DETAILED ACTION
1. The Office Action is responsive to amendments filed for No. 18/374993 on July 02, 2026. After careful reviewing the disclosure, the amended claims and the arguments filed in the amendment, examiner had added new grounds rejections (102 and 103 rejections). Examiner apologies for such late changes and made this action as non-final. Examiner would like to invite the attorney to contact the examiner if further clarification is needed.
Response to Amendment
2. The Office Action is responsive to amendments filed for No. 18/374993 on July 02, 2026. Please note claims 1-17 remain in the application.
In response to the amendments filed to claim 8, the previous objections directed toward minor informalities have been withdrawn.
In response to the amendments filed to claim 8, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b), as being indefinite, concerning claim 8 has been withdrawn.
In response to the amendments filed to claim 12, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b), as being indefinite, concerning claims 12 and 14 have been withdrawn.
In response to the amendments filed to claim 15, the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b), as being indefinite, concerning claim 15 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed July 02, 2026 have been fully considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-4, 6-10, 12-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsu et al. (Hereinafter Hsu) US-PG-PUB No. 2016/0234619.
Regarding claim 1, Hsu teaches
An MEMS sound transducer (Figs. 4-6 and 8A-8B show an MEMS sound transducer….Para. [0084], Lines 1-4) comprising:
at least one actuator (Figs. 4-6 and 8A-8B show an interlocking comb drive actuator 460);
a radiation structure (Figs. 4-6 and 8A-8B show a micro-speaker membrane 420) coupled to the actuator (i.e. interlocking comb drive actuator 460) and configured as a separate element as shown in Fig. 5;
a structure (Figs. 4-6 and 8A show a substrate 110) surrounding the radiation structure (i.e. micro-speaker membrane 420) as shown in Fig. 5, wherein the radiation structure (i.e. micro-speaker membrane 420) is separated from the surrounding structure (i.e. micro-speaker membrane 420) by one or more gaps (Figs. 5-6 show a cavity 112 form one or more gaps) as shown in Fig. 5 annotated below; and
PNG
media_image1.png
695
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least one wall (Fig. 8A shows a peripheral edge 42) arranged along at least one of the one or more gaps (i.e. cavity 112 form one or more gaps) as shown in Fig. 5 annotated above, wherein the at least one wall (i.e. peripheral edge 42) is formed as part of the radiation structure (i.e. micro-speaker membrane 420) as shown in 8A and Para. [0067], Lines 5-6.
Regarding claim 2, Hsu teaches
The MEMS sound transducer in accordance with claim 1, wherein the radiation structure (i.e. micro-speaker membrane 420) and the surrounding structure (i.e. substrate 110) are arranged in one plane as shown in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 3, Hsu teaches
The MEMS sound transducer in accordance with claim 1, wherein the one or more gaps (i.e. cavity 112 form one or more gaps) are provided circumferentially around the radiation structure (Fig. 5 shows gaps provided circumferentially around the micro-speaker membrane 420 (See annotated Fig. 5 below)).
PNG
media_image1.png
695
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Hsu teaches
The MEMS sound transducer in accordance with claim 1, wherein the wall (i.e. peripheral edge 42) extends into a substrate plane as shown in Fig. 8A; and wherein the wall (i.e. peripheral edge 42) extends out of the substrate plane as shown in Fig. 8B shows the peripheral edge 42 of the membrane 420 when it is actuated upwards.
Regarding claim 6, Hsu teaches
The MEMS sound transducer in accordance with claim 1, wherein the at least one wall (i.e. peripheral edge 42) is arranged to be circumferential around the radiation structure (i.e. micro-speaker membrane 420) as shown in Fig. 8A.
Regarding claim 7, Hsu teaches
The MEMS sound transducer in accordance with claim 1, wherein the actuator comprises a bending actuator (The interdigital comb drive structure 460 is fabricated as an in-plane structure and can be actuated close to self-resonance. Only little initial displacement of the movable comb 464 against the stator comb 462 is sufficient to start the actuation. Such displacements can be generated by initial bending or slight fabrication induced asymmetry of the comb structure 460 ….Para. [0071], Lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 8, Hsu teaches
The MEMS sound transducer in accordance with claim 7, wherein the radiation structure (micro-speaker membrane 420) is coupled to the free end of the bending transducer (i.e. intermeshing comb drive structure 460) as shown in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 9, Hsu teaches
The MEMS sound transducer in accordance with claim 1, wherein the actuator comprises an electrostatic actuator (When the sound transducer is in the rest position as depicted in FIG. 8A, the first and second electrical potentials V1 and V2 are of opposite sign. Therefore, an attractive electrostatic force is created between the first and second sets of comb fingers 462, 464 of the comb drive 460, which pulls the membrane 420 to the rest position…..Para. [0093], Lines 6-14).
Regarding claim 10, Hsu teaches
The MEMS sound transducer in accordance with claim 1, wherein the at least one actuator (i.e. interlocking comb drive actuator 460) is arranged alongside of the radiation structure (i.e. micro-speaker membrane 420) as shown in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 12, Hsu teaches
The MEMS sound transducer in accordance with claim 1, wherein the at least two actuators (i.e. interlocking comb drive actuator 460) are coupled to the radiation structure (i.e. micro-speaker membrane 420) as shown in Fig. 5, and wherein the at least two actuators (i.e. interlocking comb drive actuator 460) are arranged to be opposite as shown in Fig. 5.
Regarding claim 13, Hsu teaches
The MEMS sound transducer in accordance with claim 1, wherein at least one further wall (i.e. peripheral edge 426) extends along a gap between the at least one actuator (i.e. interlocking comb drive actuator 460) and an edge of the radiation structure (i.e. micro-speaker membrane 420) as shown in Fig. 8A.
Regarding claim 15, Hsu teaches
The MEMS sound transducer in accordance with claim 1, wherein the radiation structure is configured to perform, when actuated by the actuator, a stroke movement in a direction out of a substrate plane (FIG. 8B shows the sound transducer when it is actuated upwards and Para. [0093], Lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 16, this claim is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 1 because the apparatus of Claim 1 can be used to practice the method steps of Claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, Hsu teaches
An MEMS sound transducer (Figs. 4-6 and 8A-8B show an MEMS sound transducer….Para. [0084], Lines 1-4) comprising:
at least one actuator (Figs. 4-6 and 8A-8B show an interlocking comb drive actuator 460);
a radiation structure (Figs. 4-6 and 8A-8B show a micro-speaker membrane 420) coupled to the actuator (i.e. interlocking comb drive actuator 460) and configured as a separate element as shown in Fig. 5;
a structure (Figs. 4-6 and 8A show a substrate 110) surrounding the radiation structure (i.e. micro-speaker membrane 420) as shown in Fig. 5, wherein the radiation structure (i.e. micro-speaker membrane 420) is separated from the surrounding structure (i.e. micro-speaker membrane 420) by one or more gaps (Figs. 5-6 show a cavity 112 form one or more gaps) as shown in Fig. 5 annotated below; and
PNG
media_image1.png
695
767
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least one wall (Fig. 8A shows a peripheral edge 42) arranged along at least one of the one or more gaps (i.e. cavity 112 form one or more gaps) as shown in Fig. 5 annotated above, wherein the at least one wall (i.e. peripheral edge 42) is formed as part of as part of the surrounding structure (i.e. substrate 110) and by a cavity (i.e. cavity 112) of the surrounding structure (i.e. substrate 110) as shown in Fig. 5; and
wherein the at least one wall (i.e. peripheral edge 42) arranged extends out of a substrate plane as shown in Fig. 8B, and wherein the at least one wall (i.e. peripheral edge 42) extends an edge of the cavity as shown in Fig. 8B shows the peripheral edge 42 of the membrane 420 when it is actuated upwards.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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 of this title, 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.
9. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Rusconi et al (Hereinafter Rusconi) KR 20160149284 (For examination purports English machine translation of Rusconi would be use as cited reference).
Regarding claim 5, Hsu teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Hsu fails to teach that the radiation structure is pre-deflected relative to the surrounding structure in an idle state.
Rusconi teaches that a membrane is bent, when the actuator structure is inactive (Pg. 4, Para. 4, Lines 1-3).
Hsu and Rusconi each disclose a MEMS sound transducer. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modify the MEMS sound transducer of Hsu with the membrane is bent, when the actuator structure is inactive as taught by Rusconi. The resulting modification would yield predictable results of providing a built-in curve or angle to counteract the expected deflection that occurs under load. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the MEMS sound transducer of Hsu with the membrane is bent, when the actuator structure is inactive as taught by Rusconi to yield the predictable result of making the radiation structure more stable.
10. Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Rusconi et al (Hereinafter Rusconi ‘5125) US-PAT No. 10,045,125.
Regarding claim 11, Hsu teaches all the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Hsu fails to teach that the radiation structure comprises two or more regions, wherein a central region is arranged between the two or more regions.
Rusconi ‘5125 teaches that a membrane structure 5 comprises has several recesses 24a, 24b, 24c, 24d, a central spot 36 is arranged between the several recesses as shown in Fig. 7.
Hsu and Rusconi ‘5125 each disclose a MEMS sound transducer. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modify the MEMS sound transducer of Hsu with a central region is arranged between the two or more regions as taught by Rusconi ‘5125. The resulting modification would yield predictable results of reinforcing the radiation structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the MEMS sound transducer of Hsu with a central region is arranged between the two or more regions as taught by Rusconi ‘5125 to yield the predictable result of making the radiation structure more stable.
Regarding claim 14, Hsu teaches all the features with respect to claim 12 as outlined above.
Hsu fails to teach that the radiation structure comprises four regions arranged as quadrants, wherein the four regions arranged as quadrants are interrupted by four suspension elements or actuators.
Rusconi ‘5125 teaches that a membrane structure 5 comprises has four recesses 24a, 24b, 24c, 24d arranged as quadrants, wherein the four recesses arranged as quadrants are interrupted by four piezoelectrically active areas 25 as shown in Fig. 8.
Hsu and Rusconi ‘5125 each disclose a MEMS sound transducer. One of ordinary skill in the art could have modify the MEMS sound transducer of Hsu with four regions arranged as quadrants are interrupted by four actuators as taught by Rusconi ‘5125. The resulting modification would yield predictable results of reinforcing the radiation structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the MEMS sound transducer of Hsu with four regions arranged as quadrants are interrupted by four actuators as taught by Rusconi ‘5125 to yield the predictable result of making the radiation structure more stable.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kaplan et al., US-PAT No. 10,567,883, Piezo-electric Actuators, In FIG. 1F, the majority of piezoelectric actuated moving elements 10 are shown in their rest position 100, with moving elements 10 on substantially the same plane as area 11 surrounding moving elements 10. One actuated moving element 10AC is shown in an actuated position 110 where actuated moving element 10AC is pushed away (in the upper direction) from surface area 11.
Rothkopf, US-PAT No. 9,600,071, Linear Vibrator Providing Localized Haptic Feedback, FIGS. 3A and 3B depict the linear vibrator 100 during normal operation (e.g., when generalized haptic feedback is required or requested). During normal operation, current is provided to the coil 120. When the coil is energized, it generates a magnetic field that displaces or deflects the magnet 105. Generally, the magnet 105 is deflected upward. When the coil 120 is de-energized, the magnet may return to its initial position.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELICA M MCKINNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3321. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-3PM EST M-F. 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, Fan Tsang can be reached at (571-272-7574. 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.
/ANGELICA M MCKINNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights