic deformation (stiffness) as well as other properties as aforementioned is routine operation in the art.
PNG
media_image8.png
184
265
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, and as supporting factual evidence of the aforementioned assertions, Zechner teaches an elastic element (fig. 2, membrane 100) (Title “Acoustic Membrane”; Abstract; see fig. 1 showing an exemplary simpler case of three layers and/or see fig. 2 showing an exemplary case comprising 5 layers), wherein the elastic element (fig. 2, membrane 100) is a multi-layer composite film structure ([0004] “employ multifunctional layered films as diaphragm materials, also called acoustic membranes”; [0020] “The term “acoustic membrane” should be understood as a synonym for a film or layered structure that may be used as oscillatory component in a loudspeaker diaphragm or a microphone diaphragm. As specified, the acoustic membrane according to the invention is a multi-layered membrane”), and wherein stiffnesses of two layer films in the multi-layer composite film structure are different ([0036] “Preferably, the central layer is made out of a material having a higher Young's modulus”; [0038] “The protective thermoplastic elastomers seem to form synergies with the stiffer core-layers”; [0019] “advantage of the elastic outer layers in a multi-layer arrangement (i.e. thermoplastic elastomers as outer layer in combination with a harder polymer layer in the centre and a damping material in between of the outer layers and the centre layer) is increased damping compared to an elastic mono-layer membrane film. Good damping properties improve the sound behaviour of acoustic devices with membrane”; [0024] “outer layer material is more elastic” and “Quantitatively elasticity may be determined by Young's modulus”; [0026] “Young's modulus may be measured according to EN ISO 527”; [0018] “protects against superficial damages and thus prohibits crack initiation” and “higher life time”; [0028] “mechanical durability and good ageing properties”; [0038] “protective behaviour and preferably cheaper basic material” and “elastomers seem to form synergies with the stiffer core-layers” and “reinforcement”; Examiner further notes that the background information also demonstrates additional known multi-film layer diaphragm/membranes that comprise different materials of different stiffness).
In view of the above, either one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed would at once envisaged that the previous combination with Duanmu834 already suggests from use of different film layers in the composite materials that the stiffness of those different layers would logically follow as different, or nevertheless, or in the alternative, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Zechner’s optimization of stiffness properties—including explicitly wherein the stiffnesses of two layer films in the multi-layer composite film structure are different—with Fang’s elastic element (as previously modified by Duanmu834 to be a multi-layer composite film structure), thereby providing the expected advantages of providing the desired elastic/stiffness properties while also being able to optimize for other desired properties such as cheapness (e.g., choosing cheap plastics), durability, good ageing, avoiding cracking, protecting against superficial damages, reinforcing (e.g., choosing stiff core material), damping properties, and/or improving sound behavior.
The Examiner further notes with respect to choosing materials for the vibration component (i.e., mass and diaphragm layers) choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious to try, see MPEP § 2143(I)(E). The Examiner also notes that MPEP § 2145(III)(X)(B) states “An “obvious to try” rationale may support a conclusion that a claim would have been obvious where one skilled in the art is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. “[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 538, 421,82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007).” Moreover, in Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006): “Indeed, we have repeatedly held that an implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal—and even common-sensical—we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.” See also MPEP § 2144(II). In the present case, it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to choose a preferred material to be the same for multiple components, especially when it is known in the art that the material choices to select from overlap.
Claim(s) 7 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Fang in view of Applicant cited Duanmu* et al (CN 209659621 U; hereafter “Duanmu621”) with newly cited Pedersen et al (US 20200252716 A1; hereafter “Pedersen”).
*machine translation provided by Examiner with foreign document and utilized for English citations
Regarding claim 7 and claim 22, where claim 7 depends on claim 6 and where claim 22 depends on claim 6,
Fang is silent to wherein a diameter of the third hole part is in a range of 5 μm-20 μm.
However:
It has been held that a mere change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCP A 1955), In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976), and Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the present case it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to change the diameter (size) of a hole.
It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, see MPEP § 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). In the present case it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to optimize the size of a hole for purposes of venting, equalizing pressure, and/or reducing vibration.
PNG
media_image9.png
302
471
media_image9.png
Greyscale
With further respect to the second hole versus the third hole and respective sizes and purposes, Duanmu621 teaches a vibration sensor (Title “A Vibration Sensor And Audio Device”; Abstract “a vibration sensor and an audio device, a vibration sensor comprising a shell, the shell is formed with a containing cavity, the containing cavity is formed with an opening; the MEMS microphone, the MEMS microphone is blocking the opening. sound hole of the MEMS microphone connected with the containing cavity, the first diaphragm, the first diaphragm capable of vibrating to set in the containing cavity, and a mass block, the mass block is fixed on the surface of the first vibrating membrane”) which includes a third hole part (fig. 1, vent hole 314) located at a portion of the housing (fig. 1, housing portion of assembly 31 with housing portion of assembly 11) corresponding to an acoustic cavity formed by the vibration component (fig. 1, diaphragm 332 with mass block 334) and the housing (fig. 1, housing portion of assembly 31 with housing portion of assembly 11) (about middle of page 8 “provided with a vent hole 314 can facilitate communication with the outside, so as to reduce the first vibrating membrane 332 to vibrate when the resistance. the number and position of the vent hole 314 can be set according to the actual need, as long as is convenient to reduce vibration of the first vibrating membrane 332 resistance”). The Examiner emphasizes that Duanmu621 teaches a hole which is not closed during operation and facilitates proper measurements, however, Duanmu621 is still silent to size of the hole.
With further respect to the size of a hole utilized for a venting, Pederson teaches a sensor (Title “MICROPHONE ASSEMBLY WITH BACK VOLUME VENT”) comprising a venting hole (fig. 1, aperture 146) wherein a diameter of the venting hole (fig. 1, aperture 146) is in a range of 5 μm-20 μm ([0034] “the diameter of the second aperture 146 will be on the order of 10-25 microns” and “One skilled in the art can easily calculate the particular diameter of the second aperture given a particular microphone assembly implementation and LFRO requirement”). The Examiner notes that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists, see MPEP § 2144.05(I), In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976), and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Duanmu621’s vent hole for a vibration sensor with Fang’s vibration sensor thereby providing a hole which is not sealed during operation and which facilitates fluidic communication with the outside (venting) so as to reduce the vibration of the vibrating membrane resistance (i.e., provides useful venting for adjusting the vibration). It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimally change the size of said venting hole (Fang’s modified by Duanmu621 venting hole as third hole) to within the claimed micron range—as factually supported by Pederson’s overlapping range and statement of level of skill in the art being that an ordinary artisan can easily calculate the particular diameter per known requirements—for the expected purpose of optimizing the amount of venting and pressure equalization effects. Additionally/alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the size (and plausibly number to affect volume flow) of Fang’s (bleed) hole(s) to the aforementioned diameter range as suggested to be with ordinary skill in the art as taught by Pederson’s hole diameter range thereby providing protection from unwanted ingress (i.e., effectively filtering) while still enabling bleeding of air.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant cited Fang in view of Applicant cited Duanmu* et al (CN 110972045 A; hereafter “Duanmu045”) with newly cited Hong et al (US 20220377480 A1; hereafter “Hong480”).
*machine translation provided by Examiner with foreign document and utilized for English citations
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 8,
Fang does not explicitly state wherein the diaphragm is made of a breathable material.
However:
Fang teaches wherein the diaphragm (fig. 1, sensing film 222) includes at least one vent hole (223). Examiner emphasizes that this teaching pertains to enabling air flow therethrough.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice, see MPEP § 2144.07 and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). In the present case it is the Examiner’s position that only ordinary skill in the art is required to choose a breathable material where venting is already known (by Fang) to be useful.
PNG
media_image10.png
259
431
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Additionally, Duanmu045 teaches a vibration sensor (see either fig. 1 or 2, Examiner noting orientation of mass in fig. 2 is more similar to instant elected invention, whereas fig. 1 is better labeled) (Title “A Vibration Sensing Device And Electronic Device”; Abstract “a vibration sensing device and an electronic device. wherein the vibration sensing device comprises a substrate and a shell, the substrate and the shell forms the packaging structure with containing cavity, the containing cavity contained with a MEMS chip, further comprising a protective shell. the protective shell is contained in the containing cavity and is fixed on the substrate, the protective cover and the base plate form a cavity, the MEMS chip is fixed on the protective shell, the protective shell is provided with a through hole; the back cavity of said through hole to fix the MEMS chip is connected with the cavity; further comprising a vibration element, the vibration element is located in the cavity, the vibration element is configured to vibrate in response to an externally”) wherein the diaphragm comprises a material with a plurality of breathable micropores (second to last paragraph of page 6 “sensing film 503 is provided with at least one vent micro-pores 5031”; last paragraph of page 6 through top of page 7 sensing film 503 is set on the ventilation millipore 5031, breathable microporous 5031). Examiner acknowledges that Duanmu in the translation does not explicitly call the material itself breathable, rather the pores of the material breathable.
Furthermore, for explicitness of “breathable material”, Hong480 teaches a vibration sensor (Title “BONE CONDUCTION MICROPHONE”; Abstract “a bone conduction microphone, including: a housing; a circuit board opposite to the housing; and a vibration assembly locating between the housing and the circuit board. The vibration assembly includes a vibration membrane made of high temperature resistant dustproof breathable material, a weight fixed to the vibration membrane, and a first cavity formed between the vibration membrane and the circuit board. The bone conduction microphone further includes a pressure assembly locating between the vibration assembly and the circuit board for detecting a pressure change generated in the first cavity and converting the pressure change into an electrical signal”) wherein a diaphragm (fig. 1, membrane 32) is made of a breathable material ([0032] “material of vibration membrane 32 is a high temperature resistant dustproof and breathable material”).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a material with breathable holes for Fang’s diaphragm—as suggested by Duanmu045’s diaphragm material with breathable holes—for the expected purpose of further controlling the ventilation of air to adjust the sensitivity, to better enable pressure equalization, and/or to further prevent possible damage from poorly equalized air in the cavities. The Examiner note that the combination (with Duanmu045) provides a broad reasonable interpretation combination; nevertheless, for compact prosecution and narrower interpretation, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose an explicitly breathable material for a diaphragm—as factually explicitly supported by Hong480’s teaching of a breathable material diaphragm—thereby providing a material that is inherently breathable and thus being simpler to source and assemble without requiring extra manufacturing steps of creating additional breathable pores therein.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner. The Examiner notes that numerous Applicant cited foreign documents have been recited by the Examiner with the inclusion of higher quality document copies including translations.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID L SINGER whose telephone number is 303-297-4317. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 6:00pm CT, EXCEPT alternating Friday.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, John Breene can be reached on 571-272-4107. 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.
/DAVID L SINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 13DEC2025