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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/07/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Oslac et al, US Patent 5390257.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oslac et al, US Patent 5390257.
Re Claim 1, Oslac et al discloses a vibrator (abstract: loudspeaker where a loudspeaker is a type of vibrator) comprising: a case having a space inside (figs. 1-4; abstract: housing/case of a loudspeaker that vibrates and generates sound waves along with at least two magnets, permanent magnet and bucking magnet; col. 3, line 57 through col. 4, line 26); and magnets supported in the space and configured to vibrate (figs. 1-4; col. 3, line 57 through col. 4, line 26: housing/case of a hearing device transducer that vibrates and generates sound waves along with at least two magnets, permanent magnet and bucking magnet; wherein the bucking magnet is smaller in volume than the volume of the permanent magnet), wherein the magnets include a first magnet and a second magnet disposed in such that respective magnetic poles identical to each other face, and a volume of the first magnet is smaller than a volume of the second magnet (figs. 1-4; col. 3, line 57 through col. 4, line 26: housing/case of a hearing device transducer that vibrates and generates sound waves along with at least two magnets, permanent magnet and bucking magnet; wherein the bucking magnet is smaller in volume than the volume of the permanent magnet).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-4, 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oslac et al, US Patent 5390257.
Re Claim 2, Oslac et al discloses the vibrator according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a volume ratio of the second magnet to the first magnet is greater than 1 and equal to or smaller than 121. Since Oslac et al discloses that the volume of the bucking magnet is smaller than the volume of the permanent magnet (Oslac et al, figs. 1-4; col. 3, line 57 through col. 4, line 26: housing/case of a hearing device transducer that vibrates and generates sound waves along with at least two magnets, permanent magnet and bucking magnet; wherein the bucking magnet is smaller in volume than the volume of the permanent magnet), it would have been obvious to maximize the volume of the permanent magnet of Oslac et al to be at least greater than 1 and equal to or smaller than 121 compared to the bucking magnet for the purpose of reduction of distortion and improvement of sensitivity.
Re Claim 3, Oslac et al discloses the vibrator according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a surface magnetic flux ratio of the second magnet to the first magnet is greater than 1 and equal to or smaller than 3. However, Official Notice is taken that both the concepts and advantages of using magnets where one magnet has a greater magnetic flux than the other at a ratio greater than 1 or smaller than 3 is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify the magnets of Oslac et al such that the magnetic flux of its magnets has a ratio greater than 1 or less than 3 for the purpose of creating better system efficiency with better heat control.
Re Claim 4, Oslac et al discloses the vibrator according to claim 1, wherein the first magnet is fastened to an upper surface of a top plate and the second magnet is fastened to a lower surface of the top plate (Oslac et al, fig. 3: bucking magnet is illustrated to be on the top side and permanent magnet is illustrated to be at the lower side of the bucking magnet, that is the lower surface of the top surface); but fail to explicitly disclose the top plate composed of a ferromagnet. However, Official Notice is taken that both the concepts and advantages of utilizing a ferromagnet magnet are well known. It would have been obvious to modify the Oslac et al device such that its magnets are made of ferromagnetic materials since most magnets comprise ferromagnetic materials such as iron, nickel, and cobalt.
Re Claim 8, Oslac et al discloses the vibrator according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein an outer diameter of the first magnet is smaller than an outer diameter of the second magnet. Since the volume of the bucking magnet is smaller than the volume of the permanent magnet (Oslac et al, figs. 1-4; col. 3, line 57 through col. 4, line 26: housing/case of a hearing device transducer that vibrates and generates sound waves along with at least two magnets, permanent magnet and bucking magnet; wherein the bucking magnet is smaller in volume than the volume of the permanent magnet), it would have been obvious to make the outer diameter, height and other dimensions of the bucking magnet smaller than the outer diameter, height and other dimensions of the permanent magnet for the purpose of making sure the bucking magnet has a smaller volume than the permanent magnet.
Claim 9 has been analyzed and rejected according to claim 8.
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oslac et al, US Patent 5390257 as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Hug et al, US Patent Pub. 20140153755 A1.
Re Claim 7, Oslac et al discloses a hearing device comprising the vibrator according to claim 1, but fails to disclose as a cartilage conduction vibrator for transmitting a sound signal to an ear cartilage. However, Hug et al discloses a hearing device for a user’s ear cartilage where its mounted loudspeaker includes at least two magnets (Hug et al, fig. 1; para 0068: housing/case of a hearing device transducer that vibrates and generates sound waves for a user’s ear along with at least two magnets 6 and 6’). It would have been obvious to modify the loudspeaker of Oslac et al such that it is utilized within a hearing device for ear cartilage mounting of Hug et al for the purpose of utilizing said loudspeaker within a hearing device for the user’s ear.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for claims 5-6: The prior art does not teach or moderately suggest the following limitations:
Further comprising: a yoke being open at an upper end of the yoke and having a bottom surface portion and a circumferential wall portion; a coil bobbin at least partly disposed inside the yoke; a coil wound around the coil bobbin; a damper supporting the yoke; and a frame fastening the damper to the yoke, wherein at least a part of the magnet is disposed inside the coil bobbin, the case houses an assembly on which the yoke, the coil bobbin, the coil, the magnet, the damper, and the frame are mounted, and the assembly vibrates in the space integrally together with the magnet.
Limitations such as these may be useful in combination with other limitations of claim 1.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEORGE C MONIKANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1190. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 9AM-5PM, ALT. Fridays off.
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, Carolyn R Edwards can be reached at 571-270-7136. 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.
/GEORGE C MONIKANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692 1/30/2026