DETAILED ACTION
1. Applicant's amendments and remarks submitted on January 15, 2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 17 and 20 have been amended. Claim 19 has been cancelled. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-17 and 20-21 are still pending on this application, with claims 1-18 and 20-21 being rejected. All new grounds of rejection were necessitated by the amendments to claim 1 and new claim 21. Accordingly, this action is made final.
2. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
4. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In this case, claim 16 does not appear to further limit parent claim 1, as the plate-shaped body of claim 1 has now been amended to consist of first and second glass plates. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. Claim(s) 1-18 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Pub No 2023/0191754 A1 to Boure in view of NPL “Young’s Modulus of Elasticity” by Engineering ToolBox (“ETB”), and further in view of Japanese Application JP 2006-180368 A to Nakajima et al. (“Nakajima”).
As to claim 1, Boure discloses a diaphragm comprising: a plate-shaped body having a pair of main surfaces facing each other (1/12, see figures 1-10; pg. 3, ¶ 0071; pg. 5, ¶ 0094; pg. 6, ¶ 0098); and a connection portion connected to one of the main surfaces of the plate-shaped body (see figures 1-10; pg. 5, ¶ 0094), wherein the plate-shaped body consists of a first glass plate, a second glass plate and an intermediate layer between the first glass plate and the second glass plate (see figures 5-10; pg. 1, ¶ 0014; pg. 6, ¶ 0098, ¶ 0103), the connection portion has a function of transmitting vibration of an exciter to the plate-shaped body from a side opposite to a side where the plate-shaped body is located (see figures 1-10; pg. 4, ¶ 0078, ¶ 0084; pg. 5, ¶ 0094), the connection portion comprises a spacer and an adhesive portion (see figures 1-10; pg. 4, ¶ 0081; pg. 5, ¶ 0094 - ¶ 0095; pg. 7, ¶ 0114), a thickness of the connection portion is defined by a thickness of the spacer (see figures 1-10).
Boure does not expressly disclose the adhesive portion having a lower hardness than the spacer, however it does disclose the spacer can be made of a material such as a thermoplastic or a metal, and the adhesive can be a material such as epoxy (see pg. 4, ¶ 0081; pg. 7, ¶ 0106). Such spacer materials having a higher hardness than adhesives are known in the art, as taught by ETB, which discloses the Young’s modulus for various common materials, the Young’s modulus being a measure of stiffness, and further discloses that materials such as metals like steel have higher hardness compared to materials commonly used for adhesives, such as epoxy resins (see pgs. 1-3, Table). The adhesive portion having a lower hardness than the spacer is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Boure, and further given general knowledge of material properties, particularly for common materials used in the art such as metals and adhesives.
Boure in view of ETB does not disclose the connecting portion is connected to one of the main surfaces of the plate-shaped body without penetrating through a thickness of the plate-shaped body.
Nakajima discloses a similar plate-shaped body or panel coupled to an exciter via a connecting portion, and further discloses the exciter can be mounted to the panel in various ways, including via a recess in the panel (see figures 5 and 9), a planar attachment without recessed portions in the panel (see figures 1-4; pgs. 5-6, ¶ 0008 - ¶ 0009; pgs. 9-10, ¶ 0013 - ¶ 0014 of the English translation), or a notch or projecting element in the panel (see figures 6-8; pgs. 26-28, ¶ 0038 - ¶ 0039; pgs. 30-32, ¶ 0042 - ¶ 0043).
Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima are analogous art because they are drawn to diaphragm plate-shaped bodies for exciters.
It would have been an obvious choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a mounting without recessed portions as taught by Nakajima in the diaphragm as taught by Boure in view of ETB. The motivation being as a matter of design, as all the embodiments presented by Nakajima allow for the transfer of vibrations between the exciter and the panel to perform the function of a speaker as required by Boure in view of ETB, and some embodiments in particular can do so without marring the panel surface by perforating or penetrating the panel (Nakajima figures 1-4 and 6-8; pg. 28, ¶ 0040; pg. 33, ¶ 0045; pg. 38, ¶ 0051).
As to claim 2, Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima further discloses wherein the spacer comprises a loop portion disposed in a loop shape in a plan view of the diaphragm (Boure circular mounting with circumferential flange portion 9, see figures 1-10; pg. 4, ¶ 0079; pg. 5, ¶ 0086; Nakajima circular mounting with flange, see figures 1-4 and 6-8).
As to claim 3, Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima further discloses wherein the loop portion is a closed loop (Boure figures 1-10; pg. 4, ¶ 0079; pg. 5, ¶ 0086), and the adhesive portion is disposed inside the closed loop (Boure adhesive on surface 5, see figures 1-10; pg. 5, ¶ 0096).
As to claim 4, Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima does not expressly disclose wherein the spacer further comprises an island-shaped portion inside the loop portion, and the island-shaped portion is independent of the loop portion. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima, particularly as the mounting can be configured in any possible or suitable shape (Boure pg. 4, ¶ 0079; pg. 5, ¶ 0086; Nakajima figures 1-4 and 6-8), and further as it has been held that changes in shape are a matter of choice within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). In this case, having an inner island-shaped portion independent of the loop portion is merely a straightforward possibility from which a skilled person would select when designing the mounting as taught by Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima, which already discloses the mounting having an upper portion 3 with extending loop 9 and a lower portion 4 within the loop (Boure figures 1-10; pg. 7, ¶ 0107). The inner portion in particular being island-shaped is therefore considered an obvious variation given the teachings of Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima, as long as the mounting can be adhered or fixed to the sheet to provide the mounting function (Boure pg. 5, ¶ 0086, ¶ 0096; Nakajima figures 1-4 and 6-8).
As to claim 5, Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima further discloses wherein the connection portion has a substantially constant thickness (Boure solid mounting, see figures 1-10; pg. 4, ¶ 0079).
As to claim 6, Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima further discloses wherein the connection portion has a thickness distribution (Boure hollow mounting, see figures 1-10; pg. 4, ¶ 0079).
As to claim 7, Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima does not expressly disclose wherein a Young’s modulus ES of the spacer and a Young’s modulus EA of the adhesive portion satisfy 1.0 x 102 ≤ ES/EA ≤ 1.0 x 107. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima, depending on the specific materials being used for the spacer and the adhesive portion, and further as it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is a matter of obvious design choice. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). In this case, the selection of materials satisfying 1.0 x 102 ≤ ES/EA ≤ 1.0 x 107, where the Young’s modulus of the spacer is much larger than the Young’s modulus of the adhesive portion, is considered an obvious variation depending on the specific materials used, as long the Young’s modulus of the spacer remains much larger than the Young’s modulus of the adhesive, as already taught by Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima.
As to claim 8, Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima further discloses wherein the spacer is connected to the plate-shaped body via an adhesive layer having a thickness equal to or less than a thickness of the spacer (Boure figures 1-10; pg. 4, ¶ 0081; pg. 5, ¶ 0094 - ¶ 0095; pg. 7, ¶ 0114; Nakajima figures 1-4; pg. 10, ¶ 0014).
As to claim 9, Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima does not expressly disclose wherein the adhesive portion has a linear expansion coefficient measured under a condition of -40°C to 90°C of 1.0 x 10-4/°C or more, and the adhesive portion has a Young’s modulus EA of 5.0 x 108 Pa or less. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima, depending on the specific materials being used for the adhesive portion, and further as it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose is a matter of obvious design choice. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). In this case, the selection of an adhesive material having a linear expansion coefficient measured under a condition of -40°C to 90°C of 1.0 x 10-4/°C or more, and a Young’s modulus EA of 5.0 x 108 Pa, is considered an obvious variation of the structure as taught by Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima, depending on the specific use and environment of the diaphragm, which can influence the adhesive materials suitable for use in said environment. The selection of suitable adhesive materials having said properties is therefore considered obvious, as long as the adhesive satisfies having a lower hardness than the spacer and can be used in diaphragm structures, as already taught by Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima.
As to claim 10, Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima does not expressly disclose wherein the connection portion has a shear stress of 0.01 MPa or more. However such a configuration is considered obvious given the teachings of Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima, depending on factors such as the material, size, and force applied to the connection portion, particularly as a measure of shear stress is known to depend on the force applied as well as stress area (ETB pg. 5, strain sub-header and stress formula). The proposed modification is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima, and further depending on the overall size and dimensions of the connection portion.
As to claim 11, Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima further discloses wherein the spacer comprises at least one selected from the group consisting of a metal, a ceramic, a glass, a wood, a fiber, and a resin (Boure pg. 7, ¶ 0106).
As to claim 12, Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima further discloses wherein the connection portion has a function of transmitting vibration of the exciter to the plate-shaped body by being directly connected to the exciter (Boure figures 1-10; pg. 3, ¶ 0071; pg. 4, ¶ 0081, ¶ 0084; Nakajima figures 1-4 and 6-8; pg. 28, ¶ 0040; pg. 33, ¶ 0045; pg. 38, ¶ 0051).
As to claim 13, Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima further discloses wherein the connection portion has a function of transmitting vibration of the exciter to the plate-shaped body by being connected to the exciter via a vibration transmission portion (Nakajima bracket 3 and coupler 16, see figures 1-4; pg. 8, ¶ 0011; pg. 10, ¶ 0014; pg. 19, ¶ 0029; pg. 21, ¶ 0032).
As to claim 14, Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima further discloses wherein the vibration transmission portion comprises a mount portion disposed on a connection portion side and an exciter connection portion disposed on an exciter side (Nakajima bracket 3 and coupler 16, see figures 1-4).
As to claim 15, Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima further discloses wherein the mount portion and the exciter connection portion are detachable (Nakajima figures 1-4).
As to claim 16, Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima further discloses wherein the plate-shaped body is a glass plate (Boure pg. 3, ¶ 0071; pg. 5, ¶ 0094; pg. 6, ¶ 0098).
As to claim 17, Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima further discloses an assembly comprising the diaphragm according to claim 1; and the exciter connected to the connection portion of the diaphragm (see claim 1 rejection; Boure pg. 3, ¶ 0071; Nakajima pgs. 5-6, ¶ 0008 - ¶ 0009).
As to claim 18, Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima further discloses a vehicular diaphragm, comprising: the diaphragm according to claim 1, wherein the diaphragm is used for a vehicle (see claim 1 rejection; Boure pg. 2, ¶ 0037; pg. 3, ¶ 0071; Nakajima pg. 6, ¶ 0009).
As to claim 20, Boure in view of ETB and Nakajima further discloses wherein the plate-shaped body of the diaphragm is a vehicular window glass and the vehicular window glass is a side glass (Boure pgs. 7-8, ¶ 0126 - ¶ 0128).
As to claim 21, Boure discloses a diaphragm comprising: a plate-shaped body having a pair of main surfaces facing each other (1, see figures 1-4; pg. 3, ¶ 0071; pg. 5, ¶ 0094); and a connection portion connected to one of the main surfaces of the plate-shaped body (see figures 1-10; pg. 5, ¶ 0094), wherein the plate-shaped body consists of a single glass plate not laminated to another glass plate (single glass sheet, see figures 1-4; pg. 2, ¶ 0055; pg. 5, ¶ 0094), the connection portion has a function of transmitting vibration of an exciter to the plate-shaped body from a side opposite to a side where the plate-shaped body is located (see figures 1-4; pg. 4, ¶ 0078, ¶ 0084; pg. 5, ¶ 0094), the connection portion comprises a spacer and an adhesive portion (see figures 1-4; pg. 4, ¶ 0081; pg. 5, ¶ 0094 - ¶ 0095; pg. 7, ¶ 0114), a thickness of the connection portion is defined by a thickness of the spacer (see figures 1-4).
Boure does not expressly disclose the adhesive portion having a lower hardness than the spacer, however it does disclose the spacer can be made of a material such as a thermoplastic or a metal, and the adhesive can be a material such as epoxy (see pg. 4, ¶ 0081; pg. 7, ¶ 0106). Such spacer materials having a higher hardness than adhesives are known in the art, as taught by ETB, which discloses the Young’s modulus for various common materials, the Young’s modulus being a measure of stiffness, and further discloses that materials such as metals like steel have higher hardness compared to materials commonly used for adhesives, such as epoxy resins (see pgs. 1-3, Table). The adhesive portion having a lower hardness than the spacer is therefore considered obvious given the teachings of Boure, and further given general knowledge of material properties, particularly for common materials used in the art such as metals and adhesives.
Boure in view of ETB does not disclose the connecting portion is connected to one of the main surfaces of the plate-shaped body without penetrating through a thickness of the plate-shaped body.
Nakajima discloses a similar plate-shaped body or panel coupled to an exciter via a connecting portion, and further discloses the exciter can be mounted to the panel in various ways, including via a recess in the panel (see figures 5 and 9), a planar attachment without recessed portions in the panel (see figures 1-4; pgs. 5-6, ¶ 0008 - ¶ 0009; pgs. 9-10, ¶ 0013 - ¶ 0014 of the English translation), or a notch or projecting element in the panel (see figures 6-8; pgs. 26-28, ¶ 0038 - ¶ 0039; pgs. 30-32, ¶ 0042 - ¶ 0043).
It would have been an obvious choice before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a mounting without recessed portions as taught by Nakajima in the diaphragm as taught by Boure in view of ETB. The motivation being as a matter of design, as all the embodiments presented by Nakajima allow for the transfer of vibrations between the exciter and the panel to perform the function of a speaker as required by Boure in view of ETB, and some embodiments in particular can do so without marring the panel surface by perforating or penetrating the panel (Nakajima figures 1-4 and 6-8; pg. 28, ¶ 0040; pg. 33, ¶ 0045; pg. 38, ¶ 0051).
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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
7. 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.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SABRINA DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Ahmad Matar can be reached at 5712727488. 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.
/SABRINA DIAZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 2693
/AHMAD F. MATAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2693
Prosecution Insights