DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokota et al. (US 2022/0264225).
Regarding claim 1, as broadly claimed, Yokota et al. teaches an electroacoustic transducer (1) comprising a vibrating plate (6, 8), a plurality of multilayered driver structures (7, 7M, 7U, 7L, figures 1A, 2) situated on the vibrating plate (figures 1A, 2) and configured to drive the vibrating plate (paragraphs [0029]-[0030], and a frame (12, 13, figure 2, paragraph [0033]) positioned along a circumference (9) of the vibrating plate (6) in a plan view perspective, wherein in the plan view perspective, the vibrating plate (6) is attached on the frame (12, 13) by a first attaching side thereof and a second attaching side thereof facing the first attaching side (figures 1A, 1B, 2, paragraph [0033]), the multilayered driver structures (7, 7M, 7U, 7L, figures 1A, 2) include a first multilayered driver structure (7, 7M, 7U, 7L) situated at a position overlapping the first attaching side (figures 1A, 1B, 2), and a second multilayered driver structure (7, 7M, 7U, 7L) situated at a position overlapping the second attaching side (figures 1A, 1B, 2), and a length of the first multilayered driver structure (7, 7M, 7U, 7L) on the vibrating plate (6, figures 1A, 2, 8, 12, 13A, 13B, 14, 16).
Yokota et al. does not specifically disclose that a length of the first multilayered driver structure (7) on the vibrating plate (6) in a direction parallel with a line segment that connects a midpoint of the first attaching side and a midpoint of the second attaching side (figures 1A, 1B, 2) is less than or equal to 35% of a length of the line segment as claimed. However, Yokota et al. does estimate a length of the first multilayer driver (7) that is less or equal to 35 % of a length of the line segment (figures 1A, 2, 8, 12, 13A, 13B, 14, 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any length for the first multilayered driver structure in the system of Yokota et al. such as providing the length of the first multilayered driver structure on the vibrating plate in a direction parallel with a line segment that connects a midpoint of the first attaching side and a midpoint of the second attaching side being less than or equal to 35% of a length of the line segment for better providing an improved sound pressure level, depending on the applications and the desired frequency characteristics in the system.
Regarding claim 2, as broadly claimed, Yokota et al. does not specifically disclose that a length of the second multilayered driver structure (7) on the vibrating plate (6) in a direction parallel with the line segment that is less than or equal to 35% of a length of the line segment as claimed. However, Yokota et al. does estimate the length of the second multilayer driver (7) that is less or equal to 35 % of the length of the line segment (figures 1A, 2, 8, 12, 13A, 13B, 14, 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any length for the second multilayered driver structure in the system of Yokota et al. such as providing the length of the second multilayered driver structure on the vibrating plate in a direction parallel with the line segment that is less than or equal to 35% of the length of the line segment for better providing an improved sound pressure level, depending on the applications and the desired frequency characteristics in the system.
Regarding claim 3, as broadly claimed, Yokota et al. does not specifically disclose that a length of one or both of the first multilayered driver structure and the second multilayered driver structure on the vibrating plate (6) in a direction parallel with the line segment that is greater or equal to 25 % of a length of the line segment as claimed. However, Yokota et al. does estimate the length of one or both of the first multilayered driver structure and the second multilayered driver structure (7) that is greater or equal to 25 % of the length of the line segment (figures 1A, 2, 5, 8, 13A, 13B, 14, 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any length for the one or both of the first multilayered driver structure and the second multilayered driver structure in the system of Yokota et al. such as providing the length of the one or both of the first multilayered driver structure and the second multilayered driver structure on the vibrating plate in a direction parallel with the line segment that is greater or equal to 25 % of the length of the line segment for better providing an improved sound pressure level, depending on the applications and the desired frequency characteristics in the system.
Regarding claim 4, as broadly claimed, Yokota et al. shows one or both of the first multilayered driver structure and the second multilayered driver structure that are situated at positions overlapping the frame (figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, as broadly claimed, Yokota et al. teaches the length of the multilayered driver structures (7) in the direction parallel with the line segment that is varied between a center portion (8) and end portions of the multilayered driver structures in a direction perpendicular to the direction parallel with the line segment (figures 1A, 8, 14, 16, 17A).
Regarding claim 6, as broadly claimed, Yokota et al. teaches the length of the multilayered driver structures (7) in the direction parallel with the line segment that is shorter at the end portions than at the center portion of the multilayered driver structures in the direction perpendicular to the direction parallel with the line segment (figures 1A, 8, 12, 13A, 13B).
Regarding claim 7, as broadly claimed, Yokota et al. teaches the vibrating plate (6) that has a cut portion (60) in a direction intersecting with the direction parallel with the line segment (figures 1A, 1B, 8, 12).
Regarding claims 8-9, as broadly claimed, Yokota et al. teaches a slit (60) between the vibrating plate (8) and the frame (12, 13, figure 3), the slit extending in a direction intersecting with the first attaching side and the second attaching side (figures 1A, 1B, 3), wherein the slit contacts the first attaching side and the second attaching side (figures 1A, 1B, 3).
Regarding claim 14, as broadly claimed, Yokota et al. teaches an electroacoustic transducer (1) comprising a vibrating plate (6, 8), a plurality of multilayered driver structures (7, 7M, 7U, 7L, figures 1A, 2) configured to drive the vibrating plate (paragraphs [0029]-[0030], wherein the plurality of multilayered driver structures (7, 7M, 7U, 7L, figures 1A, 2) are situated at positions overlapping at least a part of a first side (figures 1A, 1B, 2) of the vibrating plate or a second side (figures 1A, 1B, 2) of the vibrating plate facing the first side, and a length of the multilayered driver structures (7, 7M, 7U, 7L) on the vibrating plate (6, figures 1A, 2, 8, 12, 13A, 13B, 16, 17A, 17B).
Yokota et al. does not specifically disclose that a length of the multilayered driver structures (7) in a direction parallel with a line segment connecting midpoints of the first side and the second side (figures 1A, 1B, 2) is less than or equal to 35% of the line segment as claimed. However, Yokota et al. does not restrict to any length for the multilayered driver structures (figures 1A, 2, 8, 12, 13A, 13B, 14, 16, 17A, 17B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any length for the multilayered driver structures in the system of Yokota et al. such as providing the length of the multilayered driver structures in a direction parallel with a line segment connecting midpoints of the first side and the second side being less than or equal to 35% of the line segment for better providing an improved sound pressure level, depending on the applications and the desired frequency characteristics in the system.
Regarding claim 15, Yokota et al. teaches a frame (12, 13, figure 2, paragraph [0033]) supporting the vibrating plate (6, figures 1A, 1B, 2), wherein the frame is attached on the first side and the second side (figures 1A, 1B, 2, paragraph [0033]).
Regarding claim 16, as broadly claimed, Yokota et al. teaches a side of the vibrating plate different from the first side and the second side is separate from the frame (12, 13, figure 3) in a plan view perspective (figures 1A, 1B, 3, 8, 14).
Regarding claims 17-18, Yokota et al. does not specifically disclose an audio instrument or a wearable device comprising the electroacoustic transducer (1). However, it is very well known in the art to provide an electroacoustic transducer in any audio device or a wearable device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide the electroacoustic transducer of Yokota et al. in any device such as an audio device or a wearable device for greater application.
Regarding claims 19-20, Yokota et al. teaches the vibrating plate (the diaphragm 6) that is formed of silicon (paragraph [0028]). Yokota does not specifically disclose that the diaphragm or the silicon active layer (6) having a thickness as claimed in claims 19-20. However, Yokota does not restrict any thickness for the vibrating plate or the silicon active layer (the diaphragm 6); it therefore would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to provide any thickness for the vibrating plate or the silicon active layer in the system of Yokota et al. such as providing the silicon active layer having a thickness of 30 µm or less or 10 µm or less for better vibrating, depending on the applications and the desired frequency characteristics in the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Responding to the arguments filed 12/31/2025, the Applicant should note that the reference (Yokota et al. (US 2022/0264225)) qualifies as a 103 reference because it is a US patent document, it was issued or published, it is by another (different inventive entity, note the joint inventor Goichi Akanuma), and it was effectively filed before the effective filing date (EFD) of the application under examination (note the effective filed date 02/17/2021 in the reference).
Responding to the Delaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) filed 12/31/2025, the Applicant should note that the Delaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) filed 12/31/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claims 1-9 and 14-20 based upon the 103 rejection as being unpatentable over Yokota et al. (US 2022/0264225) as set forth in the last Office action and this Office action because it does not provide an explanation to the presence or contribute of Goichi Akanuma (the joint inventor listed in the reference) of the invention in the reference.
Therefore, the rejections of claims 1-9 and 14-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokota et al. (US 2022/0264225) have been maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUYEN D LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7502. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am-6:00 pm.
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) 272-7547. 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.
/HUYEN D LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694 HL
April 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights