Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . See 35 U.S.C. § 100 (note).
Art Rejections
Obviousness
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, 3, 4, 13–16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2023/010247 (published 09 February 2023) (“Zhang”)1.
Claims 2, 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhang and CN 115567855 A (published 03 January 2023) (“Yu”)2.
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhang and US Patent Application Publication 2005/0052724 (published 10 March 2005) (“Suzuki”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0148532 (published 14 May 2020) (“Grosh”) and Zhang.
Claims 8, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Grosh, Zhang and Suzuki.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Grosh, Zhang, Suzuki and Yu.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Grosh; US Patent Application Publication 2010/0074459 (published 25 March 2010) (“Chung”) and US Patent Application Publication 2003/0059166 (published 27 March 2003) (“Wang”).
Claim 1 is drawn to “a piezoelectric speaker.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed speaker and the Zhang reference.
Claim 1
The Zhang Reference
“1. A piezoelectric speaker comprising:
The Zhang reference similarly describes a piezoelectric MEMS speaker. Zhang at Abs., p.2.
“a peripheral rectangular frame having four sides;
“a central rectangular frame disposed on the peripheral rectangular frame, wherein the central rectangular frame has four corners and four sides, and the four corners are connected to the four sides of the peripheral rectangular frame;
Zhang’s speaker similarly includes a rectangular frame 23 with four sides. Id. at FIGs.1, 2, 12, pp.5–6.
Zhang’s speaker, however, does not include the claimed combination of a peripheral rectangular frame and a central rectangular frame disposed on the peripheral rectangular frame with its four corners connected to the four sides of the peripheral rectangular frame. See id. at FIG.12.
“four central triangular cantilevers disposed within the central rectangular frame,
“wherein each of the central triangular cantilevers has a vibrating end and a fixed end opposite to the vibrating end, and
“each of the fixed ends of the central triangular cantilevers is connected to the four sides of the central rectangular frame,
“the four vibrating ends of the four central triangular cantilevers are close to each other and fall short of contacting with each other, and
“the four central triangular cantilevers have different dimensions of their respective areas defined within the central rectangular frame; and
Zhang describes a speaker embodiment that combines the concepts of asymmetric triangular cantilevers and nested cantilevers. Id. at FIGs.1, 2, 12, pp.5–6. In the combined embodiment, there are two sets of four triangular cantilevers 10, 11, 12 and 13. Id. The first set of cantilevers includes outer cantilevers 10a, 11a, 12a and 13a corresponding in part to the claimed four central triangular cantilevers. Id.
Each cantilever includes a fixed end fixed to frame 23. Id. Each cantilever further includes a vibrating end. Id. Each vibrating end of the outer, or central, cantilevers is located near each other. Id. Because each outer triangular cantilever has a different area, the free ends meet at a position that is offset from the center of rectangular frame 23. Id.
“four peripheral triangular cantilevers disposed between the peripheral rectangular frame and the central rectangular frame,
“wherein each of the four peripheral triangular cantilevers has a vibrating end and a fixed end opposite to the vibrating end, and
“the fixed ends of the four peripheral triangular cantilevers are respectively connected to the four sides of the central rectangular frame.”
Zhang’s second set of cantilevers includes inner cantilevers 10i, 11i, 12i and 13i corresponding in part to the claimed four peripheral triangular cantilevers. Id. Each cantilever includes a fixed end fixed to frame 23. Id. Each cantilever further includes a vibrating end located opposite from the fixed end. Id.
Table 1
The Zhang reference describes an embodiment that includes four inner triangular cantilevers and four outer triangular cantilevers. However, Zhang’s cantilevers are fixed to a single frame and do not make use of both a peripheral frame and a central frame.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Zhang teaches a variety of general concepts that would have rendered the claimed invention obvious. First, Zhang teaches the ability to form a MEMS loudspeaker by geometrically dividing a polygon into areas covered by a first set of triangular cantilevers whose individual areas are chosen to exhibit a particular resonance. Zhang at pp.2–3, 5, FIG.1. Second, Zhang teaches the ability of nesting a second set of cantilevers with the first set so that the covered polygon’s area may be sub-divided by multiple cantilevers that include colinear fixed portions secured to a shared frame. Id. at pp.2–3, 6, FIGs.11, 12. Notably, Zhang demonstrates several different geometric divisions. Id. at FIGs.1, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26.
These concepts would have reasonably suggested the idea that triangular cantilevers could be rearranged in any conceivable geometric pattern to divide a polygon in other manners, including the claimed manner. For example, one of ordinary skill would have recognized from Zhang’s provided examples and through basic observation of geometric principles that a rectangle may be divided by triangles into a central rectangle, or the sum of four triangles, and a set of four peripheral complementary triangles. Thus, one of ordinary skill would have reasonably recognized that given a peripheral rectangular shape, an inner rectangular frame would fit inside the outer rectangle and the frame would allow a first set of inner triangular cantilevers to be arranged on the inner rectangular frame to cover the inner rectangle’s area. Further, applying Zhang’s nested concept and shared attaching point concept, one of ordinary skill would have reasonably added a second set of outer cantilevers to the inner rectangular frame to cover the remaining areas of an outer rectangle. For the foregoing reasons, the Zhang reference makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein: a slit between the peripheral rectangular frame and the central rectangular frame is disposed adjacent to at least one of the four sides of the central rectangular frame;
“the slit has a length in a direction extending parallel to the corresponding side of the central rectangular frame; and
“the length is negatively correlated with the magnitude of a resonant frequency corresponding to the respective peripheral triangular cantilever.”
The Zhang reference describes adjusting the resonance of a triangular cantilever by adjusting its geometry. The Yu reference further teaches and suggests adjusting the resonance of triangular cantilevers, like Zhang’s, by punching holes, or slits. Yu at Abs., p.3, FIGs.1, 2. The effective length of the resulting slit, and the resulting resonance frequency, is modulated by punching a suitable number of holes. Id. This teaching would have reasonably suggested altering the resonance of any of Zhang’s cantilevers 10–13 using a similar technique. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Zhang and the Yu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and further requires the following:
“wherein: the four central triangular cantilevers and the four peripheral triangular cantilevers are located on the same plane;
“a top electrode layer is disposed above the four central triangular cantilevers and the four peripheral triangular cantilevers;
“a bottom electrode layer is disposed below the four central triangular cantilevers and the four peripheral triangular cantilevers; and
“each of the four central triangular cantilevers corresponds to a resonant frequency and has a length from the vibrating end to the fixed end, and a square of the length is inversely proportional to the resonant frequency.”
The Zhang reference describes forming eight triangular cantilevers in a single plane. Zhang at pp.5, 7, FIGs.2, 27, 28. Each cantilever includes a top and bottom electrode to sandwich a piezoelectric element. Id. And Zhang describes adjusting the area of each cantilever to modulate the resonance of each cantilever to resonate at a particular frequency. Id. at p.4. For the foregoing reasons, the Zhang reference makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 4 depends on claim 3 and further requires the following:
“further comprising eight feed lines electrically connected to eight top electrodes located in the top electrode layer, so that the four central triangular cantilevers and the four peripheral triangular cantilevers receive eight driving signals respectively through the eight feed lines.”
One of ordinary skill would have immediately recognized that each of Zhang’s top and bottom electrode must be coupled to either a feed line or a return line in order to create an electrical circuit to energize the piezoelectric element that actuates each triangular cantilever. Accordingly, it would have been obvious as a simple design choice to route feed lines to the top electrodes of each cantilever. For the foregoing reasons, the Zhang reference makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 5 depends on claim 4 and further requires the following:
“wherein: each of the four central triangular cantilevers and the four peripheral triangular cantilevers corresponds to one resonance frequency;
“each of the four central triangular cantilevers and the four peripheral triangular cantilevers is made of a piezoelectric material; and
“the peripheral rectangular frame and the central rectangular frame are composed of an SOI wafer.”
Zhang teaches and suggests tuning each included piezoelectric cantilever to a particular resonant frequency. Zhang at pp.5–6. Zhang does not describe forming the frames as silicon-on-insulator (SOI) wafers. However, SOI technology would have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the art and provided a known mechanism for implementing the frames. See Suzuki at ¶ 155, FIG.22. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Zhang and the Suzuki references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 6 depends on claim 4 and further requires the following:
“wherein a sound pressure level cancellation resulting from the piezoelectric speaker is reduced by inverting the phase of at least one of the eight driving signals when a driving frequency of the corresponding one of the eight driving signals received by the corresponding one of the four central triangular cantilevers and the four peripheral triangular cantilevers exceeds the resonant frequency of the corresponding triangular cantilever.”
The Yu reference teaches that operating a set of resonance-tuned cantilevers above their resonance frequency will produce undesirable cancellation. Yu at Abs., p.4. Yu further teaches reducing that cancellation by inverting the phase of driving signals above a cantilever’s resonance frequency. Id. These teachings would have reasonably suggested modifying Zhang’s speaker driving circuitry to similarly invert the phase of a driving signal as claimed. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Zhang and the Yu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 7 is drawn to “a method for manufacturing a piezoelectric speaker.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed method and the Grosh reference.
Claim 7
The Grosh Reference
“7. A method for manufacturing a piezoelectric speaker, comprising the steps of:
The Grosh reference describes a corresponding method for manufacturing a piezoelectric speaker comprising a plurality of beams, or cantilevers. Grosh at Abs., ¶ 68, FIG.3A.
“(a) depositing a bottom electrode layer on a substrate and depositing a piezoelectric layer on the bottom electrode layer;
Grosh describes depositing a bottom electrode of Mo on a substrate of Si and a piezoelectric layer of AIN on the bottom electrode. Id. at ¶ 98, FIG.9A.
“(b) etching the piezoelectric layer to form a plurality of cantilever precursors;
Grosh etches the AIN layer to form cantilever precursors. Id. at ¶ 98, FIG.9b.
“(c) forming a top electrode layer on the etched piezoelectric layer and patterning the top electrode layer;
Grosh forms and patterns a top electrode of Mo on top of the AIN layer. Id.
“(d) patterning a first portion of the substrate and the bottom electrode layer; and
Grosh patterns the bottom electrode and the top of the substrate to define multiple cantilevers. Id.
“(e) etching a second portion of the substrate to form a geometric frame,
Grosh etches the bottom of the substrate to release the formed cantilevers. Id.
“wherein the plurality of cantilever precursors are connected to the geometric frame to form a plurality of cantilevers, and the sides of the geometric frame present a form of a closed geometric figure,
Grosh’s cantilevers are connected at a fixed end to a Si geometric frame. Id. at FIGs.3A, 3B. Grosh describes forming the frame as closed geometric shape, like a rectangle. Id.
“the geometric frame comprises a central rectangular frame and a peripheral rectangular frame, wherein the peripheral rectangular frame has four sides, the central rectangular frame has four corners and four sides, and the four corners are respectively connected to the four sides of the peripheral rectangular frame.”
The Grosh reference does not describe the claimed combination of a central rectangular frame whose four corners are fixed to the sides of a peripheral rectangular frame.
Table 2
The Grosh reference does not describe the claimed combination of a central rectangular frame whose four corners are fixed to the sides of a peripheral rectangular frame. The obviousness rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, applies the teachings of the Zhang reference to show the obviousness of forming a cantilevered speaker with the claimed frame arrangement. One of ordinary skill would have further reasonably recognized that Grosh’s manufacturing techniques for producing a cantilevered speaker would be applicable to such a speaker. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to apply Grosh’s manufacturing techniques to produce a speaker like the one recited in claim 1 and suggested by the teachings of the Grosh and the Zhang reference. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Grosh and the Zhang references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 8 depends on claim 7 and further requires the following:
“wherein:
“the substrate has an upper silicon device layer, a lower silicon device layer and a middle silicon dioxide layer located therebetween; and
“the first portion of the substrate is the upper silicon device layer, and the second portion of the substrate is the lower silicon device layer.”
Grosh’s substrate is made of a single layer of Si. However, the Suzuki reference discussed in the rejection of claim 5, shows the obviousness of forming a substrate as an SOI substrate with the three claimed layers. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify Grosh’s substrate to be formed as an SOI substrate with three layers that are patterned as claimed. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected that the additional insulator between the two layers of silicon would reduce interference between electrical elements mounted on the substrate. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Grosh, the Zhang and the Suzuki references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 9 depends on claim 8 and further requires the following:
“wherein the step (e) further comprises the step of: etching the lower silicon device layer and the middle silicon dioxide layer by a deep reactive ion etching to form a slit, wherein the slit has a length in a direction extending parallel to one of the four sides of the central rectangular frame, the respective side of the central rectangular frame is connected to a respective one of the plurality of cantilevers, and the length is negatively correlated with a resonant frequency of the corresponding cantilever.”
The Zhang reference teaches and suggests adjusting the resonance of a triangular cantilever by adjusting its geometry. The Yu reference further teaches and suggests adjusting the resonance of triangular cantilevers, like Zhang’s, by punching holes, or slits. Yu at Abs., p.3, FIGs.1, 2. The effective length of the resulting slit, and the resulting resonance frequency, is modulated by punching a suitable number of holes. Id. This teaching would have reasonably suggested altering the resonance of a cantilever by applying the known deep reactive ion etching (DRIE) technique to selectively form slits, or number of holes that collectively act like a slit, to adjust resonance. See Suzuki at ¶ 116; Grosh at ¶ 98. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Grosh, the Zhang, the Suzuki and the Yu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 10 depends on claim 8 and further requires the following:
“wherein: the peripheral rectangular frame and the central rectangular frame are made of an SOI wafer, the plurality of cantilevers include eight cantilevers; the four sides of the central rectangular frame and the four sides of the peripheral rectangular frame are connected to eight cantilevers respectively; and each of the eight cantilevers has a top electrode located on the top electrode layer.”
Zhang teaches and suggests tuning each included piezoelectric cantilever to a particular resonant frequency. Zhang at pp.5–6. Zhang does not describe forming the frames as silicon-on-insulator (SOI) wafers. However, SOI technology would have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the art and provided a known mechanism for implementing the frames. See Suzuki at ¶ 155, FIG.22. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Grosh, the Zhang and the Suzuki references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 11 depends on claim 8 and further requires the following:
“further comprising steps of: electrically connecting eight feed lines to the top electrodes respectively, so that the eight cantilevers receive eight driving signals respectively through the eight feed lines, wherein each of the plurality of cantilevers corresponds to a resonant frequency; and
“electrically connecting at least one ground electrode to the bottom electrode layer.”
One of ordinary skill would have immediately recognized that each of Zhang’s top and bottom electrode must be coupled to either a feed line or a return/ground line in order to create an electrical circuit to energize the piezoelectric element that actuates each triangular cantilever. Accordingly, it would have been obvious as a simple design choice to route feed lines to the top electrodes of each cantilever. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Grosh, the Zhang and the Suzuki references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 12 depends on claim 7 and further requires the following:
“wherein: the step (b) is to etch the piezoelectric layer by wet etching; the step (c) is to form the top electrode layer by evaporation; the step (d) is to dry etch the substrate using a high-density reactive ion etching system (HDP-RIE); and the step (d) is to etch the substrate using a deep reactive ion etching (DRIE).”
Similarly, the combination of the Grosh, Chung and Wang references teach and suggest wet etching Grosh’s piezoelectric AIN layer, depositing Grosh’s top MO electrode with evaporation, dry etching Grosh’s substrate with HDP-RIE and etching Grosh’s substrate with DRIE. See Grosh at ¶¶ 98; Chung at ¶ 48; Wang at ¶ 20. One of ordinary skill would have recognized these as conventional MEMS techniques suitable for forming Grosh’s piezoelectric speaker. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Grosh, the Chung and the Wang references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 13 is drawn to “a piezoelectric speaker.” The following table illustrates the correspondence between the claimed speaker and the Zhang reference.
Claim 13
The Zhang Reference
“13. A piezoelectric speaker, comprising:
The Zhang reference similarly describes a piezoelectric MEMS speaker. Zhang at Abs., p.2.
“a frame having a sub-frame in a specific shape; and
Zhang’s speaker similarly includes a rectangular frame 23 with four sides. Id. at FIGs.1, 2, 12, pp.5–6.
Zhang’s speaker, however, does not include the claimed combination of a frame and a sub-frame. See id. at FIG.12.
“at least three inner cantilevers disposed in the frame, wherein each of the cantilevers has a vibrating end and a fixed end, each of the fixed ends of the cantilevers is connected to the sub-frame of the frame, areas respectively defined by the cantilevers within the frame have at least three dimensions, so that the piezoelectric speaker has at least three resonant frequencies.”
Zhang describes a speaker embodiment that combines the concepts of asymmetric triangular cantilevers and nested cantilevers. Id. at FIGs.1, 2, 12, pp.5–6. In the combined embodiment, there are two sets of four triangular cantilevers 10, 11, 12 and 13. Id. The first set of cantilevers includes outer cantilevers 10a, 11a, 12a and 13a corresponding in part to the claimed four central triangular cantilevers. Id.
Each cantilever includes a fixed end fixed to frame 23. Id. Each cantilever further includes a vibrating end. Id. Each vibrating end of the outer, or central, cantilevers is located near each other. Id. Because each outer triangular cantilever has a different area, the free ends meet at a position that is offset from the center of rectangular frame 23. Id.
Zhang’s second set of cantilevers includes inner cantilevers 10i, 11i, 12i and 13i corresponding in part to the claimed four peripheral triangular cantilevers. Id. Each cantilever includes a fixed end fixed to frame 23. Id. Each cantilever further includes a vibrating end located opposite from the fixed end. Id.
Table 3
The Zhang reference describes an embodiment that includes four inner triangular cantilevers and four outer triangular cantilevers. However, Zhang’s cantilevers are fixed to a single frame and do not include a sub-frame.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that Zhang teaches a variety of general concepts that would have rendered the claimed invention obvious. First, Zhang teaches the ability to form a MEMS loudspeaker by geometrically dividing a polygon into areas covered by a first set of triangular cantilevers whose individual areas are chosen to exhibit a particular resonance. Zhang at pp.2–3, 5, FIG.1. Second, Zhang teaches the ability of nesting a second set of cantilevers with the first set so that the covered polygon’s area may be sub-divided by multiple cantilevers that include colinear fixed portions secured to a shared frame. Id. at pp.2–3, 6, FIGs.11, 12. Notably, Zhang demonstrates several different geometric divisions. Id. at FIGs.1, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26.
These concepts would have reasonably suggested the idea that triangular cantilevers could be rearranged in any conceivable geometric pattern to divide a polygon in other manners, including the claimed manner. For example, one of ordinary skill would have recognized from Zhang’s provided examples and through basic observation of geometric principles that a rectangle may be divided by triangles into a central rectangle, or the sum of four triangles, and a set of four peripheral complementary triangles. Thus, one of ordinary skill would have reasonably recognized that given a peripheral rectangular shape, an inner rectangular frame would fit inside the outer rectangle and the frame would allow a first set of inner triangular cantilevers to be arranged on the inner rectangular frame to cover the inner rectangle’s area. Further, applying Zhang’s nested concept and shared attaching point concept, one of ordinary skill would have reasonably added a second set of outer cantilevers to the inner rectangular frame to cover the remaining areas of an outer rectangle. For the foregoing reasons, the Zhang reference makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 14 depends on claim 13 and further requires the following:
“wherein: the frame is a peripheral rectangular frame and the sub-frame is a central rectangular frame; and the central rectangular frame is disposed on the peripheral rectangular frame.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 13, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of forming two nested sets of rectangular frames. For the foregoing reasons, the Zhang reference makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 15 depends on claim 14 and further requires the following:
“wherein: the peripheral rectangular frame has four sides; and the central rectangular frame has four corners and four sides, and the four corners are connected to the four sides of the peripheral rectangular frame.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 13, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of forming two nested sets of rectangular frames arranged as claimed in this claim. For the foregoing reasons, the Zhang reference makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 16 depends on claim 15 and further requires the following:
“wherein the at least three peripheral cantilevers are disposed between the peripheral rectangular frame and the central rectangular frame, and each of the fixed ends of the at least three peripheral cantilevers is connected to a corresponding one of the four sides of the central rectangular frame.”
The obviousness rejection of claim 13, incorporated herein, shows the obviousness of forming two nested sets of frames and cantilevered arranged as claimed in this claim. For the foregoing reasons, the Zhang reference makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 17 depends on claim 16 and further requires the following:
“wherein: a slit between the peripheral rectangular frame and the central rectangular frame is disposed adjacent to at least one of the four sides of the central rectangular frame;
“the slit has a length in a direction extending parallel to the corresponding side of the at least one of the four sides of the central rectangular frame; and
“the length is negatively correlated with the magnitude of the resonant frequency corresponding to the respective peripheral cantilever adjacent to the slit.”
The Zhang reference describes adjusting the resonance of a triangular cantilever by adjusting its geometry. The Yu reference further teaches and suggests adjusting the resonance of triangular cantilevers, like Zhang’s, by punching holes, or slits. Yu at Abs., p.3, FIGs.1, 2. The effective length of the resulting slit, and the resulting resonance frequency, is modulated by punching a suitable number of holes. Id. This teaching would have reasonably suggested altering the resonance of any of Zhang’s cantilevers 10–13 using a similar technique. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Zhang and the Yu references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 18 depends on claim 16 and further requires the following:
“wherein: the at least three inner cantilevers and the at least three peripheral cantilevers are located on the same plane;
“a top electrode layer is disposed above the at least three inner cantilevers and the at least three peripheral cantilevers;
“a bottom electrode layer is disposed below the at least three inner cantilevers and the at least three peripheral cantilevers; and
“each of the three cantilevers corresponds to a resonant frequency and has a length from the vibrating end to the fixed end, and a square of the length is inversely proportional to the resonant frequency.”
The Zhang reference describes forming eight triangular cantilevers in a single plane. Zhang at pp.5, 7, FIGs.2, 27, 28. Each cantilever includes a top and bottom electrode to sandwich a piezoelectric element. Id. And Zhang describes adjusting the area of each cantilever to modulate the resonance of each cantilever to resonate at a particular frequency. Id. at p.4. For the foregoing reasons, the Zhang reference makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 19 depends on claim 14 and further requires the following:
“wherein: each of the three inner cantilevers and the at least three peripheral cantilevers corresponds to one resonance frequency; each of the three inner cantilevers and the at least three peripheral cantilevers is made of a piezoelectric material; and the peripheral rectangular frame and the central rectangular frame are made of an SOI wafer.”
Zhang teaches and suggests tuning each included piezoelectric cantilever to a particular resonant frequency. Zhang at pp.5–6. Zhang does not describe forming the frames as silicon-on-insulator (SOI) wafers. However, SOI technology would have been well known to those of ordinary skill in the art and provided a known mechanism for implementing the frames. See Suzuki at ¶ 155, FIG.22. For the foregoing reasons, the combination of the Zhang and the Suzuki references makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Claim 20 depends on claim 18 and further requires the following:
“further comprises feed lines electrically connected to top electrodes located in the top electrode layer, so that the three inner cantilevers and the at least three peripheral cantilevers receive driving signals respectively through the feed lines.”
One of ordinary skill would have immediately recognized that each of Zhang’s top and bottom electrode must be coupled to either a feed line or a return line in order to create an electrical circuit to energize the piezoelectric element that actuates each triangular cantilever. Accordingly, it would have been obvious as a simple design choice to route feed lines to the top electrodes of each cantilever. For the foregoing reasons, the Zhang reference makes obvious all limitations of the claim.
Summary
Claims 1–20 are rejected under at least one of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 as being unpatentable over the cited prior art. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s Reply has substantively amended claims 7 and 8. This Office action has been updated accordingly.
Applicant’s Reply at 11–17 further includes comments pertaining to the rejections presented in the previous Non-Final Office action (19 August 2025) and repeated in this Office action. Those comments have been considered, but are not persuasive of any error in the rejections.
Concerning claim 1, Applicant comments that the Zhang reference does not describe, teach or suggest a speaker having cantilevers that are fixed to both a peripheral frame and a central frame as claimed. (Remarks at 13–15). The Examiner agrees that Zhang does not describe a speaker having cantilevers with some fixed to a peripheral frame and others fixed to a central frame. Rather, as Applicant notes, Zhang’s cantilevers 10, 11, 12 and 13 are all fixed to a peripheral frame 23 without the provision or use of a central frame—this difference is analyzed in the obviousness rejection of claim 1, above.
Applicant further comments that there is no motivation to alter Zhang to produce the claimed configuration. (Reply at 15–16.) Obviousness is not limited to situations where there is a motivation to alter a base reference. Obviousness is determined by examining the prior art as a whole to determine if there exists any teaching, suggestion or motivation that would have rendered the whole of the invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed. Here, obviousness is established by Zhang’s teachings on the geometric combination of multiple cantilevers of varying sizes in order to produce a transducer with multiple resonance tuned cantilevers that are compactly fit into a square shape. One of ordinary skill would have easily recognized from Zhang’s base teachings that any conceivable number of other geometric divisions would be equally available. While it is true that Zhang does not describe the claimed central frame, the provision of outer frame 23 serves as a teaching and suggestion that any derivative arrangement of cantilevers would require a frame for a fixed end of the cantilevers. If one of ordinary skill were to simply rearrange Zhang’s cantilevers to include an inner diamond shape and four outer triangle shapes, one of ordinary skill would have easily recognized the need to add an inner frame for the inner cantilevers.
Applicant comments that the claim has an unexpected benefit that out-of-phase vibration of diaphragms can maintain a sound pressure level even when the driving frequency exceeds the speaker’s resonant frequency. (Remarks at 16–17). Applicant, however, has not established any type of nexus between what is claimed and this putative benefit. It is also unclear whether this benefit is also not present in Zhang’s speaker configuration. Without objective evidence presented in support of this notion, this comment amounts to mere attorney argument. MPEP § 2145(I).
Applicant’s comments pertaining to claim 7 are based on the comments addressed above. (Remarks at 11–13.)
For the foregoing reasons, Applicant’s comments have not persuasively established any error in the Office action. All the rejections will be maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 WALTER F BRINEY III whose telephone number is (571)272-7513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-4:30 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, Carolyn 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.
/Walter F Briney III/
Walter F Briney IIIPrimary ExaminerArt Unit 2692
2/20/2026
1 Citations to the Zhang reference use the pagination of the translation provided by the Office.
2 Citations to the Yu reference use the pagination of the translation provided by the Office.