DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jones, U.S. Patent No. 11,697,134, effectively filed on September 7, 2017, (Jones).
As to Claim 1, Jones discloses an apparatus (Figs. 1B, 2, and 3), comprising: a vibration member (Fig. 1B: [12, 14, 20], Fig. 2: [32, 36, 38]) including an internal space (Fig. 1B: [24], Fig. 2: [42]); and a vibration device (Fig 1B: [14]; Fig. 2: [34]) configured to vibrate the vibration member (Fig. 1B: [12, 14, 20], Fig. 2: [32, 36, 38]; col. 1; lines 40-47; col. 3, lines 54-61), wherein the internal space (Fig. 1B: [24], Fig. 2: [42]) is isolated from outside (see Figs. 1B and 2), and wherein the vibration device (Fig 1B: [14]; Fig. 2: [34]) is disposed outside of the internal space (Fig. 1B: [24], Fig. 2: [42]) (see Figs. 1B and 2).
As to Claim 2, Jones remains as applied above to Claim 1. Jones further discloses that the vibration device [34] overlaps the internal space [42] (see Fig. 2).
As to Claim 3, Jones remains as applied above to Claim 1. Jones further discloses that at least a portion of the internal space [42] overlaps the vibration device [34].
As to Claim 4, Jones remains as applied above to Claim 3. Jones further discloses that a size of the internal space [42] is different from a size of the vibration device [34] in a horizontal direction of the vibration member [32, 36, 38], or is greater than or equal to the size of the vibration device [34] (the vibration device [42] size in a horizontal direction is smaller; see Fig. 2).
As to Claim 5, Jones remains as applied above to Claim 3. Jones further discloses that a center portion of the vibration device [34] overlaps a center portion of the internal space [42] (see Fig. 2).
As to Claim 7, Jones remains as applied above to Claim 3. Jones further discloses that the internal space [42] is filled with a gas, optionally with air (the internal space [42] may be filled with air or some other gas; col., 3, lines 62-65).
As to Claim 8, Jones remains as applied above to Claim 1. Jones further discloses that the vibration member (Fig. 1B: [12, 14, 20], Fig. 2: [32, 36, 38]) comprises: a first vibration member (Fig. 1B: [12], Fig. 2: [32]); and a second vibration member (Fig. 1B: [14], Fig. 2: [38]) arranged in parallel with the first vibration member (Fig. 1B: [12], Fig. 2: [32]) with the internal space (Fig. 1B: [24], Fig. 2: [42]) therebetween (see Figs. 1B and 2).
As to Claim 9, Jones remains as applied above to Claim 8. Jones further discloses that the internal space (Fig. 1B: [24], Fig. 2: [42]) is surrounded by the first vibration member (Fig. 1B: [12], Fig. 2: [32]) and the second vibration member (Fig. 1B: [14], Fig. 2: [38]) (see Figs. 1B and 2).
As to Claim 10, Jones remains as applied above to Claim 8. Jones further discloses that the first vibration member [12] and the second vibration member [14] comprise a same material or a single material (the first and second vibration members are identical; col. 1, lines 39-40; see Fig. 1).
As to Claim 11, Jones remains as applied above to Claim 8. Jones further discloses that the first vibration member [12] has a same thickness as a thickness of the second vibration member [14] (the first and second vibration members are identical; col. 1, lines 39-40; see Fig. 1).
Claims 1, 8, 13-21, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Srivastava et al., U.S. Patent No. 9,877,112, patented on January 23, 2018 (Srivastava).
As to Claim 1, Srivastava discloses an apparatus, comprising: a vibration member [208] including an internal space [804]; and a vibration device [304] configured to vibrate the vibration member [208] (col. 8, lines 36-41), wherein the internal space [804] is isolated from outside (see Figs. 8A and 8B), and wherein the vibration device [304] is disposed outside of the internal space [804] (see Figs. 8A and 8B).
As to Claim 8, Srivastava remains as applied above to Claim 1. Srivastava further discloses that the vibration member [208] comprises: a first vibration member [520a]; and a second vibration member [520b] arranged in parallel with the first vibration member [520a] with the internal space [804] therebetween.
As to Claim 13, Srivastava remains as applied above to Claim 8. Srivastava further discloses one or more middle members [802] provided in the internal space [804] (see Fig. 8A).
As to Claim 14, Srivastava remains as applied above to Claim 13. Srivastava further discloses that the one or more middle members [802] are connected with the first vibration member [520a] and the second vibration member [520b] (see Fig. 8A).
As to Claim 15, Srivastava remains as applied above to Claim 13. Srivastava further discloses that the one or more middle members [802] comprise the same material as a material of the vibration member [208] (the middle portion comprises a continuous component; col. 5, lines 61-66).
As to Claim 16, Srivastava remains as applied above to Claim 13. Srivastava further discloses that the one or more middle members [802] overlap the vibration device [208] (see Figs. 8A and 8B).
As to Claim 17, Srivastava remains as applied above to Claim 16. Srivastava further discloses that the one or more middle members [802] overlap one or more of a center portion of the vibration device [304] and a periphery portion of the vibration device [304] (see Fig. 8A).
As to Claim 18, Srivastava remains as applied above to Claim 13. Srivastava further discloses that the one or more middle members [802] comprise a plurality of middle members [802] (see Fig. 8B), and wherein the plurality of middle members [802] are arranged to have a same distance in a first direction and/or a same distance in a second direction intersecting with the first direction (the middle members are in the form of a grid; see Fig. 8B).
As to Claim 19, Srivastava remains as applied above to Claim 8. Srivastava further discloses a third vibration member [504] connecting the first vibration member [520a] with the second vibration member [520b] (see Figs. 8A and 8B).
As to Claim 20, Srivastava remains as applied above to Claim 19. Srivastava further discloses that the internal space [804] is surrounded by the first vibration member [520a], the second vibration member [520b], and the third vibration member [504] (see Figs. 8A and 8B).
As to Claim 21, Srivastava remains as applied above to Claim 19. Srivastava further discloses that the first vibration member [520a], the second vibration member [520b], and the third vibration member [504] comprise a same material or a single material (the middle portion comprises a continuous component; col. 5, lines 61-66).
As to Claim 26, Srivastava remains as applied above to Claim 1. Srivastava further discloses one or more middle members [802] provided in the internal space [804] (see Fig. 8A), wherein the one or more middle members [802] are present in a region that overlaps the vibration device [304], and wherein the one or more middle members [802] are absent in a region that does not overlap the vibration device [304] (see Fig. 8A).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srivastava et al., U.S. Patent No. 9,877,112, patented on January 23, 2018 (Srivastava), in view of Shin et al., U.S. Publication No. 2020/0059733, published on February 20, 2020 (Shin).
As to Claim 22, Srivastava remains as applied above to Claim 1. Srivastava does not explicitly disclose that the vibration device comprises: a vibration layer; a first electrode layer at a first surface of the vibration layer; and a second electrode layer at a second surface different from the first surface of the vibration layer. However, Srivastava does disclose that the vibration device can comprise a piezoelectric exciter (col. 6, lines 19-26; see Fig. 8A), and piezoelectric exciters having a vibration layer and electrode layers was well known. Shin discloses a piezoelectric exciter vibration device [200] (see Fig. 3), comprising a vibration layer [PCL]; a first electrode layer [230] at a first surface of the vibration layer [PCL]; and a second electrode layer [240] at a second surface different from the first surface of the vibration layer [PCL] (electrode layers [230] and [240] are on opposite surfaces of vibration layer [PCL]; para. 0074; see Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to incorporate the piezoelectric exciter of Shin, into the apparatus of Srivastava, to serve as a known, suitable exciter.
As to Claim 23, Srivastava and Shin remain as applied above to Claim 22. Shin further discloses that the vibration layer [PCL] comprises a piezoelectric layer ([PCL] is a piezoelectric composite layer; para. 0074, lines 1-3).
As to Claim 24, Srivastava and Shin remain as applied above to Claim 22. Shin further discloses that the vibration layer [PCL] comprises: a plurality of inorganic material portions [210] having a piezoelectric characteristic (para. 0076); and an organic material portion [220] (para. 0083) between the plurality of inorganic material portions [210] (see Fig. 3).
As to Claim 25, Srivastava remains as applied above to Claim 1. Srivastava does not explicitly disclose that the vibration device is arranged in a bent shape; and optionally wherein the vibration device is bent in a shape corresponding to the vibration member and/or wherein the vibration device comprises a flexible structure. However, Srivastava does disclose that the vibration device can comprise a piezoelectric exciter (col. 6, lines 19-26; see Fig. 8A), and piezoelectric exciters having bent shapes were well known. Shin discloses a piezoelectric exciter vibration device [200] arranged in a bent shape; and optionally wherein the vibration device is bent in a shape corresponding to the vibration member and/or wherein the vibration device comprises a flexible structure (para. 0097; see Figs. 5A and 5B). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention, to incorporate the piezoelectric exciter of Shin, into the apparatus of Srivastava, to serve as a known, suitable exciter, and for the added optional benefit of versatility with regard to different shaped vibration members.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 12 recites the unique features of a distance between the first vibration member and the second vibration member being equal to a thickness of the first vibration member.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1-5 and 7-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Ryan Robinson whose telephone number is (571) 270-3956. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Fan Tsang, can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/RYAN ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Prosecution Insights